{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_96","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":["2005-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/96"],"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 4STATECAPITOLMAU.  urn.EROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education June 30, 2005 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 72201 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 RECENEO Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. M. Samuel Jones III )\\)~ i O 1005 OtS~G\\\\~~m~~ ~o~uorullG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -'---------------------:--:-:- STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employu UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2005. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smitli, r General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 30, 2005, 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 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 aifil!p_oJh~mlo.f~1Lq7lYi0i6J~fM-'. ~J.~][Qtje~Q\"g~caia1ea'tbelSfate i=ouoaruion\nEunaHJ]JdiDi\nv.o:110srsuojectrtltP.eriocffc:aaiustmems! B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 us.tmenfs1 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 01:rrv,_w31 :2ocls:,nsri1Sm1ow,\u0026amp;rs1at~~1:rr,\nc1\nIilioei mi:105:were:a's foll~ f~~~~-~~- l'I .B __ ,_,_.._$ __ , =.!c- J='-- ecsso,.E$54\n3201)~9A ttrra:a11otmems])fislrue\n'founaati6\"nIF.:-Una~cfJ.ocJ~xo4765lirMa'Vi3,1~ 20.crst:sQQJec110:perioafcad1ustmem~LWere.as:ronows\nD. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 -1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 .uMi~lW~ 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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LRSD on November 10, 2004. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 01srnit11osfloo6ii'ii0j10St'at\n\u0026amp;1avi3\nW2oos\u0026amp;oo J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $4,019,063.00 NLRSD - $772,940.15 PCSSD - $2,478,863.72 In September 2004, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $1,325,043.67 NLRSD - $275,333.33 PCSSD - $845,221 .22 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 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 5 -1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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. 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 2. Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. Actual as of June 30, 2005 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. 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. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. Actual as of June 30, 2005 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 June 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97 /98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 - II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 lmprovemerit Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 Monii.oring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 June 30, 2005 (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 June 30, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 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 81st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 June 30, 2005 {Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 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 iri addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes.' In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 June 30, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 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 June 30, 2005 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 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 June 30, 2005 (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. On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The  unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 June 30, 2005 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) D. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 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 June 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 June 30, 2005 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 52 'l VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. 'The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 54 \" VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 'I VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives ( one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 'I VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 (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 ACTAAP 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 June 30, 2005 (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 breako\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_1784","title":"Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice, response to court letter by Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","School integration","Education--Finance","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice, response to court letter by Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1784"],"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":["43 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice; District Court, response to Court letter dated May 23, 2005, by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget; District Court, Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) sur-reply regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD REPLY TO NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The PCSSD for its reply, states: The NLRSD Has Been Declared Unitary As to  Student Assignment And Racial Balance RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The critical distinction between the status of the NLRSD and the PCS SD is this: The NLRSD was declared unitary as to student racial balance and student assignments years ago; the PCSSD does not enjoy this adjudication and remains obligated to seek and maintain racial balance. Thus, the interpretation of 1.he School Choice Act which promotes the desegregation efforts of the PCS SD must prevail over any other plausible interpretations, particularly since the NLRSD is no longer subject to Court supervision, monitoring or plan compliance on these issues. The Financial Circumstances Of The Two Districts Should Be Taktn Into Account The PCSSD was recently designated by the State as a school district in \"fiscal distress\". - Please see Exhibits A and B. The NLRSD does not labor under this designation either. It is undisputed that for each child the PCSSD loses, its State aid is reduced at least $5,400 pursuant to Act 59 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003. The PCS SD is consistently losing enrollment annually as documented by the ODM. However, no school district disputes the proposition that the infrastructure of a school district cannot be immediately or efficiently shrunk or reduced in the face of a declining enrollment. Thus, not only does the PCSSD lose at least $5,400 per student, but its proportionate cost of educating its remaining population of school children goes up. Since the PCSSD is obligated to formulate a plan to extricate itself from fiscal distress, any interpretation of the School Choice Act which exacerbates this financial status is at least suspect. If the PCS SD is unable to escape fiscal distress status, then State law authorizes the State to dismiss the superintendent or the Board, to consolidate the district with one or more other districts or to otherwise eviscerate it. Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908-1910. Such an outcome is inconsistent with this Court' s previous rulings in the Jacksonville detachment matter, which rulings were unanimously affirmed on appeal. Accordingly, an interpretation of the School Choice Act which threatens the very existence of the PCS SD should not be tolerated by this Court especially so long as the PCS SD has yet to attain unitary status. The Implications For Future M-to-M Transfers The rules for M-to-M transfer can only operate so long as at least one of the districts in Pulaski County remains majority white. If and when the PCS SD becomes majority black, the current M-to-M rules cannot continue to operate and the State would then undoubtedly take the position that it has no further obligation to fund M-to-M transfers. However, the current application of the School Choice Act promotes and hastens the PCS SD evolution into a majority black district. While the State might eagerly anticipate attainment of that status, it should not be artificially propelled and State law should not be permitted to operate to promote this eventuality 2 therefore risking an end to millions of dollars of special desegregation funding which actually benefits all three districts. The State Agrees that The School Choice Act Must Yield If It Conflicts With A Federal Court Order Upon information and belief, the PCSSD believes that the State has previously acknowledged that the School Choice Act must yield if it conflicts with the M-to-M stipulation. Conclusion For all of the reasons previously stated, the current operation of the School Choice Act should be suspended as to the schools specified in the initial motion and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 By----  M. S ecial 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 31, 2005 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 MAY-O6-05 FRI 12: 11 PM FAX NO. P. 02 {!,,t:.: a~  0;ii.;=-,.~ Arl(ansas 1t~ -- ~  ), ------ -------- OOM O Al:f- -- ~  )f) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ~ =;_ 'i~ 4 STATE CAPITOi, MAil. , I.Il1LE ROCK. A~ 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  lillp-.//m'kedu.s1,tur.11S Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Educ:adon April 11, 2005 Pulaski County School .District Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 RECEIVED APR 132.S- ~ J.,,o.6-1\"-u.,tt... ~~t~ f.8. ~ i\"~ ~~- Dear Dr. Henderson: ~ ,.J ~ )c /{)~ -t J~OS' I On April 11, 2005, the State Board of Education classified the Pulaski County Scho District os bolng In fiscal Distress. In ~ocordance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1908, \"Those school districts Identified by the Department of Education as being In fiscal distress shall file with the department within ten (10) days after the final classification by the State Board of Education a written fiscal distre\u0026amp;s Improvement plan to address any area in which the school district is experiencing fiscal distress as identified by the department.\" The fiscal distress plan is due no later than 4:30 PM, April 21, 2005. Fllrthermore, this Code requires that the plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:  Specific corrective action steps for each indicator stated below  A timeline for Implementing each corrective action step  Additional action steps the district proposes to take  A timeline for Implementing each additional action step For additional information, please refer to the Arkansas Department of Education Rules ldmntifying and Governing the Arkansas Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program (Ruic), Section 7, which describes the Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan. In the Fiscal Distress Identification letter, dated March 3, 2005, the Department identified the following indicators of Fiscal Distress for the Pulaski County School District:  The District is projected to have a negative legal balance of $(11, 724,671) in the 2006 fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Atk. Code Ann.  6-20-1906, \"Any district classified as in fiscal distress shall be required to publish at least one (1) time for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district the school district's classification as a school district in fiscal distress and the reasons why the school district was classified as being In STATE DOA RD OF EDUCATION: Ch1lr - JoNcll Caldwell, Little RcK:k  Vice Chair JcanDI Watmo.-dand, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonuboro  Shelby HlllmH, Carlisle  Clvln )Cjng, Marian  Jbudy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rl'blck, Lfttlt Rock  Diane Tatam, Pine Bluff  Naccaman WIiiiams, Jobi\"------- A11 tq111f Oppori111dty l:111plo1er EXHIBIT I MAY-06-05 FR I 12: 12 PM FAX NO, P. 03 fiscal distress.~ Section 5.02.1 of the Rule states \"The district shall publish this announcement within 30 calendar days of the final classification by the State Board.\" Accordingly, the Pulaski  County School District shall publish this announcement by May 11, 2005. The school district should send to the Financial Accountability Unit of the Department proof of publication in the~ form of an Affidavit of Publlcatlon by the publisher.  Please note, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6--20-1907, \"your district is unable to Incur any debt without the prior written approval of the Department of Education.\" Information governing this Is available from the Financial Accountability Unit of the Department. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908, \"A school district in fiscal distress may only petition the state board for removal from fiscal distress status after the department has certified in writing that the school district has corrected all criteria for being classified as In fiscal distress and has complied with all department recommendations and requirements for removal from fiscnl distress.\" If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Julie Kreth, Coordinator of Financial Accountability, al 601-682w5128. Sincerely, Patricia Martin, Assistant Director Public School Finance PJM/ac l'IAY-06-O5 FRI 12: 12 PH FAX NO. ORDER of CLASSJFJCATION of FISCAL DISTRESS WHEREAS, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann, \"6-20-1904, the Arkansas Department of Eclucatlon (ADE) has Identified the Pulaski County School District as a school district in fiscal distress, and has notified the school district of the identification and the criteria indicated by the ADE as the basis for the Identification, and WHEREAS, the Pulaski County School District has failed to file a written request for appeal of the identification to the State Board of Education (SBE) with the Director of the ADE within the time period set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1905, and WHEREAS, the Board, at Its regularly scheduled meeting of April 11, 2005, has dctem1ined that the Pulaski County School District, having been previously identified as a school district in fiscal distress, shall be and is classified as a school district In fiscal distress, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1906, and shall be required to meet the requirements of a school district classified as being In fiscal distress as set forth in the \"Arkansas Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program\", Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-1901 et seq., as modified, where applicable, by Act 60 of the 2003 Second Extraordinary Session of the 84th General Assembly. ORDERED AND SIGNED this 11th day of April, 2005 at Little Rock, Pulaski County,. Ark,msas. JoNell 9i/1,, {Jitd,wj Chair Arkansas State Board of Education P. 04 -o,--\u0026gt;Nh~o\u0026gt; ----------- ..  -~oo------- ... 1,#o--W- ..,----.,~\"- h It     .. \"' ST A TE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNeJI Caldwell, Little Rock , Vice Chair - Jea111n1 WKtmorcland, Arbdtlphla Mcmbcr11: Sherry Burrow,Jonesboro  Shelby :HIDman., Culble  Calvin Kin\u0026amp;, MariJPU  Jbndy Lawson, Jle11tonvllle MaryJane Rebick. UUle Rock  Dint T1tvm, l'lnc Bluff  Naccaman Wlllluns, Jobnaen AD Equal Opporlllnll,)' E111ployer MAY-06-05 FRI 12:13 PM FAX NO. Pulaski County Special School District Proposed Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan April 21, 2005 On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education approved the recommendation of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to officially designate Pulaski County Special School District as a school district in fiscal distress for the 2005-2006 school year. As mandated by ADE regulations, the District respectfully submits the following pl'1n outlining its intent to correct the fiscal issue as identified by the ADE. The plan Includes: 1. Statement of the financial problem that caused the District to be placed In fiscal distress   2. Actions to be taken during 2005-2006 to correct this problem (with attachment) 3. Timeline of events statement of the Problem Based on the ADE's calculation (letter dated Marcil 3, 2005) the District's legal operational fund balance is projected to be a deficit of $5,082.,921 on June 30, 2006. Corrective Action Taken 1. On April 20, 2005 the school board made reductions to Its 2.005-2006 operational budget In the amount of $11,7041249 which will  result in containing expenditures to within current projected revenue and restoring a portion of the fund balance. Attached Is a list of those reductions. Toe school board will amend ltS policies to ensure these budget reductions are implemented. 2. The administration has approached the Pulaski Association of Oassroom Teachers (PACT) seeking certain concessions within the negotiated agreement which will assist in controlling costs and add to the fund balance. - These are reflected in the attachment. P. 06  EXHIBIT I /3 ----------- - --======~- MAY-06-05 FRI 12: 13 PM FAX NO. ..  Pulaski County Special School District Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan April 21, 2005 Page 2 3. The school board has directed the District budget committee to convene within two weeks to consider further budget reductions. 4. The district currently mee~ the 9% Maintenance funding requirement of Act 1426 of 2005 and will continue to budget for this requirement. s. The school board will adopt a policy that requires adding at least $2 million per year to the fund balance until the District's legal fund balance ls a minimum of 10% of prior year expenditures. 6. The school board will review the salary study and consider any cost savings contained therein. Timelin,e The following timellne will be utilized during the 2005-2006 school year: April 20, 2005 May 10, 2005 June 14, 2005 June 30, 2005 August 16, 2005 September 15, 2005 January 2006 Attachment School board takes action on the fiscal distress Improvement plan and recommended budget reductions. School board will review salary study and consider any cost savings contained therein. School board will adopt a policy for restoring the fund balance. Request for modification of contract language with PACT will be resolved. School board approves budget. 2005-2006 budget due to ADE, School board review of the District's financial status and approval of prior year audit. P. 07 MAY-06-05 FRI 12: I 3 PH FAX NO. P. 08 i ' Prioritized Budget Reductions 2005-2006 Items for Reduction ---   ... . . r   -  --   ----   Amount 1 . Paid off ear!Y retirement Incentive . --- ___ ,___ __ $1 ,000,qoo:OO 2 CloseSiam _____ $19,oqg.oo 3 Harris reverts to r~ular sch95?LY~r _______ ,,___ $116,850:.0Q 4 Reduce Sl.!EPOrt staff sick leave incentive by 50% ----1---- $52,000.00 5 Eliminiate tuition reimbursement __,, ---___ -~9:350.00 6 _ Eliminate open _house_sti~nds ------- --.,_ .. -- $661990.00 -..? _ Eliminate all pajclholida~ for all em~lo~es -~-- $4,058,859.00 B gllminat~.!:Jiring_ in~enti~es _ -- $65;6bo.oo 9 .R.~_ct1:1q~ .1?_r,cmtb_~on!racts !R..?.11 q~.YL._ _. .. $60,000.00 10 . Food Service reorganization (Warehou\u0026amp;____ ___  __ $97,718.00 .. 1t_ ... f0ai!lt~nar~e Dee~~rt!}lent (f,reeze ~J~oslt~ons} _ _ .. - _ $124,098.00 .... 12 .. Eliminate Secondary Saturdayschool -- _ .. _______ $44,992.00 . 13 ... f:lanJ.P!~~~lrm .. Cf!~~?.!3-19.~J!ion) .... __ . __ __ --.. $41,5..Q.OO 1_4 . Tran~.Ef'.rJ_at_lq[!_Dep~_rtmen_t_,reducti(?~ .. ____ ,., __ $310,892.00 15 ___ Freo7.e_sal~cheduie and steps for all.em~ye~s __ .. $3,309,000.00 16 . _Eliminate~ing_newtextbooks __________ ,, ___ ... $~90,000_.Qq ~~ g~: b,;e:~:ra~~~~~~ecn~ 5 ~~:~es/Athletics --.. --- . ____ $~@~:~:~~~ 19 .. Cut_Director_of Su_ppJ)rtStaff Personnel _____ .. __ $93,301~00 __ 20 __ ... Cut Secreta;yjSuperintendent's Office _ ____ ,.. -~ .. $38-,3~~_.06 .. _2_1 . Reduce_Overtimebt50% . _______ ,.____ $102,969.00 22 Redu9e_Legalfees bl?['Y.!!__. ... ,_., ______ - - $_f?_7,750j_q 23 Reduce Out_ of District Travel _by 50% . . ______________ $64\u0026amp;tf\u0026gt;~PO / Reduce formula for assigning Assistant Principals . 24 . _ !reduce 8 eiementary_AP's and 3 Secondary AP's _ _ ---:$_814,422.q_Q 2~ _ ~liminate fg!ly Servic~ .... .. ---- __ . ____ .. __ $~00,00_0.oo Total All Cuts $11,704,24!J.00 4/21/2005 . . NAY-O6-05 FRI 12:14 PN FAX NO, .. ' Pulaski County Special School District Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan Proof of Receipt Received April 21, 2005 by ~---0 ~ }~- an employee of the Arkansas Department olEducatio. RECEIVED APR 2 l ,IAAl. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY P, 09 MlTCHELL WlLLJAMS SELIG GATES WOODYARD PllC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-688-8800 Date: 6/112005 2:24:10 PM Finn General Fax: 501-688-8807 Direct Fax: 501-918-7295 FAX COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS rossmLE TO: .a. U.J\"\\. -.JV.4. V V.J. RECIPIENT Horace Smith COMl'ANY ODM FAXNO. 171-0100 F.rom: F.ile Number: 22056 Total number of pages including cover: 5 Remarks/special instructions: If you do not receive all pages or there is a problem during transmission, please call: PRIVILGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information following this cover sheet and contained in this facsimile trll.llSmission is confidential ll.lld covered by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the person( s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the nmied addressee or ll.ll employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient(s), ploo.se do !!Q!Iead the accomptnying information. Note that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Anyone receiving this mess11ge in error should notify us immedi111ely by telephone and return the original of the trllllSmission to us 111 the above addxess by U.S. mail. Thank you fox youx coopeution. - - MlTCHELl WlLllAMS 5EL1GGATES WOODYARD PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock. AR 7220 I 501-688-8800 Facsimile: 501-688-8807 FAX COVER SHEET Date: June I, 2005 Time: PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT I. Hon. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 2. Hon. Thomas Ray 3. Chris Heiler 4. Stevt Jones 5. John Walker 6. Robert Pressman 7. Mark Hagemeier 8. Horace Smith 9. Mark8W11ette From: Sam Jones file Number: 22056-1 COMPANY Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones John Walker, P.A. Attorney General's Office ODM Total number of pages including cover: 4 Remarks/special instructions: 11:19AM FAX NO. 604-5149 604-5237 376-2147 375-1027 374-4187 1-781-862-l 955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 PHONE NO. If you do not receive all pages or there is a problem during transmission, please call: Ann Overton 501-370-4295. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information following lhis cover sheet and contained in this facsimile tr-ansmission is confidential and covered by the anomey-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the penon(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient(s), please do D!ll read the accompanying information. Note that the dissemination, dislribution or copying of this commUl'litatiOJJ by lUlyont o\\htr than 1ht addm$CC is strit'lly prohibited. Arr;ont receiving lhis message in error should notify us immediately by telephone and return the original of the transmission lo us at the above address by U.S. mail. Thank you for your cooperation. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS l. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. lt acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring usociated with the LRSD increases any monitoring requilcd of or appropriate for the PCS SD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to ,educe its overall expenditures ~o a level corresponding to its reasonabJy anticipated reduced monitoring activities.: 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successfu1 claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard. the PCSSD is fuUy aware of the diffteulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSO response to PCSSO motion regarding school Choice 1ited on May 31, 2005. -  -  - -- - _ _ _ ................... '-' '-' A' VV V J.UJ\\. U ~ A.voi Stated another way, the PCSSD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, OATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the fortgoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the folJowing: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJc Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Mansas 7220 I Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220) Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capito! Avenue LinJe Roe.le, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett JO JO W. Third Street Little Rock., AR 7220 l Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN -2 2005 (fflCEOF DESEGREGATION MO!liTG:mm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURT LETTER ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2005 BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for its Response to the Court's Letter Order dated May 23, 2005, states: 1. ADE takes no position regarding LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget. 2. ADE would oppose LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget if a reduction m LRSD's contribution to ODM's budget would increase the ADE's contribution to ODM's budget. WHEREFORE, the ADE prays that the. Court enter an appropriate order regarding ODM's proposed budget. Respectfully Submitted, SEP ARA TE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: Assistant Attorney Gen r 1 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this { day of June 2005, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 (HICF.OF DESEG;,:~ . ti'.J.\\ :,lONI.TORJNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682 -3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us VIA FACSIMILE \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Fax No.: 604-5149 June 1, 2005 RE: Letter/Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached please find the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court, faxing copies to Judge Ray, other counsel, and ODM. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. MAH Attachment Very truly yours, ~ cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile and U.S. mail) All counsel (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL l\\IlKE BEEBE FAX COVER SHEET DATE: June 1, 2005 Honorable William R. TO: Wilson, Jr. FROM: Mark Hagemeier FAX: 501.604.5149 DIRECT DIAL: 501 .682.3643 ie.t UU.1. / UU4 ------ ----- RE: LRSD vs. PCSSD Response to Court Letter Order Dated May 23, 2005 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (inc. cover): -4 --- 0 URGENT O CALL WHEN RECEIVE O BARD COPY TO FOLLOW O CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS: cc via facsimile: Honorable J. Thomas Ray, All Counsel and The Office of Desegregation Monitoring. If you have any problems with the transmission, please contact Lakeysha at (501) 682-9482. rms MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF TIIE ADDRESSEE(S). IT CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL UNDER THE ATTORNEY ..CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR OTIIERWISE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO TIIE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY USE OF nns INFORMATION OR DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF TIIlS COMMUNICATION, IS STR!CTL Y PROHIBITED. IF YOU HA VE RECEIVED THlS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA TIIE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. e:lbkesha walla:r\\l tfax cover sheet.doc THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE Mark A Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General VIA FACSIMILE \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. United States District Counhouse 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 FaxNo.: 604-5149 June 1, 2005 RE: Letter/Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: Direct dill1: (501) 6!12-3b43 E-mail: m)rk.hag,!rneier@s_s..rtate.ar.us Attached please find the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court, faxing copies to Judge Ray, other counsel, and ODM. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. MAH Attachment cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile and U.S. mail) All counsel (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.st1te.ar.us/ -- ----- - - --- ---------- --- --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~ UUJ/ UU 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURT LETTER ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2005 BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assjstant Attorney Mark A Hagemeier, for its Response to the Court's Letter Order dated May 23, 2005, states: 1. ADE takes no position regarding LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget. 2. ADE would oppose LRSD's Objection to OD.M's proposed budget if a reduction in LRSD's contribution to ODM's budget would increase the ADE's contribution to ODM's budget. WHEREFORE, the ADE prays that the Court enter an appropriate order regarding ODM's proposed budget. Respectfully Submitted, SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: Assistant Attorney Gen r 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 ... . --- - - - -- ----- - - -- -- -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemejer, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served tbe foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this { day of June 2005, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, m 1vfitchell, WilliaruS, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suire 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220i Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Jolm W. Walker John Walker, P.A_ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ UU4/ UU4 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Suite 3400 425 WEST CAPITAL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Telephone: (501) 375-1122 Facsimile: (501) 375-1027 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE 'l!aJUU.l.l UU:\u0026gt; This facsimile message contains Information that is privileged, confidential, not subject to disclosure, and is intended only for the use of the person or entity named below. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent of the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is illegal and strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephons (collect) and return the original to the above address via U.S. Mail. Thank you. Please contact Paula at (501 I 375-1122 if there are any transmlttal problems. DATE: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 TO: Hon. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. FAX No.: 604-5149 TO: Hon. Thomas Ray FAX No.: 604-5237 TO: Sam Jones FAX No.: 688-8807 A TO: Chris Heller WFAX No.; 376-2147 TO: John Walker FAX No.: 374-4187 TO: Robert Pressman FAX No.; 781-862-1955 TO: Mark Hagemeier FAX No.: 682-2591 TO: Horace Smith FAX No.: 371-0100 TO: Mark Burnett FAX No.: 375-1940 FAXED ONLY --X -- NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 5 FROM: Paula Adams Assistant to Stephen W. Jones HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Offlces In : Conway* A:rk3ns.is Nasnvtll0, Tennessee JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P .. i\\. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 ieJ UUZ / uu:\u0026gt; e-mau: Sicnes@t,1l com 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 {501) 375-1122 Tetecopter: (501) 375-1027 direct dial r,o,: (501) 707-552.o VIA FACSIMILE 604-5149 The Honorable William R. Wifson, Jr. United States District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 June 1, 2005 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School o;strict No. 1, et al Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed please find the North little Rock School District's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court and faxing it to Judge Ray, other counsel and ODM. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Attorney for NLRSD SWJ/pea enclosure cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile) Counsel of Record (via facsimile) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET l(f)UUJ / 005 For the first fifteen plus years of ODM's existence, it has been the custom and practice of these parties, and ordered by this Court, that the costs of ODM's budget be born by each district in the same proportion as that district's student population is of the total student population in the three districts combined. Now, the LRSD suggests that this formula should be changed for its benefit and the costs should be assigned based on the proportion of effort needed by the ODM to monitor each district's compliance with its plan. It is understandable that the LRSD has not taken this position before now. If it had, it is fair to say it would have paid for more to date than it paid under the present formula. While it is impossible to calculate with absolute precision the effort expended by the ODM on each district's plan compliance over the last fifteen years, it is fair to say that ODM has spent far more effort monitoring LRSD's plan compliance than the 48% 1 its students represent and far less monitoring the NLRSD than its 17% of students. To - change the rules only now that the dynamics have shifted would be patently unfair. The LRSD should realize a reduction in its actual costs related to ODM but these should be associated with the decrease in ODM's overall budget resulting from the reduction of resources needed for monitoring generally in light of LRSD's present status. It would appear from ODM's budget that just such decreases are occurring. This does not, however, justify a change in how those reduced costs should be apportioned to the respective districts. Wherefore, the NLRSD, for the reasons set forth above, asks this court to maintain the existing fonnula for the allocation of ODM's proposed budget; and for all other just and proper relief. June 1, 2005 By: 2 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5 75-1122 Attorney for N District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET, has been served via facsimile, this 1 ST day of June. 2005, to the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 3 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Ro , FILED EAST\\J.S. DISTRICT COURT ERN D'ISTRICT ArH\u0026lt;ANSAS JUN O 1 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl.JM'MES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ' WESTERN DMSION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. .KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUN - 6 2005 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the request of the Little Rock School District that it be relieved of certain financial obligations which it has with respect to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. The budget of ODM was determined by the district court in 1991 on the basis of the student enrollment for each of the districts. It did not make a distinction between the districts with respect to plan obligations. 2. There have been partial releases from plan obligations with respect to each of the districts but there has not been a corresponding budget reduction on the basis of the plan obligations. 3. The Little Rock School District pegs its position on the reduction of desegregation obligations. However, Little Rock still has desegregation obligations to be monitored in many respects including magnets schools and M to M transfer students. Moreover, it has a continuing duty to cooperate with and support the ongoing activities of both the North Little Rock and - Pulaski County school districts.  4. The Little Rock School District request is not one to reduce the amount of the ODM budget; rather it is to reapportion their share of the budget. LRSD was the moving party in this action. The ODM monitoring plan was triggered because of the actions and inactions of all three districts. Furthermore, there is no basis for a reapportionment of the ODM budget as requested. Joshua does note however that the court has not filled the position which was vacated by the resignation of Ms. Ann Marshall. Accordingly, there has been a de facto reduction of the budget anyway. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the request of the LRSD is without precedent and sufficient justification and therefore should be dismissed or overruled. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) _I ,_ --------1\\ ;~: l - / \u0026lt;'.'\"] . 1:_,_,. , - /41 ., -~)\\._,,...--: j / . ,:. . v' C::t. Ltt_J\u0026gt; ...... _ Jrjhn W. Waiker -#64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this I st day of June, 2005. n , I ) . - 1 I  \\ _; I - (7101~ - /, ... -1ft:..{:~ // r ,7/f c,-e:_llt~( /, J6hn W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET r. J. ,' L-+ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [. _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information conraiued in this facsimile message iS attorney privileged and confidential infonnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disse.mir.ation, distribution or copying of this communication is stri.c:tly prohibited. If you have received This communication in error, please immediate notify us by te!ep.b.one, and return the origillal message to us at the above add.rc.ss via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. -JOHN W W.U.KER SHAWN C!i!LDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A . .A'I'f'ORNEYATLAw 1723 BROADWAY 1rrrr.E RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONt {501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3'74-4187 June 1, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave, Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; Lener Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, p_.i,, DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 tW:!lDlQN P.OAO Lrm.E Roox, AllKANSAs 72210 PHo~. {SOl) 372-~a  F'\"\" (1501) :nz.342s EAun.: iuchenryd@ll'\\'bell.nl!t Please find the response of the Joshua Intervenors to your Letter Order dated May 23, 2005. As directed, this pleading is being filed with the clerk of the court with copies to Judge Ray, Mr. Horace Smith of ODM and all counsel. JWW:lp cc: All Other Counsel (fax only) The Honorable J. Thomas Ray ----------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DISTRlCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Int.ervenors respectfully oppose the request of the Little Roel\u0026lt; School District that it be relieved of certain financial obligations which it has with respect to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, 1. The budget of ODM was determined by the district court in 1991 on the basis of the student enrollment for each of the districts. It did not make a distinction between the districts with respect to plan obligations. 2. There have been partial releases :from plan obligations with respect to each of the districts but there has not been a corresponding budget reduction on the basis of the plan obligations. 3. The Little Rock School District pegs its position on the reduction of desegregation obligations. However, Little Rock still has desegregation obligations to be monitored in many respects including magnets schools and M to M transfer students. Moreover, it has a continuing . duty to cooperate with and support the ongoing activities of both the North Little Rock and - Pulaski County school di.s1ricts.  4. Toe Little Rock Sehool Distriet request is n.ot one to reduce the amount of the ODM budget; rather it is to reapportion their share of the budget. LRSD was the moving party in this action. The ODM monitoring plan was triggered because of the actions and inactions of all three districts. Furthermore, there is no basis for a reapportionment of the ODM budget as requested. Joshua does note however that the court has not filled the position which was vacated by the resignation of Ms. Ann Marshall. Accordingly, there has been a de facto reduction of the budget anyway. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit tha! the request of the LRSD is without precedent and sufficient justification and therefore should be dismissed or overruled. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Atkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fux) ; \\~~ --\u0026lt;J J_ d _/, ft  t (f!fJ.. f8A-. ,,k,bn W. Walker-#64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this l st day of June, 2005. W. Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE RECEIVED JUN - 6 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONlJORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterlywritten update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Be@~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1st day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 10 IO W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~ ChristopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORIHG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~:_;:J O '? ===J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~:; !\\J1E3 ,.r;, '..;0 :':\"'.::: :''. G:\u0026lt;, C'...ER!-\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  v. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JUN -a 2005 OfRCEOF DESEsawmm MONmmllG NLRSD's SUR-REPLY REGARDING PCSSD's PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT In its Reply in this matter, the PCSSO raises some arguments for the first time. First, it contends that the fact that the NLRSO was declared unitary in student assignment several years ago while the PCSSO \"remains obligated to seek and maintain racial balance\" justifies this Court in declaring the Arkansas School Choice Act in conflict with the PCSSO Desegregation Plan, especially since the NLRSD is no longer subject to court supervision. This argument begs the question. The School Choice Act is an expression of the public policy of the State of Arkansas and, as such , is entitled to deference from this Court unless no other alternative is available. In the present case, as has b.een discussed in previous filings, the School Choice transfers to the NLRSO have not placed any PCSSO school in danger of being out of compliance with its racial balance guidelines. Thus, the PCSSD asks this Court to take the draconian step of overturning state legislation on the basis of 1 speculation about possible future negative consequences. We respectfully submit that the time for this Court to take such a step is when the eventuality occurs, not now when there is not only no such development but no immediate threat of such an occurrence. Second, and perhaps most revealingly, the PCSSD argues that it is really all about the money. It argues it is in fiscal distress and that the loss of these few students has such significant financial impact as to justify this Court using the power of federal pre-emption to overturn the application of an otherwise lawful state statute. First, it should be noted that th is appears to be a question, of \"whose ox is gored.\" Obviously, the NLRSD loses the same revenue associated with these stud,ents that the PCSSD i gains if School Choice transfers are prohibited. The NLRSD has suffered significant student loss over the years but has nonetheless avoided fiscal distress. See Exhibit A attached hereto. Also, as Exhibit A reveals, enrollment fluctuates year to year, and it is equally logical, perhaps even more so, to speculate that PCSSD's number of students will increase, especially when one considers that the most of the undeveloped or developing areas in this county, such as Chenal, are in the PCSSD. More important, it is not, nor could it reasonably be, suggested that the PCSSD's current fiscal distress is related solely or even primarily to the loss of these few students . There are a myriad of potential explanations for the PCSSO's current financial situation and School Choice transfers may well be the least of them . Certainly, it is unfair to suggest transferring the economic consequences of these student transfers to the NLRSD simply because it has managed to avoid being designated a school district in fiscal distress. This is especially true in light of the fact that the NLRSD's participation in School- Choice transfers is non-discretionary. Ark. Code Ann. 2 I ! I ii  6-18-206(b)(3)(Supp. 2003).1 Likewise, it is unfair to shift to parents and students the burden of resolving the PCSSO's financial pressures by depriving them of their limited right to choose the school they will attend. Next, the PCSSD speculates that at \"some point in time in the future,\" it might become a majority black school district at which time M-to-M transfers would no longer be possible. Initially, it should be noted that even if the three school districts in Pulaski County are all majority black, it would not prohibit M-to-M transfers from: districts in surrounding counties. More important, however, such a development. is entirely speculative. All three of these districts could well be unitary in c;1II aspects, before this occurred , and growth could occur in the undeveloped or developing areas discussed above which could result in an increase in white students. On the other hand, even if the PCSSD were to become majority black, there is no reason to suspect that School Choice transfers would be significantly responsible for that change rather than, for example, simple demographic changes. The ultimate irony would then be the elimination of the one vehicle remaining to these districts for the exchange of students, the School Choice Act, which permits transfers on a \"greater than to lesser than\" basis rather than a \"majority to minority\" basis. Finally, the PCSSO suggests that overriding an otherwise valid state law applicable to every other school district in Arkansas is appropriate if it will assist the PCSSD in eliminating its fiscal distress. However, this reasoning is flawed . One must ask, if the Court is able to overturn one state regulation simply because of its potential financial impact on one of these districts, what other state regulations must it be 1 In its response, we cited Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-206(b)(3)(Repl. 2003), which was subsequently amended to the present version. Previously, only the sending district was compelled to participate, but that was amended to require the participation of both districts. 3 prepared to overturn? Student-teacher ratio? Facility standards? Minimum curriculum requirements? Minimum teacher salaries? The portent of such a decision is that this Court would be put in the impossible position of having to decide, regulation by regulation , and statute by statute, which should be retained and which should be overturned. It would be required to substitute its judgment for that of the Arkansas General Assembly regarding what the proper public policy for the State of Arkansas should be with respect to the education of its students. This asks too much of the Court and goes far beyond the boundaries of the Supremacy Clause of the United States. Constitution. WHEREFORE, the NLRSD respectfully requests that the Court deny the PCSSD's Motion Regarding School Choice; and for all other just and proper relief. June 7, 2005 By: 4 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5 -1122 Stephen W. Jones (78083) Attorney for North Little Ro District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD SUR-REPLY TO PCSSD'S MOTION REGARDING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT, has been served via U.S. Mail, this J1h day of June, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington , MA 02173 5 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W: Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Off 1ce 501 771-8097 North Little Rock School District Racial Count 1974 -2004 ~~ Osto~:;e1974  ___!Y_on-B~~~~6 - Bli,;31 1 __I_o~06i ___ October 1975 ___ . 8,884 . 2,987 ... 11,871 _ :-g=:~;~ ~ ~~:= -~~:-~;; --_. !~:_;~~ October 1976 . 8,682 3,0mi=12 11,694 _ October 1979~- 7,641 .. 3,287 . 10,928 ___ October 1980 . __ _ 7,247 .__ 3,356 ___ 10,603 October 1981=t ___ 6,711_ 3,365 10,076 October 1982 . _ _ 6,474 _ 3,498 _ 9,972 October 1983_ 6, 194 __ 3,607 __ 9,_801 - October 1984 __ ___ 5,935 ; . _ 3,752 ____ 9,687 October 1985 1 __ 5,769 ; . .. 3,686 ___ 9,455 . October 1986 _ 5, 824 . _ 3, 865 ... 9, 689 October 1987 .. ____ 5, 740 3,997 ___ 9,737 ... October 1988 - .. 5,450 .. . 4,044 ___ 9,494 ____ October 1989 _' _ _ .. 5,208 , .. 4,218 _ _ 9,426 October 1990 __ /- 4,~. _ 4,279 9,194 g~~~~=~-;::; ~--= ::ffi+= . ::!::E:-~:~~~ October 1993 -  4,600 __ 4,485___ 9,085 October 1994 ___ 4,372~_4,691_ __ 9,063 October 1995 ' 4,057 4,844 8,901 _October 1996:r-- 4,033 _5,02t= . 9,053 ___Q ctober 1997 . _ 3,970 _5 ,222 __9~ 1 92 ___ October 1998_ . ___ . 4,001 ___ 5,262 __ 9,263 .... October1999 _ _ 3,814 . 5,188 _____ 9,002 . . October 2000 . -~ - .. __ _ 3,703 __ 5, 133 . 8, 836 . October2001 _ __ _ . 3,876 __ 5,183 _,. __ 9,059_ ----~:~:~~L __ _J~~:  . ;:~;! ---t:_; October 2004 3,814 5,296 9,110 ----- - -------------- j :i P - 2 EXHIBIT 06 / 03 /2005 FRI 15: 39 (TX/RX NO 7418 l ~ 002 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Suite 3400 Offices Tn: Conway, Arkansas Nashville. Tennessee 425 WEST CAPITOL UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375-1122 Facsimile: (501) 375-1027 e-mail : sjones@111 .com Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard , PLLC 425 W. Capitol Avenue - Ste. 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller __ ... Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220_1 __ Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Dear Counsel: June 7, 2005 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P .A 172_3 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ' Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue Suite 149 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Enclosed you will find a copy of the NLRSD's Sur-Reply Regarding PCSSD's Motion Regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act which was filed of record on June 7, 2005. SWJ/kmb Enclosures Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMAU.  I.ITTllROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education June 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 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 RECENEO Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III lU~ 0 0 1005 t1Ulli\\\\t~m~~ ~Oll\\10t\\\\llti Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you h~ve any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier A TE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro , Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ~\"~* cottSmi~ 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 June 30, 2005, 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 72201 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,IIl Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 f;la~e:.a:6Jhi:!mQfmfill9-~yiff~6J~tTM.~ZWr\"Jf$.:uJi~tf1;~L~:tfielsmie EouoaaHoorEuoa11Yff\u0026amp;JiWlfM\u0026lt;\u0026gt;sT.sYbJ~P-ecioaic;aajusufia B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1036","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-06"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1036"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nFro Return ~ ~ Keep or Toss D [ Post-It\" 7668 03M 1993 Agenda RECEIVED JUN 2 ~ 2005 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONIJORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting JUNE2005 0 \u0026gt;-o\n- ~ r- r-\u0026lt; Oll: oz jg~ !B::\n-\noCz: on r- ... r- i5 oz 'f!! \u0026lt;J) r- I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING June 23, 2005 5:30 p.m. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting I 05-26-05 Special Meeting I 06-09-05 n,. .., j- ~ r- r--\u0026lt;- 0~ 0~ !~ll~..,\n- aCz: on ,r.-.-.-~\u0026lt; n,..z,, ~ Regular Board Meeting June 23, 2005 Page 2 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. A. Recommendations from the Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee (NPAAC) CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. PRE / Quarterly Update Report B. 2005-06 Evaluation Agenda HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election B. First Reading: Policy FA- New Facilities Development Goal C. Resolution for Leasing Authority D. Request for Breakfast and Lunch Meal Price Increase E. Consulting Agreement F. Donations of Property G. Financial Report CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions EMPLOYEE HEARINGS ADJOURNMENT :e \"0 mh\" 'g om\ni:C m\u0026lt;= b~ ~~ m::1 --\u0026lt;m \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\ni:, ~ ,...~ \u0026lt;JIO C:\"' \"0--\u0026lt; ~~ =Im  n .... 8 c5 z z =I (JI_ 0 z (JI !l' \"m' ~ r\u0026gt; $! ,r-,\u0026lt;,.J,\u0026gt;, !:H~  31: n =I l\nl z (JI DATE: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: June 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The planning for an addition to and the renovation of Forest Heights Middle School continues. The architect has been given a program (a list of items that the staff would like in the addition and remodeled areas) and is in the process of developing the costs, size and potential locations for the new building. Depending on available bond funds, a decision will be made soon regarding the staff requests. Several projects are being done this summer at Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools to enhance the appearance of the buildings. The outside brick walls of the Elementary School, auditorium and cafeteria are being cleaned and water-proofed . The front doors of the Elementary School are being replaced with new ones. A new ceiling will be installed in the cafeteria and all of the exposed steam piping and heating units will be removed . Another summer project is the . installation of new ceilings in the classrooms and corridors of Southwest Middle School which will improve the interior appearance of the building. When you drive by the school, it is obvious that the work recently completed has improved the exterior appearance of the school. In response to a request for information on projects not yet started, a new category has been added to the attached list entitled 'Bond Projects Not Yet Started .' RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer :n .... ~ ::c % 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: -c C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I t:st. t.\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver ~ dia Center Expansion _ $167,490 Dec-05 Aug-05 __ Au~g-05 ~g-05 ~ ug-05 Dec-05 Central Renovation - Interior _____ $10,200,266 Fair Park Remodel $799,000 Fair Park Parking Lot ___ ____ _ __ $185,000 Forest Park Restr~oms ___ __ $152,881 Gibbs Addition __ ______ __ $705,670 -- - Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows ___ _ __ $215,000 -- ~ g-05 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling _ ___ $33,378 _ Aug-05 Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls _ __ $98,660 - ~ g-05 ~ g-05 __ Aug-05 Aug-05 Aug-05 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle I Replace Entry Doors ______ $13,990 Southwest I New Corridor Ceiling ____ $300,000 Western Hills IElectrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC __ $622,160 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SUMMER/ FALL 2005 I I I t:st. t.\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Cloverdale Elementary Demolition _ _ __ $520,750 Aug-05 Henderson Skylight Replacement_ ___ $45,00-0~ Aug-05 Meadowcliff  Remodel_________ __ $164,150 Aug-05 Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 ~ Q-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:st. ~ompIe11on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot - -- Electrical Upgrade _-_-_-_-~ Unknown Forest H~ghts ====- Remodel ~ --- -- $1 ,547,000 -- - - -Un-known Unknown Mitchell Renovation -- - $2,212,493 - Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS -- Energy monitoring system installation Unknown - Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Facility Name I Project Description I _Adm_inistration Anne_x_ ___ A,,,.D.._A_A.,-daptations -------~E_lectrical Upgrade Adult Education ADA Adaptations __ _ __ ----~S_tr_uctural Repairs -~ __ _ Alternative Learning Center ADA Adaptations ________ _ Electrical Upgrade Booker Cashion Building Dodd Roof Repairs .. Restroom Renovation ---~A_D_A Adaptations ____ A=-D_A Adaptations ______ _ Restroom Renovation I t:si. 1.,ompIeuon Cost Date __ $_3_2,351 Unknown $9,166-- Unknown -- $248,020 Unknown $53,918 Unknown $43,134 - Unknown - $2,696 - Unknown - $26,959 Unknown $37,742 Unknown $107,835 _ Spring 2006 $21,567 Unknown $26,959 Unknown -Fa-cility Services ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown ~ ___ ------~~_ _II_ ns_tall Water Metersa!Cooling Towers -.--- - $4,313 Unknown _______ E_m_ergency Lighting Replacem_e_nt _ Land Purchase - Booker Fulbright - Renovate Restroom-s -- ------ -- ~ ADA Adaptations Garland ~ovation -- --- ADA Adaptations ~trical Upgrade __ =~~---\n_- Geyer S~pr_in~g~s ______ R_e~p_lace Restroom Stalls ADA Adaptations I ~ 80,876 - Unknown - $100,000 - Unknown $10,784 Unknown $21 ,567 Unknown $900,000-----i=,artially Complete $188,711 Unknown $6,988 Unknown $4,3_13__ Unknown ----,-- -- $21 ,567 Unknown Facility Name Henderson IRC Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw Transportation - LRSD West Little Rock School CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I Project Description I Cost I Renovate Office $10,784 ADA Adaptations $70,093 ADA Adaptations I I $21,567 I Restroom Renovation $21,567 I 1 Electrical Upgrade $6,211 I Restroom Renovation $32,350 1 Restroom Upgrades $53,918 I 'Dressing Room Renovation I $37,742 1ADA Adaptations $26,959 I Electrical Upgrade $1,618 I Interior Renovation $16,175 ADA Adaptations $32,351 Electrical Upgrade $1,294 1New School $11,782,638 Est. Completion Date Summer 2006 Unknown Unknown Unknown Fall 2005 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ---- Unknown - Unknown -- Unknown Unk-no-wn Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration IHVAC - $70,000 Nov-04 --- Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 -- --- Alternative Learning Ctr. ~ergy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. 1Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett I Partial asbestos abatement $237,2~ -- - Jul-01 -- Badgett_ __ Fire alarm --$18~250 Aug-02 Bale --aassroom addition/renovation ~ $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale I Energy monitoring system Mar-02 I- -- Bale Partial roof replacement - $269,5~ Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 f- ~3,520 - Baselin-e --- Renovation ~ug-04 ~8,525 -- Booker Gym Roof Oct-04 - --$25,000- - Booker ADA Rest rooms Aug-04 -- --- - - -- Booker -- Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 -- Energy monitoring system installation .. Booker --$- 23,710-=__ Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 -- -- -- Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation --- ---- $973,621- Nov-04 -- - Brady_ __ Energy efficient lighting -- - -+ $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,0~ Aug-02 --- -- $14,480 __ Carver Energy monitoring system installation May-01 -- Carver -- - Parking lot $111,742 - - Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 -- Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 Sep-04 Central Parking -+- - Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair ~ $265,000 _ Aug-03 -- fentral/Q@ley .Athletic Field Improvement --- $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System -- $14,500 - Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 ---- Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 2 ~ \u0026gt;n  C: -.,\n,:\n,\n,:\n,\n,:\n, l!!o 0 C: C: ..... \u0026gt; C: ~:IC m QO j!!z -\u0026lt;!!! '.\" .... ~ :zc 0  C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 Chicot Drainage $64,700 1 Aug-04 Chicot Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 ---------------- 1-c,C-lo_v_e_rd_a_le-----,-E---,l..e..,_m_._ ____ __E,,n-_erg.,=y_e--fc-f,i-ci_ent....I,~igch---t-ci-n_.g,~ __________- -$=-_132~,67_8--r-____- ---,- f-C_lo_v_e_rd_a_le_ M_S_ _____ ,_E_n_erg.,=y_e_ff_icie_n_t lig,\"-h-_ting\"-----------'--__$_ 1_89',7-_43~'------ Jul-01 Jul-01 ~C_lov_e_rd_a_le_ M_S_ _____ ,_M_a~jo_r_ren_o_vation\u0026amp;a_d_d_it_io_n_ ________$1_ ,39_3_,82_2--r-----N-ov-02 f-D_o_d_d ________ _,_F_ire_A_la_r~m~Upgrad_e ________ t------c,-$_9~,2_0_0-+-- Dodd I Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Oct-04 Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 ------------1- F a c i Ii ties Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 --------- Aug-03 May-05 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 f-F-a-ir-P~a-rk_ _______ _,_R-oof -- ---- $245,784 ~r-02 Aug-01 - Aug-01 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm -----$-3-15,956 ---- Fair_P_a_rk ______ _,_E_n_ergyefficient lighting __ _-_:_-_ $90,162 - ~F_a_ir_P_a_rk_ _______ ,_A_s_bes_tos abatement-ceiling ____$_ 5_9,31 O_ 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music j J  A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting 1 $277,594 ----Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box , $10,784 r Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras 1 $12,500 - - - Jun-01 ---'-------------+! ----c--- J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs --, - - $391,871 ~ -=-- Aug-03 Fores_t_P_a-rk_ ______R_ e_p-la-c~e-w- indow unitsw/centralH VAC l $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking 1 $111,742 --Aug-03 Fulbright Energyefficient lighting --- - $134:463 - - Jun-01 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting ~-$119 788 - May-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 _-_-_-_-_Aug-01 Fulbright - Replace roof top HVAC units I $107,835 - Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot --- $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roofrepairs ---r~--~- $200,000 - - Oct-02 Frank_lin_ -- - Renovation 1 $2,511,736 _ _ Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair ' $161,752 Jun-04 Energy efficient lighting -- -- $76,447 Apr-01 ------- Gibbs Gibbs ---------Energy monitoring s~tem installation __ _ $11 ,770 Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition '\" $8,637,709 Sep-03 ------ Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting --=-- _ _:-=- $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Hall Hall ___In frastructure improvements __ $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting _____ _ $296,707 _ Apr-01 1H--a--ll -------- Intercom Feb-01 Hall - Henderson Henderson ---- Henderson Henders-on- ---- Henderson Security cameras ______ _ Lockers --------- Energy efficient lighting - Roof replacement gym Asbestos abatement Phase I Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $10,600 $43,854 $193,679 $107,835 $500,000 $250,000 Jun-01 Dec-04 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-0~ Aug-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date ,_IR_C _________E_ ner~g~y_e_ff_ic_ie_n_t_~li g~h_ti~ng $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 ,_J_effer_s_o_n _______ R_enovation \u0026amp; fire alarm _____ _____ $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw !Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Oct-04 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 _ Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. I Energy efficient lighting __ $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS !Renovate bleachers $134,793 I Aug-01 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-04 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Apr-04 1_M_a_n_n_ ________'A_s,p__h_a_lt wal_ks _________ The total $1_8 million I Dec-01 ,_M_a_n_n __________ W_a_lkw_a~y~ca_n_o~p_ie_s_ ________ is what has been Dec-01 ..,M._a_n_n_ ________ __,1B__o_ile_r_r_e,p_l_a_ce_ment _______ used so far on the Oct-01 ,_M_a_n_n ________ ___,F_encing~---- _______ projects listed Sep-01 Mann 'Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. ' Aug-01 .,-----------+-----------'-- Mc CI e II an Parking Lot Overlay $65,000 Apr-05 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 McClellan 'Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 1_M_c_C_lel_la_n_ _______ _E:_n_e\n__r_g,'I-Ly-e':..f...fic:...i..e-'--n_t lighting $303,614 _____M ay-~ McClellan Stadium stands repair ___ - $235,0~ Aug-01 McCle~ - Intercom $46,000 _ _ Feb-02 McClellan Classroom Addition __ $2,155,622 __ Jul-04 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade _____ _ $7 ,700 Sep-04 McDermott Energy efficient lighting______ $79,411  Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm $16,175 __ ~ 1 Meadowcliff _ Asbestos abatement ------~-- $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff ___E_ n_g,.,_er,g.,_y efficient lighting___ _ $88,297 Dec-02 Metrop_o_lit_a_n ______ ~ R_e~p_la_ce_c_ooling tower $37,203 ___ Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 _____ May-01 Metropolitan ~ nergy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Mitchell Building Remediation $ 165,000 Jul-04 Mitchell IEnergy efficient lighting. _-_- =_-=__ ---$103,642 -- Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695~ - Jul-01 Mitch~ --- Asbestos abatement - - - ~ 3,000 --=== Jul-01 Oakhurst HVAC renovation __ $237,237 __ Aug-01 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation _ $10,695 __ May-01 Otter Creek _ Energy efficient lighting ___ _,_ _ $81 ,828 _ Apr-01 Otter Creek _ Asbestos abatement ___ + $10,000 _ _ Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot ________ + $138,029 __ _ Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition ________ $888,778 Oct-02 Otter Creek 'Parking Improvements _____ $142,541 ___ Aug-03 Parkview __ ~ ddition _ ____ __ $2,121,226 Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls ______ $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview ~of replacement_______ - $273,877- -- Sep-01 Parkview I Exterior ligh~ ____ __ ~ 0)84 _ _ Nov-00 arkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 _ Aug-01 Parkview Locker replacement ___ ~ $120,000 _ Aug~ Parkview Energy efficient liqhtinq $315,600 Jun-01 4 ~ \u0026gt;nc -o\n:c\n:c\n:c C!!o De: C: r\u0026gt; C: ~\ns:: mg,o p!z -\u0026lt;l :,, ... Pl ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: -0 C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I l::.st. c.\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date 1-P_ro_c_u_re_m_ en_t_ ____~ _E_ner__g,,~y_m_o_n_itor_in_g,,_s_y_stem installation _ _$\n_5-,'-2-_9_0_ _____Ju_ n_-0_2-1 Procurement Fire alarm $25,0_00~ ____A_u g\"'---03. Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Renovation - $1,193,2-59- -----No-v-0-4 , Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground ___ $17,000 Dec-02 \u0026gt;-P-u-la_s_ki H~g~t-s.-M- S----~I_R_e_n-ov~a-ti~o=n---- - $3,755,041 Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting -- $84,898  Apr-01 -R--o'\"c'--ke_f_elle_r_ ______E_ n-er...g,,~y-e-ff-ic-ie_n_t _lig,\"-h-ting - ~ $137,004 - Mar-01 1-R_o_c_ke_f,elle_r_ ______R_ e.,p_la_ce_ ro_o_f_to.2p.. HVAC _ ::_ -$-'-5_3_9-'-'- 17_5_ ____A u,g,,_-_o-11 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 t-R_o_m_i-ne_ _______ 1 _A_s-be- s~tos abatement --- - $10,0_0_0 __ -----A~p~r--02-  Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition - $3,534,675 Mar-03 \u0026gt;-S_c_ott_F_ie-ld--------T-ra~c-k_R_e_n_o_vations - $289,056 May-05 -- -----~~ Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest ---A-dd- i-tio_n_________ - - $2,000,000 - Nov-04 - Southwest Asbestos abatem_ent_ __ _ $28,138 _ Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficientlighting ====- ~ $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest 1Drainage / street widening__ _ $250,000 _-- Aug-03 Stude-nt_A_s_s-ig_n_m_e_n_t ____En_ e_r-gy~m-o-nitoring system installation _ $4,830_ _____A~ ug-.Q_2 Student Assignment 'Fire alarm __- -- $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation ..- $275,000 - - Dec-01 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II _ : fil79Jmo- Jun-04 Technology Upg~rad_e ___ ---=U~p=gra_d_e~p~hone system \u0026amp;_d_ata__ _ ___ Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting __ _ $73,850 _ _ Fe_b_-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry 1Media Center addition - $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild ------- - $5,300,000 ------ Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield__ 'Energy efficient lighting $74,77El Wakefield -----D- e- molition/Asbestos Abateme~ - $200,000 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11.~Aug- 02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Washington Security cameras $7,900 __ Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Washing~t_on _______ E_n_e_rg~y_e_fficient lighting Watson Energy monitoring system installation Watson - --Asbestos abatement ---- Watson Watson Watson --____ E_n_ergy efficient lighting Western Hills Western Hills vv'estern Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Williams Williams Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Asbestos abatement Major renovation \u0026amp; addition ----- Fire Alarm Upgrade -,\n:oA Rest rooms Asbestos abatement Intercom Energy efficient lighting Renovation Parking expansions __ ~nergy efficient lighting HVAC for Cafeteria --- ---, Renovation/expansio_n ____ _ _ Parking Expansion Renovation $165,281 $8,530 $182,241 $106,868 $10,000 $800,000 $8,400 $25,000 $191,946 $7,100 $106,000 $2,106,492 $183,717 $122,719 $56,000 $1,263,876 $110,000 $246,419 ~ g-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 A~g-02 Oct-04 ----- - Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 Aug-02 5 Vl. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. NPAAC RECOMMENDATIONS VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INS] A. PRE/QUARTERL ~ E. INTERNAL AUDITORS REPORT F. TECHNOLOGY UPDATE V. ROUTINE tMTTERS A. MINUTES Date: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - June This is the sixty-eighth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The amended Out of District Travel regulation is being implemented. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and ewspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. .'..\".\" ~ ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C.. , 0 :!!\nm Audit Report - June 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) issues. Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child utrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115 . My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker ~ \u0026gt;n  C: ..,\n,o\n,o\n,o C!!n oc: C:,.... \u0026gt; C: ~ll: m QO p! z -\u0026lt; !!l != ... DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  Last month we reported that we had received over $ 1 million in e-rate funds for the 2003-2004 school year. All of the appeals that we filed on the 2003-2004 applications were upheld and fully funded.  This week it was announced that our 2004-2005 application for telecommunications services was funded in the amount of $ 1.2 million, bringing our total this year to $ 1.4 million. Because of e-rate funds, we receive a 73% discount on all services related to the wide area network, local, long distance, paging, and cellular phone service.  Our current Technology Plan covers the years 2003-2006. In order to meet state requirements for approval and to meet E-rate requirements the Technology Plan will have to be revised during the 2005-2006 school year. The new plan will have to be in draft form by the time we file our erate applications for 2006-2007 this December. It will have to be completed and approved by the Board in time for state submission in March 2006. Committees will be formed in August to begin the revision. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services -0 :r me ~~ % z\no ,m.. mis nc :c\"' ~n c\n, m m\"' \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee (NPAAC) BACKGROUND: Act 1220 of 2003 was created to combat the crisis of childhood obesity and associated health problems. In the 2003-04 school year, 36.7% of LRSD students were identified as overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. Act 1220 requires each school district in Arkansas to convene a Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee by 2004 that includes members from school district governing boards, school administrators, food service personnel, teacher organizations, parents, students and professional groups from the community. Federal legislation was passed in 2004 requiring all school districts with a federally funded school meal program to establish a committee by 2006 to evaluate nutrition and physical education policies and to promote best practices. The LRSD Nutrition Physical Activity Advisory Committee (NPAAC) is charged to:  Annually assist schools in the assessment of each school campus utilizing the School Health index. Outcomes of this assessment will be incorporated into the school improvement plan.  Review and make recommendations to the local school board regarding all food and beverage contracts.  Maintain a list of non-food and healthy food alternatives for fundraisers.  Monitor in-service education for food service staff. RATIONALE: To support compliance with Act 1220, the NPAAC met monthly since August 2004 and put forward recommendations to promote the health of our students. When children's health, nutrition and exercise needs are met, they have the cognitive energy to learn and achieve. Sound nutrition and adequate physical activity are linked to academic achievement, self-esteem, mental health and school attendance - all leading to stronger .., :r m c: ~! z z\nD ,m...m~ (') C: ~ ~ ~~ m CJ) student performance. The LRSD Nutrition Physical Activity Advisory Committee is committed to creating health-promoting schools that support sound nutrition, physical activity and high academic achievement. We strongly support/endorse these recommendations and consider this the beginning of a long process. FUNDING: Funding is needed to meet the recommendations related to improving physical activity for elementary students in the following areas: 1. 2. Personnel FTE Salary - Certified Physical Education Teachers with Fringes 5 @ Total Staff Training Physical Education Aides (25@ 12 hours ea@ $13/hr ea) Child Nutrition Assistants (190@ 12 hours ea)@ 11/hr ea) $ $ Cost 50,000 250,000 3,900 $ 25,080 Legislation, from 2005, states all aides \u0026amp; assistants must have 12 hours of Staff Development annually. 3. Physical Education Curriculum (SPARK Curriculum) Sport, Play and Active Recreation for Kids Cost Curriculum Binders, K-2 \u0026amp; 3-5 Equipment Staff Development Total Grand Total $ 5,759 2,000 - 4,211 x 32 schools 5,198 $145,717.00 $424,697 Recommendations from NPAAC I. Fundraising Projects and Student Rewards Subcommittee 1. 2005-06 Fundraising projects, will achieve at least a 50/50 balance of healthy and less-healthy offerings. For single item fundraising sales, the sales Item must be healthy, for sales of multiple items, (e.g., sales from catalogs offering various products), at least 50% of the items must be either healthy items or non-food items. 2. Each secondary school shall appoint a staff person to monitor fundraisers by all school-related organizations or groups to ensure compliance with established guidelines. 3. Little Rock School District shall designate a representative to serve as a resource for schools in planning and coordinating fundraising activities and to serve as a liaison between the district and vendors to keep them informed of Little Rock School District policies related to fundraisers. 4. All schools are encouraged to sponsor fundraisers that promote physical activity. 5. For ongoing school \"activity fund\" sales, standard definitions, as published by the State Child Health Advisory Committee, for healthy concession stand items and serving sizes are consistent with those used for Little Rock School District vending machines and concession stands. (Table 1) 6. Unhealthy food and beverage items are not to be used as rewards in the classroom or school. The NPAAC will provide updated lists, to schools, annually of approved healthy food rewards\nplan and conduct a series of school-based inservice meetings for school staff, PT A groups, campus leadership teams and other groups on appropriate alternatives to unhealthy beverage/food rewards. II. Nutrition Subcommittee A. Allowable Foods and Portion Sizes 1. At the elementary level, only extra milk (flavored, 1 % or skim milk), 100% juice and water will be sold a la carte. The maximum size will be 8 ounces. A single purchase will be limited to only two of each 4 oz. item. 2. At the middle school level, only extra milk (flavored, 1%, or skim milk), water (fluoridated, caloric sweetener \u0026lt;10 calories), 100% juice and a whole fruit will be sold a la carte. A single purchase will be limited to one of each item. Vended a la carte items will be limited to 100% juices, flavored and unflavored waters and milk. The maximum size will be 12 ounces. 3. High School - A la carte items will include foods that meet the standards for all foods served as a part of a reimbursable meal. Other snack items shall meet the standard and portion size of Table 1 from the Child Health Advisory Committee and Company Vending Guidelines. A single purchase will be limited to one of each item. B. Menu Planning 1. Annually, Child Nutrition will conduct a written survey in selected elementary and secondary schools to solicit suggested menu items for the coming school year. The surveys will be compiled and evaluated for inclusion in the menu planning cycle. 2. The LRSD Child Nutrition Advisory Council will create a forum for receipt of recommendations for menu changes from parents and others through the P.T.A. Council. It is also recommended that parents be surveyed to provide suggested menu items during pre-school registration. The results and analysis of the surveys and recommendations will be submitted to CN for evaluation and inclusion in the menu planning cycle. C. Nutrition Education Nutrition education will be incorporated into the overall curriculum as well as in Health and Science programs in grades K - 6. Wellness and nutrition education should be integrated into the one semester required health course offered in grades 9 - 12 and in other related courses. D. Professional Development for Child Nutrition Professionals 1. The director will be responsible for providing a minimum of twelve hours of annual training to CN assistants, as recommended by the State Child Health Advisory Committee. A record documenting the required in-service training shall be maintained by the CN Director. 2. Each school manager will be required to provide a 30-minute in-service each month. Child Nutrition assistants will be paid their regular hourly rate. Ill. Physical Activity Subcommittee A. Certified Physical Education Teachers There are currently nine certified elementary physical education teachers in the Little Rock School District. To achieve compliance with ADE guidelines it is recommended that: 1. The LRSD incrementally increase the number of certified PE teachers, at the elementary level, based on the following schedule: School Year NewFTE Total Certified FTE 2005-06 5 14 2006-07 5 19 2007-08 5 24 2008-09 5 29 2009-10 3 32 B. Staff Development Provide required training for all paraprofessionals and volunteers who serve as PE teachers. Currently there are 25 paraprofessionals teaching Physical Education under the direction of the classroom teacher. C. Standardized Physical Education Curricula The Little Rock School District will adopt a standard PE curriculum for each organizational level beginning with the elementary level in the 2006-07 school year and the middle and high school levels in the 2007-08 school year. D. Form Multi-disciplinary Community Partnership Addressing and correcting problems related to physical inactivity cannot be limited to the regular school day. We recommend that the district establish a multi-disciplinary community partnership to develop a public awareness campaign that promotes physical activity as a part of family life extending beyond the school day by the beginning of the 2006-07 school year. This campaign would include informing parents of the importance of physical activity after school hours and establishing after school physical activity programs (in addition to athletics) in partnership with neighborhood organizations and groups. E. StudentfTeacher Ratio The student I teacher ratio for PE classes will be consistent as for other academic classes. F. Access to Activity All students are entitled to PE and recess. It is recommended that physical education and recess not be withheld or used as punishment. IV. Vending Subcommittee A. Vending Food \u0026amp; Beverage Sales For all food and beverages sold / vended via machines, school stores and concessions shall follow the recommendations of Act 1220 Child Health Advisory Committee (CHAC) with implementation of all recommendations starting in school year 2005-06: Nutrition Standards for Competitive Food follow allowable Foods and Portion Sizes in Table 1, with the following exceptions: i) Low-fat Milk will follow the FDA Food Labeling regulations and refer to 1 % and fat-free only. ii) Food/snack vending: ~35% of total calories from fat,~ 10% of calories from saturated and trans fat combined and ~ 35% of total weight from added sugar (if added sugar not on label use total sugar). B. Beverage Vending \u0026amp; Concession Contracts 1. In 2005-06, a 50/50 product mix in student accessible machines progressing to 75/25 in 2006-07 and reaching 100% healthy choices by 2007-08 school year. 2. 50/50 product mix for the athletic department, administration facilities and teacher lounges so as to be the same as in other District facilities. 3. 50/50 Product mix for after-hour concessions with the recommendation that individual schools consider moving to 100%. 4. Concessions and other fundraisers may sell bottled water with school name and/or mascot on the label. 5. Beverage container size limited to 12 oz. except water, which may be larger. 6. Sports beverages will be restricted to the immediate area of physical education facilities. 7. Student to beverage machine ratio will be flexible based on the discretion of the building principal (most of the principals and students at our presentations thought the 1 to 100 ratio was too much but would like some flexibility if their physical plant campus expanded). 8. All beverages sold in vending machines and concessions be priced equally so that cost is not an influence on student purchases. Recommendation We request Board approval to implement all no-cost recommendations provided by the Nutrition and Physical Advisory Committee for the 2005-06 school year. We further recommend that items requiring funding be considered for implementation as the Board reviews the budget anc\nl allocation of resources for the 2005-06 school year. Phase in of recommendations requiring additional personnel will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will require additional consideration by the administration and the Board of Directors. PREPARED BY: Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services, NPAAC Co-Chair Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, NPAAC Member Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Table 1. Elementary/Middle/Junior/Senior High School Allowable Competitive Foods - Maximum Portion Size List Competitive Food or Beverage Chips (regular) Chips (baked or no more than 7.5 grams of fat per ounce), crackers, popcorn, cereal, trail mix, nuts, seeds, dried fruit, ierkv. pretzels Cookies Cereal bars Bakery items (e.g., pastries, muffins, doughnuts) excluding items that count as two-bread components served/sold onJy at breakfast. i Frozen desserts, ice cream(no L___more than l O grams of fat) I r I Whole milk, flavored or unflavored Low-fat milk (2% or less) , flavored or unflavored Fruit Juices or blends of jui-:cs with 100% iuice Sweetened non-carbonated beverages(:S15g sugar/serving) Carbonated beverages (:S 15g sugar/serving) Fruit snacks fortified with vitamin C ~ I Water- non-carbonated, L unflavored Prepared, Ready-to-Serve Maximum Portion Size 1.25 ounces 1.5 ounces 1.5 ounces 2.5 ounces 3 ounces - - 4 ounces --- 8 ounces 8 ounces 16 ounces 12 ounces --  12 ounces 12 ounces 2.5 ounces Unlimited 7 i ~ . ne \"D\n:c\n:c\n:c l!!n Oere  e\n:c~ iri II\" f!!z -~\u0026lt;. ,!.!.l \"D ::c me\n:c~ ~z z::c mm r~ ne i\n~ Zm ~en en NAME Bushmiaer, Margo Co-Chair Wheeler, Gary Dr. Co-Chair NUTRITION McCoy, Morlin, Co-Chair Borne', Eliza Burton, Marvin Cherepski, Stevie Davenport, Christy Dudley, Joan Milam, Debbie PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Scogin, Annette, Co-Chair Lincoln, Lynn, Co-Chair Brown,Sandra,RN Elston, Jo Evelyn McDaniel, Veronica Hickman, Natasha, RN Tollette, Binky Weber, Judy PhD FUND RAISING \u0026amp; AW ARDS Barksdale, Diane, Co-Chair Cox, Dana PhD, RD Co-Chair Smith, Paula Walker Hynes, Stephanie LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004-2005 Nutrition Physical Activity Advisory Subcommittee Members Lists REPRESENTING PHONE Coordinator, Health Services 447-7482 UAMS, ACH \u0026amp; Parent, Central Hiw 364-1416 Director, Child Nutrition 447-2450 12th Grade Student, Central 664-2626 Principal, Henderson 447-2800 Nurse, King Magnet 447-5105 ADH, Central Region 280-4950 Parent, Forest Park Elem. 663-4602 Director, VIPS 447-2967 Assistant Director, Athletics 447-2063 ADH, Pulaski County Central Health Unit 280-3369 Baptist Health - Community Outreach 202-1961 Director, Pupil Services 447-7490 ADH, SW Unit 565-9311 ADH \u0026amp; Parent, Central 280-4957 Pfeifer Camp 821-3714 UAMS, ACH \u0026amp; Parent, Terry Elem \u0026amp; Dunbar M.S. 364-3382 Principal, Carver 447-4000 Parent, Williams Magnet Elem. 614-4355 Parent, Williams Magnet Elem. 223-8332 Administrative Supervisor, Child Nutrition 447-2468 June I, 2005 EMAIL ADDRESS margo. bushmiaerra)lrsd. orn wheelerva.rv\u0026lt;@uams.edu morlin.mccov1mlrsd.orn: eborne1msbc11:lobal.net marvin. burtonra)lrsd.org stevanna.cherenskira)lrsd.org cdavenoortra)healthvarkansas.com erikora)aristotle.net debra.milamra)lrsd.org annette.scoginra)lrsd.org llincolnra)healthvarkansas.com sandrabra)baotist-health.org io.elston(a)lrsd.orn vdawsonlmhealthvarkansas.com nhickmanlmhealthvarkansas.com binkvra)ofeifercamo.com weberiudithlra)uams.edu marv.barksdalera)lrsd.orn danacox97 ra)sbcglobal.net ovsmithra)arkansas.net Steohanie.walker.hvnra)lrsd.org VENDING Blaine, Barbara, Co-Chair Counselor, W estem Hills 447-6900 Gamer, Carole RD, Co-Chair UAMS, College of Public Health 526-6606 Buck, Larry Principal, McClellan High 447-2100 Edgerson, Pat Parent, Forest Heights Middle \u0026amp; Central High 686-7981 Hendrix, Julie UALR/ Children International / Health Services \u0026amp; Parent, PHMS 663-5541 Lacey, Marian Dr. Administration, Asst. Superintendent, Secondary 447-1000 Montgomery, Darrel L. Hometown Health Improvement Leader, ADH 280-4963 Wheeler, Gary Dr. Co-Chair UAMS, ACH \u0026amp; Parent, Central High 364-1416 BYLAWS Bushmiaer, Margo - Chair Coordinator, Health Services 447-7482 Hill, Martha P~ent, Forest Park 282-0202 831-3864 Walker Hynes, Stephanie Administrative Supervisor, Child Nutrition 447-2468 Oll:l313100H:\u0026gt;S MO:1130008 11 S3:\u0026gt;l,\\M3S SS3HIS08 xi S30H\\/H:l13HHOSM3d 11 S3:\u0026gt;MOOS3M NVl'IOH 11111 91KOOl \\/OH30\\/ HOll\\/01\\/i\\3 9 'O A 1M31M\\/00/3Md \"\\/ 'llSHI Y wn,n:\u0026gt;IMMn:\u0026gt; 1111 barbara.blaineln'llrsd.orn: GamerCaroleBr@uams.edu Larrv. buckr@lrsd.org oedgersonr@uams.edu JMHENDRIXr@ualr.edu rnarian.lacevr@lrsd.om dmontgomen:(a),healthxarkansas.com wheelernarvr@uams.edu margo.bushmiaerr@lrsd.org j frenchhill(a),aristotle.net Stenhanie. walker.h vn ln'l lrsd.org 1H3Wd013i\\30 S31ll11:\u0026gt;\\/:1 v:1 A:\u0026gt;111od :oHIO\\t3M u~ a DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Quarterly Update Report BACKGROUND: The third quarterly written update (June 1) by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department was completed in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). This report includes descriptions of research activities related to four step-2 evaluations currently being conducted by Ors. Steven Ross and James Catterall, and lists four proposed step- 2 evaluations to be completed by these researchers next school year. Dr. Ross' team has completed nearly all its observations of classes and its surveys of principals, teachers, students, and parents participating in Compasslearning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE. Dr. Catterall is conducting interviews and surveys for the evaluation of Year-Round (Extended-Year) Education. Joshua and ODM along with other stakeholders took part in planning discussions for these evaluations. RATIONALE: The Court's remedy requires PRE to perform 8 \"step-2\" evaluations during this and next school years. FUNDING: Not Necessary RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept the Quarterly Update Report. DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda BACKGROUND: LRSD policy requires an annual Evaluation Agenda proposed to the Board of Directors outlining external evaluation activities with projected costs. During 2004-2005 PRE has engaged two outside consultants to evaluate four District programs. The 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda consists of five external evaluations:  4 \"Step-2\" program evaluations mandated by Judge Wilson in 2004, and  1 non-mandated evaluation recommended by the PRE department RATIONALE: LRSD is complying with U. S. District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67) to \"devise a comprehensive program assessment process\" which \"must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" In December 2004, the Board of Directors approved this process. It provides for a range of educational program evaluations with respect to their scientific rigor and complexity, and it requires participation by LRSD stakeholders in the design and execution of evaluations. In the same Opinion, the Court ordered, \"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.\" By \"step 2\" the court meant for evaluations to delve into underlying reasons for outcomes. The primary outcome that the Court directed the District to examine is the academic achievement of African-American students. The Opinion also instructs the PRE Department to cooperate with the outside consultants and encourages it to evaluate additional District programs. Court-Mandated Evaluations for 2005-2006: For step 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named on the following page. fl\n:c m ~ r .C...:. lz5 !='\n:c m D _mC: ztn n-t\n:c-., ~ l6 m 31: .~., ~ m .., :r me: ~~ z z\n:c mm r~ (\") C: ~~ 25 rn m tn 1. Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. Projected Cost: $30,000 2. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered there as an after-school program. Projected Cost: $30,000 3. 21 st Century Learning Centers offer a broad array of out-of-school support services, programs, and activities designed to help students meet academic standards and to increase student achievement. Projected Cost: $30,000 4. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Projected Cost: $50,000 Dr. Catterall will evaluate Arkansas A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, 21 st Century Learning Centers, and PreK literacy. Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk(*). Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data Percent Percent of Number Number of Students Schools of of Students Eligible for Teachers Students African- Free/Reduced American Lunch A+ Woodruff* 21 235 91 86 Knowledge Points Bale* 27 319 82 86 Brady* 28 318 78 80 Chicot* 44 536 73 86 Wakefield* 29 451 78 92 Watson* 34 456 96 93 .21 st Century Community Learning Centers Mabelvale Middle* 57 634 81 75 McClellan* 75 925 92 56 Henderson* 60 630 82 70 Hall* 105 1464 75 52 *These schools are designated for School Improvement. LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for !%' Four-Year-Old Students .\u0026gt;., ~\" No. of No. of Max. Enroll- No. of Per cent ~~ School Teachers Aides Students ment AA! AA mz en Cl Bale* 2 1 40 38 32 84.2 o  ~c3 Baseline* 2 1 40 39 32 82.1 6~ Brady* 2 1 40 37 27 73.0 \"D c\"i 31:-\u0026lt; m.., Carver 1 0 20 20 NAt NA .z... \u0026gt; Chicot* 4 2 80 59 46 78.0 Cloverdale* 2 1 40 40 32 80.0 Dodd 2 1 40 36 22 61.1 Fair Park*0 2 1 40 37 28 75.7 Forest Park 2 1 40 40 2 5.0 Franklin* 3 2 60 55 52 94.5 fl :,:, Fulbright 2 1 40 40 8 20.0 m ~ Geyer Springs 2 1 40 36 35 97.2 r- c..:.:. Jefferson 2 1 40 40 5 12.5 l5 z M. L. King* 4 2 60 80 46 57.5\n::: Mabelvale 2 1 40 38 31 81.6 ~ (J) z McDermott 2 1 40 40 27 67.5 \"' Meadowcliff 2 1 40 40 35 87.5 Otter Creek 2 1 40 39 22 56.4 Pulaski Heights 1 0 20 20 6 30.0 !=' Rightsell 1 1 40 38 38 100.0 ill 0 Rockefeller* 2 1 40 39 24 61.5 c:: _m zcn Romine 2 1 40 39 31 79.5 n-\u0026lt; ~~ Stephens* 4 2 80 78 72 92.3 en:,:, m!I: Terry 2 1 40 35 18 51 .4 ~ Wakefield* 2 1 40 39 29 74.4 r- \"D :,:, Washington* 4 2 80 75 67 89.3 c\"i m Watson* 2 1 40 36 34 94.4 Western Hills 1 0 20 37 20 54.1 Wilson* 1 0 20 18 16 88.9 Woodruff* 2 0 40 36 32 88.9 .\u0026gt; ~,... t AA is \"African American\". NA is \"not available\". \"D % me: :,:,5': * These schools are designated for School Improvement. ~z z 0 In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or z:,:, mm more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity. r- ~ nc:: ~ ~ Zm ~(J) (J) Non-mandated Evaluations: In addition to four court-mandated studies, PRE recommends a fifth external evaluation that will focus on Magnet Schools and Schools with Specialty Magnet Programs. Projected Cost: $60,000 The proposed Magnet School evaluation includes the study and evaluation of 18 magnet schools and specialty magnet programs within the Little Rock School District -- six Stipulated Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools and eight Specialty Magnet Programs. Stipulated Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). Percent of Percent of School Magnet School Students Eligible Students Theme African-American Free/Reduced Lunch1 Elementary Schools Booker Arts Magnet 53 63 Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science 52 53 International Studies/ 53 44 Gibbs Foreign Languages Williams Traditional Ma~inet 52 34 Middle Schools Mann Arts and Science 52 37 High Schools Parkview Arts and Science 51 22 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools and Themes - 2004-20052 Schools in this table which are desiqnated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Percent of Percent of Magnet School Students Eligible Students Theme African-American Free/Reduced Lunch3 Middle Schools Cloverdale  Engineering, Multimedia \u0026amp; Economics 8.2 86 Mabelvale  Medical Studies, Environmental Science and 81 75 1 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. 2 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools 3 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. Information Technoloav High Schools J.A. Fair* Science and technology Systems 85 54 McClellan* Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance 92 56 Special Magnet Program4 Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are desianated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). Percent of Percent of School Magnet School Students Eligible Students Theme African-American Free/Reduced Lunch5 Elementary Schools International, High King Intensity Learning 60 55 Rockefeller Early Childhood 67 66 Computer Science and Romine Basic Skills (lnterdistrict) 76 76 Washington * Basic Skills Math-Science 76 80 MaQnet (lnterdistrict) Middle Schools Dunbar * Gifted and Talented, 61 57 International Studies Henderson * Health Science 82 70 HiQh Schools Central International Studies 51 28 Hall* University Studies 75 52 4 These Specialty Programs are special programs which these schools offer. 5 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. ~\na m ~ r. e...:. z~ -0 :r m c: ~~ zz\na mm r- ~ C') C: :r\na \u0026gt;n Zm ~ en en All five external evaluations will seek to answer the following Primary Evaluation Question: Have the Programs been effective in improving students' academic achievement? How effective have they been among African-American students? To ensure that a full range of quantitative and qualitative data is collected, the evaluators will use a variety of data collection tools and activities. They are:  classroom observations and protocols  surveys of parents, teachers, and students  interviews of students, administrators, parents, teachers  focus groups  student work portfolios  district data, e.g., demographic data, standardized test scores  site- and district-generated program documents The evaluators will be required to adhere to Professional Standards for Program Evaluation and to provide a complete list of standards used. FUNDING: Total projected costs for five studies: $200,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board will approve the 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda. DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~1nior Director of Human Resources !=' ~ 0 _mC: z en n--\u0026lt;\nJD\"T1 ~ ~ m !C ~\ng n m r,, n 0 z en C: ~ z Cl ~ ~ IT' 31: rr Personnel Changes Page 2 June 23, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Agnew, April Tutor/ 1-3-05 Reason: Contract ended WILSON 6-6-05 Akdamar, Lynn Elementary IV/ 1-18-05 Reason: Contract ended WAKEFIELD 6-6-05 Anders, Mika Writing/ 9-29-03 Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Austin, Lori Speech Pathology/ 1-18-05 Reason: Contract ended MABEL VALE 6-29-05 ELEMENTARY Austin, Robert Chemistry/ 11-08-04 Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Baker, Deborah Reading Recovery/ 9-13-04 Reason: Contract ended STEPHENS 6-29-05 Balmaz, Bettye Elementary II/ 9-9-04 Reason: Contract ended BOOKER 6-6-05 Banks, Cal American History/ 1-23-89 Reason: Contract ended MABELVALE MIDDLE 6-6-05 Beard, Willliam Social Studies/ 9-1-04 Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Bedell, Lisette Elementary V/ 8-11 -04 Reason: Returning to school WILSON 7-31-05 Boyd, Debbye General Science/ 9-14-04 Reason: Contract ended ADULT EDUCATION 6-6-05 Branch, Samuel Principal/ 7-26-93 Reason: Retired FAIR PARK 6-13-05 Brown, Lori Elementary V/ 1-3-05 Reason: Contract ended FRANKLIN 6-6-05 Brown, Stephen Special Education/ 8-30-04 Reason: Contract ended MABEL VALE 6-29-05 ELEMENTARY SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 3-06 37665.00 TCH925 62-06 42576.00 SPE925 4-10 43818.00 TCH925 2-07 37318.00 TCH925 5-20 57276.00 TCH925 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 5-01 36134.00 TCH925 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 2-16 477 17.00 TCH925 69-20 79692.00 ADC11X 4-13 47284.00 TCH925 4-01 34575.00 SPE925 Personnel Changes Page 3 June 23, 2005 !:D ~ \"T1 M ,. ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ NAME POSITION / SCHOOL CLASS SALARY mz END DATE \"o'C'l ~~ 5r- Brown, Verlyn Tutor/ 8-11-04 1-10 39283.00 ~l\"i !:: -\u0026lt; Reason: Grantended FAIR PARK 6-6-05 TCH925 ~ .... Broyles, Tommy Examiner/ 10-25-04 61-15 54060.00 Reason: Contract ended HENDERSON 6-6-05 ADC105 Bryant, Sharon Title I/ 8-21-89 6-16 53898.00 Reason: Contract ended HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 r\u0026gt;\na m Buck, Virginia Elementary Ill/ 1-23-89 3-18 51874.00 ~ r- C: Reason: Retired CARVER 6-6-05 TCH925 .... ~ ::: Burleson, Kimberly Elementary I/ 3-8-05 4-08 41507.00 ~ U\u0026gt; Reason: Contract ended MCDERMOTT 6-6-05 TCH925 z \"' Butcher, Angee Elementary Ill/ 1-3-05 4-18 53061 .00 Reason: Contract ended CLOVERDALE 6-29-05 TCH925 !=' ELEMENTARY ~ 0 C: _m Cain, Mary Elementary II/ 8-23-04 1-08 32350.00 ZU\u0026gt; n-\u0026lt; Reason: Contract ended WAKEFIELD 6-6-05 TCH925\na.., ~o \"'\na m!:: Caruth, Phyllis Mathematics/ 8-23-76 6-21 60020.00 ~ ~ Reason: Contract ended IRC 6-6-05 TCH10\na l\"i m Crader, Jason Tutor/ 2-14-05 1-01 30040 00 Reason: Contract ended BALE 6-6-05 TCH925 Crosby, Anne Speech Pathology/ 9-15-76 62-20 64668.00 Reason: Retired SOUTHWEST/ 6-6-05 SPE925 !'\" MCDERMOTT (') 0z U\u0026gt; C: Davis, Marjorie Math Coach/ 10-25-04 4-13 47284 00 !:\nz Reason: Contract ended CLOVERDALE 6-6-05 TCH925 ,C.'l MIDDLE C'l\na ~ ~ rr Debow, Bradley Instrumental Music/ 2-7-05 4-05 38041.00 Reason: Contract ended PARKVIEW 6-6-05 TCH925 '?\" Fakouri, Cathy Social Studies/ 8-12-99 4-19 54561.00 Ill Reason: Retired PULASKI HEIGHTS 6-6-05 TCH925 C: \u0026gt;\u0026lt; 8 MIDDLE m Ill .... C: -.,!!! oz\nam Farrar, Neoma Elementary II/ 1-18-05 1-01 30040.00 !1:1:l :c U\u0026gt; Reason: Contract ended CHICOT 6-6-05 TCH925 ~i mm i\n\"' !:'.l ~ Personnel Changes Page4 June 23, 2005 NAME Fikes, Leslie Reason: Leaving the city Francis, Deanna Reason: Personal Gault, Amy Reason: Contract ended Hamilton, Claudia Reason: Retired Hammond, Terri Reason: Retired Harrison, Brenda Reason: Contract ended Henry, Lauren Reason: Contract ended Hill, Dorothy Reason: Contract ended Holloman, Berlinda Reason: Contract ended Holmes, Jane Reason: Leaving the city Hooper, Ruth Reason: Contract ended Howse, Marion Reason: Contract ended Howard-Klein, Risie Reason: Contract ended Hudgens, Donna Reason: Leaving the city Hughes, Alicia Reason: Contract ended POSITION/ SCHOOL Elementary Ill/ ROMINE 4 Yr Old/ ROCKEFELLER Special Education/ STEPHENS Specialist/ CARVER Elementary V/ JEFFERSON Special Education/ WILSON Kindergarten/ CARVER Elementary II/ MEADOWCLIFF Elementary I/ BOOKER Elementary V/ WILLIAMS Music/ TERRY/FULBRIGHT Guidance Counselor/ VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Biology/ CENTRAL Kindergarten/ MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY Elementary IV/ CHICOT START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-11-04 1-08 36972.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-1-01 2-06 36163.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-24-05 4-14 48439.00 6-29-05 SPE925 8-20-79 4-19 54561 .00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-24-87 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-2-04 2-16 47717.00 6-6-05 SPE925 10-4-04 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 TCH925 10-4-05 4-18 53061 .00 6-6-05 TCH925 2-15-05 1-09 38127.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-11 -04 1-01 30040.00 6-8-05 TCH925 11 -10-04 2-16 47717.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-9-03 6-21 60020.00 6-16-04 TCH950 8-18-05 4-09 42662.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-24-87 4-19 54561 .00 6-30-05 K925 10-6-04 1-09 38127 .00 6-6-05 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page 5 June 23, 2005 ?' - \"Tl M \u0026gt; ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ NAME POSITION / SCHOOL CLASS SALARY mz END DATE en C'\u0026gt; c ~~ Hunt, Marietta Music/ 8-29-88 4-19 ........ 54561.00 or\n\"ti-\u0026lt; Reason: Retired FOREST PARK 6-6-05 TCH925 1:..., !::1\u0026gt; -t Jackson, Marion Kindergarten/ 11-20-74 1-17 47715.00 Reason: Retired ROMINE 6-6-05 K925 Joiner-Tatum, Anna Assistant Principal/ 8-3-87 64-20 68652.00 Reason: Retired TERRY 6-13-05 TCH925 f)\n,c m Jones, Frances Assistant 8-24-87 79-20 107424.00 ~.... Reason: Retired Superintendent/ 6-30-05 ADC12 C: -t i5 SCHOOL SERVICES z\n:: ~ Jones, Freddie Arkansas History/ 8-27-74 5-20 57276.00 en z Reason: Retired J. A. FAIR 5-27-05 TCH925 \"' Jones, Vance Elementary V/ 8-24-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason: Contract ended DODD 6-6-05 TCH925 p\n,c m 0 C: Kahler, Mary Lou Assistant Principal/ 8-24-87 64-20 68652.00 _m zen n-\u0026lt; Reason : Retired KING 6-13-05 ADC105\nJC\"TI ~o en\n,c ml: Key, Shawn Spanish I/ 1-18-05 4-05 39196.00 ~ Reason: Contract ended J. A. FAIR 6-6-05 TCH925\n\",tci n m King , Patricia Elementary I/ 11-30-87 2-17 49217.00 Reason: Retired ROMINE 6-6-05 TCH925 Lawrence, Ryan Spanish I/ 8-11-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason None Given MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 TCH925 !\" n 0 Lawson, Karen Art/ 8-31-93 4-11 44973.00 z en C: Reason: Contract ended HALL 6-6-05 TCH925 !::\nz C') \u0026gt; Lloyd, Anna Music/ 10-8-04 1-01 30040.00 C')\n,c Reason: Contract ended DODD 6-6-05 TCH925 m \"ii': \"' Madden, Carrie Kindergarten/ 8-11-04 1-02 30617.00 Reason: Leaving the city WATSON 8-3-05 K925 .,. a, Martinez, Diana Tutor/ 2-7-05 1-01 30040.00 c: x Reason: Contract ended BASELINE 6-6-05 TCH925 8  mm -t C: ...,g? oz McCoy, Morlin Director/ 9-18-95 75-19 92520.00\n,cm ~m Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 6-30-05 ADC12 :r\"' ~~ mm In\"' !:l i5 Personnel Changes Page 6 June 23, 2005 NAME Miller, Monica Reason: None Given Mitchell, Avis Reason: Contract ended Moore, Julianna Reason: Personal Morgan, Keisha Reason: Leaving the city Nauden, Lou Ethel Reason: Retired Nickerson, Vickie Reason: Contract ended Nunez, Teresa Reason: Contract ended Ogren, Kathryn Reason: Contract ended Page, Taranah Reason: Contract ended Parr, Patricia Reason: Contract ended Phillips, Anna Reason: Retired Pinkard, Tawanna Reason: Contract ended Relford, Melvia Reason: Contract ended Rhines, Mico Reason: None Given Richardson , Joyce Reason: Contract ended POSITION/ SCHOOL Health/ HALL Elementary I/ STEPHENS Literacy Coach/ ROMINE Special Education/ MABELVALE MIDDLE Elementary I/ ROMINE Elementary I/ MCDERMOTT Mathematics/ HALL 4 Yr Old/ ROMINE Elementary V/ ROMINE Librarian/ STEPHENS Gifted and Talented/ ROMINE Mathematics/ HENDERSON Special Education/ CENTRAL Elementary II/ BOOKER Special Education/ HALL START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-14-97 4-07 40351 .00 6-16-05 TCH10 8-23-04 1-01 30040.00 6-29-05 TCH925 8-20-93 4-12 46128.00 6-6-05 TCH11 2-3-03 2-07 37318.00 5-27-05 SPE925 8-13-01 6-21 60020.00 5-24-05 TCH925 3-25-05 4-18 53061.00 6-6-05 TCH925 4-7-05 4-10 43818.00 6-6-05 TCH925 10-08-04 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 4YR925 9-27-04 1-02 30617.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-23-04 4-18 53061 .00 6-29-05 LIB950 8-24-87 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 G\u0026amp;T925 2-3-97 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-18-05 1-05 33506.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-14-95 2-11 41940.00 6-6-05 TCH925 2-22-05 1-16 46215.00 6-6-05 SPE925 Personnel Changes Page 7 June 23, 2005 !ll .., ~.. \u0026gt; ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ NAME POSITION / SCHOOL CLASS SALARY mz END DATE o\"'C'l ~\ng Ridley, Ronnie Physical Science/ 8-13-01 6-04 40034.00 5~ ~\u0026lt;\"5 :E:-\u0026lt; Reason: None Given CENTRAL 6-6-05 TCH925 m\"\" .z... \u0026gt; Rodgers, Annette 4 Yr Old/ 9-22-80 4-19 54561 .00 Reason: Retired WASHINGTON 6-6-05 4YR925 Robertson, Martha Elementary II/ 8-27-84 3-18 51874.00 Reason: Retired WESTERN HILLS 6-6-05 TCH925 f')\no m Rybard, Aleta English/ 8-16-93 1-04 32350.00 ~ r- Reason: Contract ended HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 C....:. i5 ~ Sandel, Cathryn Gifted and Talented/ 1-10-05 4-03 35730.00 r- ~ Reason: Contract ended ROCKEFELLER 6-6-05 G\u0026amp;T925 \"' z r:, Scheffer, Casey Elementary Ill/ 8-25-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason: Contract ended CARVER 6-6-05 TCH925 !='\no m Signaigo, Katherine Tutor/ 2-10-05 1-01 30040.00 0 C: Reason: Contract ended BALE 6-6-05 TCH925 _m Z\u0026lt;I\u0026gt; o-t\n,o-., ~o Slater, Carolyn Physical Education/ 8-25-69 4-19 54561.00 \"'' Reason: Retired HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 m! r- ~ ~ Smith, Donald Journalism/ 8-19-92 1-03 31195.00 m Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-16-05 TCH10 Smith, Elizabeth Music/ 8-16-93 1-17 47715.00 Reason: Leaving the city JEFFERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 rn Smith, Tunza ESL/ 1-3-05 1-01 30040.00 (\") 0 Reason: Contract ended CLOVERDALE 6-29-05 TCH925 z \"C': ELEMENTARY !:\nz C'l \u0026gt; Smith, Jr., Vernon Principal/ 8-10-87 76-20 98220.00 C'l\no Reason: Retired HALL 6-30-05 ADC12 m l'T' 3C rr Smith, Zachary Elementary II/ 8-2-04 1-03 31195.00 Reason: Leaving the city MITCHELL 6-29-05 TCH925 .,. a, Spearman, Kara Speech Pathology/ 8-9-00 62-09 46572.00 c: x 8 Reason : Accepted another FULBRIGHT 6-8-05 SPE925 mtll .... C: position -.,!!? oz\nom !Ii gi Spears, Marsha Elementary I/ 1-3-05 1-02 30617 .00 :r\"' Reason: Contract ended CARVER 6-6-05 TCH925 ~~ mm fn\"' !:l i5 Personnel Changes Page 8 June 23, 2005 NAME Stanley, Charles Reason: Accepted another position Stephens, Lisa Reason: Accepted another position Sullivan, Martha Reason: Contract ended Thomas, Homer Reason: Contract ended Todd, Tracye Reason: Accepted another position Turner, Marilyn Reason: Retired Turner, Ressie Reason: Contract ended Walker, Sharon Reason: Contract ended Walls, Alyson Reason: Contract ended West, Talisha Reason: Leaving the city Van Alstyne, Vicki Reason: Contract ended Whitby, Jennie Reason: Contract ended Williams, Beverly Reason: Accepted another position POSITION / SCHOOL Music/ ROMINE Kindergarten/ STEPHENS 4 Yr Old/ RIGHTSELL Social Studies/ ALC English/ FOREST HEIGHTS Elementary Ill/ FAIR PARK English/ ALC Mathematics/ ALC Business Education/ PARKVIEW 4 Yr Old/ FAIR PARK Special Education/ FRANKLIN Kindergarten/ BRADY Senior Director/ HUMAN RESOURCES START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-11-04 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-1-00 1-09 38127 .00 6-29-05 K925 11-15-04 1-16 46215.00 6-6-05 4YR925 9-9-04 6-13 50432.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-17-02 4-03 35730.00 8-01-05 TCH925 8-23-68 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 TCH925 11-02-04 2-03 32697.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-13-04 4-05 38041.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-20-04 1-01 30040.00 6-7-05 TCH925 8-7-03 1-02 30617.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-3-05 1-10 39283.00 6-6-05 SPE925 2-22-05 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 K925 7-1-02 79-20 107424.00 6-30-05 ADC12 Personnel Changes Page9 June 23, 2005 !I\" \u0026gt;\"Tl -\"~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ mz CLASS SALARY NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE enc, c ~ i3 New Certified Employees 6~ -.,i\"I ii:-\u0026lt; m..., .z... \u0026gt; NONE Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Brown, Dewayne Custodian/ 8-23-04 31-01 11379.00 Reason: Accepted another BALE 6-1-05 CUS925 r\u0026gt; \"m' position i..s.. C: Collins, Mabel Child Nutrition/ 8-12-03 1-02 8547 .00 .... i5 Reason: Retired ALC 6-6-05 FSH5 z\n: ~ en Cunningham, Shawntell CARE/ 8-28-00 2-04 8.01 z (Co Reason: Personal CARE 6-3-05 CARE per hour Dangerfield, Mary Child Nutrition/ 9-22-97 3-08 9667.00 !=' Reason: Personal PULASKI HEIGHTS 6-3-05 FSH550 \"' MIDDLE m 0 C: _m zn -etn Hamilton, Ronita CARE/ 9-13-04 1-08 8.05 ,,,..., ~o Reason: None Given CARE 6-3-05 CARE per hour en\n,::, mi Harris, Earnestine Child Nutrition/ 10-7-85 3-17 10077.00 .., \"n' Reason: Retired WASHINGTON 6-6-05 FSH550 m McDonald, Keri Instructional Aide/ 10-13-03 33-17 16595.00 Reason: Leaving the city JEFFERSON 6-7-05 INA925 Mondy, Lisa Security Officer/ 1-2-04 36-11 15929.00 !\"Tl Reason: None Given BALE 6-3-05 SOFR9 n 0 z en C: Moore, Regina Secretary/ 8-10-89 44-20 37788.00 ........ z Reason: Accepted another ESL 6-30-05 CLK12 C) \u0026gt; C) position \"m' rr :i:: Neal, Shellie Child Nutrition/ 10-6-03 3-15 7066.00 rr Reason: Retired WILSON 6-6-05 FSH4 Palmer, Gladys Custodian/ 8-11-03 31-03 12085.00 .,,. tXJ Reason: Job Abandonment CENTRAL 5-13-05 CUS928 C: 5\u0026lt; 8  m Dl .... C: Springer, Pamela Instructional Aide/ 11-27-00 33-11 13875.00 ...,!!! oz\n,::, rn Reason: Returning to school WILLIAMS 6-6-05 INA925 ~~ :z: gi ~~ m,n i\n\"' !:l i5 Personnel Changes Page 10 June 23, 2005 NAME Weeks, Peggy Reason: Retired Walker, Matthew Reason: Job Abandonment Wallace, Robert Reason: Retired Young, Valerie Reason: None Given Allen, Donald Brown, Denise Dalsanto, Judy Griffin, Beverly Hudson, Valerie Seahorn, Lora Spears, Anita Taylor, Blondell START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Secretary/ 11-28-84 39-20 32544.00 WESTERN HILLS 8-1-05 CLK10 Custodian/ 9-3-03 31-03 12085.00 CENTRAL 5-13-05 CUS928 Maintenance/ 12-14-81 46-18 37788.00 FACILITY SERVICES 6-30-05 MAINT Instructional Aide/ 8-12-99 33-17 16595.00 MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 INA925 New Non-Certified Employees NONE Non-Certified Promotions Promoted from Security Supervisor Grade 55 to Security Supervisor Grade 57 Promoted from File Clerk Grade 43 to Administrative Assistant Grade 46 Promoted from Secretary Grade 42 to Secretary Grade 44 Promoted from Executive Assistant Grade 58 to Senior Executive Assistant Grade 60 Promoted from Coordinator Grade 54 to Executive Assistant Grade 57 Promoted from Secretary Grade 42 to Secretary Grade 44 Promoted from Administrative Assistant Grade 46 to Administrative Assistant Grade 56 Promoted from Secretary Grade 42 to Secretary Grade 46 DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Principal for Hall High School BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Hall High School. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Vernon Smith, Jr. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Mr. John Bacon, to the position of Principal at Hall High School. Mr. Bacon's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~nior Director of Human Resources !J:l !=' ~ D _mC zcn n\no- .\u0026lt;., ~~ en\ns:: m~ ~ m JOHN BACON PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1608 Pine Valley Road Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 663-6153 Feb 1995-Present Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR Principal, Dunbar Gifted and Talented E duattwn/lntemational Studies Magnet Middk Schoo/, Ou! 2001-Present)  Provide strategic, operational, and instructional leadership for a middle school consisting of grades 6-8 with student enrollment of approximately 800 and an 80 member staff. Ass is tant Principal, Dunbar Gifted and Talented E duattwn/ International Studies Magnet Middk Schoo/, Ou! 1999-Jun 2001) Assistant Principal, Omerdalejunior Hiff\nAcademj0an]un 1999)  Managed student discipline referrals.  CDmpleted employee performance appraisals.  Served as a member of the campus leadership team  CDordinated building transportation and athletic programs. EAST Program Coordinator/Vocational Business Teacher, McClellan Business and TedmdugyMagnet Hirfa Schoo/, (Aug-Dec 1998)  Planned and facilitated the Environmental and Spatial Technology program  Instructed several computer applications courses.  Served as a member of the technology committee. Business Teacher, Pulaski Hei,rfats ]umar Hirfa (Aug 1996-Jun 1998)  Instructed courses in computer technology and career orientation.  Provided leadership for a team of related arts teachers.  Served as a member of the campus steering committee.  Provided assistance as a substitute building administrator. Intern/Long Term Substitute Teacher,]. A. Fair Hirfa Schoo/, OanJun 1996)  Taught courses in keyboarding applications and accounting. Substitute Teacher (Feb-Dec 1995)  Served as a substitute teacher at the secondary level. EDUCATION CERTIFICATION Gm-ently pursuing Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR Graduate hours (21) in education for certification University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR Master of Education in Secondary Education, May 1996 University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR Master of Business Administration, May 1994 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA Bachelor of Science in Public Administration, May 1992 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR (cum laude) Arkansas secondary principal, secondary-bus\"Ine\ns education teacher, vocational endorsement, career orientation endorsement RELATED EXPERIENCES RELATED SKILLS  eru\n.ently sexving as 3rd Vice-President fo~ theLittle Rock PTA Council  Gm-ently setving as Chainnan of the Arkansas Commission for Coordination of Educational Efforts (since 2004)  Sexved as C.0-President of Little Rock School District Principals Roundtable (2003-2004)  Sexved as Assistant Principal for the Accelerated Learning Center 12th Grade Summer School program (summer 2000, summer 2001)  Participated as a teacher in the Little Rock School District Vital Link Program - a summer job shadowing program for sixth grade students (summers 1997, 1998, 1999)  Experienced at class instruction .md supetv1S1on within traditional schedule and flexible/block schedule  Assisted in the decision-making process for converting a junior high school to a middle school  Completed training program on the Fred Jones Model for Effective Oassroom Management r\u0026gt; :c rn .i..s.. .C..:. ~ z PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 11 , 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year: POSITION: Principal - Hall High School OUALIFICA TIONS: 1. At least five (5) years ' successful teaching experience and/or administration. 2. A master's degree or higher, with eligibility for Arkansas certification as a secondary principal. 3. Knowledge of curriculum development and successful teaching methods. 4. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. 5. Evidence of ability to set priorities, supervise and train personnel and make appropriate decisions. 6. Evidence of ability to function as a member of an administrative team. 7. Evidence of ability to become a competent educational leader in both curriculum and instruction. 8. Evidence of ability to maintain accurate inventories, records and reports. 9. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. 10. Evidence of strong skills in meeting and dealing with the public in a manner that will promote a positive image of the Little Rock School District. 11 . Evidence of strong commitment to quality integrated education. 12. Strong interpersonal skills. 13. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 14. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. 15. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To successfully plan, organize, implement, supervise, and evaluate the total operation of the school. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports directly to Associate Superintendent - Secondary Education ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility for the management and monitoring of his/her school, and serves as the chief advisor to the Assistant Superintendent on matters pertaining to administration and program implementation in his/her school. 2. Implements the process whereby school-level educational program needs are identified, alerts Assistant Superintendent regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 3. Works with staff and patrons to determine educational program priorities and goals for his/her school. 4. Oversees the development of educational programs and the plans for implementing them on the school level. 5. Seeks the necessary consultative and logistical support to assure effective educational program implementation. 6. Monitors program implementation in his/her school. 7. Works with supervisor and building staff to make the necessary changes. 8. Assumes responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assumes responsibility for all record keeping and other administrative tasks normally assigned to the principal. I 0. Performs other duties as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Pay 01 - Grade 76 - $55,704 - $98,220 - Twelve (12) month, 250 day contract, plus benefit package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon experience and education. EVALUATIO : Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. !='\n,\n:, m D _mC: z U) n--\u0026lt;\n,\n,-n ~~ U) !I: m~ .r., 2n:! m !\"Tl n 0 z U) C: ~ z Cl ~ ~ m 31: rr APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 30, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INOUIRYTO: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Martin Luther King Elementary BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Martin Luther King Elementary. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Mary Kahler. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Diane Rynders, to the position of Assistant Principal at Martin Luther King Elementary. Ms. Rynders' resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williams~ior Director of Human Resources ~ ::0 m D _mC: ~ !!l ::0\"T1 ~~ Ch ii: m~ ,- ~ m r\" (\") 0 z (JI C: !:\nz C\"l ~ ~ :I: rr Education : Certification: Employment: Diane Rynders 1212 Dortch Loop , North Little Rock, Arkansas 72117 501-590-0389 or 501-447-7474 MED - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Gifted and Talented MED - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Reading Specialist BSE - University of Arkansas at Fayetteville Elementary and Early Childhood Education K-6 Elementary Reading Specialist K-12 Gifted and Talented K-12 Elementary Principal Supervisor 1989- Present - Coordinator of Gifted Programs - LRSD 1985 - 1989 - Adjunct Instructor - UALR 1985 - 1989 - Supervisor of Gifted Programs - O.U.R. Co-op 1980 - 1984 - Fifth Grade Teacher - LRSD 1978 - 1980 - Second/Third Grade Teacher - Fort Campbell, KY Professional Experience: Odyssey of the Mind State Director AGATE State Conference Chair NAGC National Conference Chair Director of (7) AEGIS Residential Summer Programs for HS students Arkansas Governor's Academic Quiz Bowl Site Host Professional Organizations: Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education (AGATE) AGATE Board of Directors AGATE Council of Educators Odyssey of the Mind Board of Directors National Association of Gifted Children Arkansas Assoc. of Gifted Educational Administrators Charter Member Awards: 1995 AGATE Martha Ann Jones Service Award 1990 AGATE Challenger Award 6/8/2005 Experience as LRSD Gifted Coordinator: As Gifted Coordinator in the LRSD, I hove supervised the 34 elementary gifted specialists and coordinated the elementary gifted program. I have been instrumental in the development of the gifted and talented curriculum and in the designing and implementation of a defensible identification process. I have provided and guided the gifted specialists through staff development in the areas of gifted and general education and have monitored gifted programs at the building level. I have established and successfully implemented the District Quiz Bowl Competitions, the Fifth Grade Challenges, and the District Wide Chess Tournament. I have also served on various LRSD curriculum teams/committees including school audits, professional development, and curriculum alignment/development. Curriculum Areas of Expertise:  Differentiation of Instruction  Constructivist Approach to Instruction  Instructional Strategies/Multiple Intelligences  Curriculum Alignment with District/State Standards  Portfolio Assessment  Integration of Technology in the Curriculum  Enrichment/Acceleration  Thematic Units/Essential Questions  Curriculum Mapping  Integration/Product Development through Instruction  Current Trends in Gifted Education References: Mable Donaldson, Supervisor, LRSD Gifted Programs Ann Biggers, Gifted and Talented Program Director, ADE Lauro Beth Arnold , Social Studies Grant Director, LRSD Kristen Laughlin, GT Specialist, Forest Park, LRSD Cynthia Collins, GT Specialist, Jefferson/McDermott, LRSD Personal : Married to Michael Rynders Two sons: Jonathan (18) and Nicholas (14) Arkansas Race for the Cure Survivor Parade Chairperson Past Youth Director , All Souls Church Past Boord of Directors , All Souls Church !1 .. .. : l  6/8/2005 rn (\") 0z (/) C !:\nz G'l ~\no m m 3: m PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220 I June I, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant l\n'rincipal - King Elementary OUALIFICA TIONS: 1. Master's degree (minimum) or higher with Arkansas License as an elementary principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Knowledge of curriculum development and instruction. 5. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff. 6. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in being a strong disciplinarian and conflict manager. I 0. Completion of State Evaluation Workshop. 11. Ability to evaluate instructional program and teacher effectiveness. 12. Ability to interpret policy, procedures and data. 13. Strong interpersonal skills. 14. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 15. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDE CE OF THESE OUALIFICATIO SIN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. ACCOUNTABILITY Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS I RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility of coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 2. Supervises conducts within the school, and oversees disciplinary procedures, keeping records of any disciplinary action. 3. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducts inventories, maintains records, and checks on receipts for such materials. 4. Cooperates in conducting of safety inspection and safety drill activities. 5. Works with the principal in the preparation of the Parent/Student Handbook and the Staff handbook. 6. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 7. Assists the principal in the general administration of the school. 8. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assists in parent recruitment for the PT A and other parent involvement activities. 10. Support and participate in the unique year-round program for Stephens Elementary School and Recreation Center. 11. Attends staff meetings, serve on committees, and assumes responsibility for extracurricular activities as assigned by the principal. 12. Fosters collegiality and team building among staff members. 13. Communicates and promotes expectations for high-level performance to staff and students. 14. Makes commitment and time necessary for participation in district/school sponsored staff development and become computer literate. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. fl\n,\n, m ~,... C: -\u0026lt; i5 z ,... ~ \"z' \"' !=' ~ D _mC: ~ ~\n,\n,-n ~ l6 \"'!I:: m~ .,...,.\n,\n, n m rn n 0 z \"C': !:j z C) l\n~ m 31: rr SALARY AND TERMS: Payl0 - Grade 64 - $38,928 - $68,652 - A ten and one-half (10.5) month contract (210 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: June 1, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Rockefeller Elementary BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Rockefeller Elementary. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Becky Ramsey. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Sandra Register, to the position of Assistant Principal at Rockefeller Elementary. Ms. Register's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~nior Director of Human Resources !D ~ ::0 m ~..... .C...: ~z !=' ~ 0 _mC: z en n--\u0026lt; ::O\"TI ~~ en !I:: m~ ..... -0 ::0 n m Sandra L. Register # 6 Lisawood Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 501224-8105 CAREER OBJECTIVE To obtain employment in an elementasy administrative position where opportunities for professional development and advancement exist. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education, Certification in Early Childhood, University of Arkansas Little Rock, August 1978. Master of Science in Early Childhood, University of Central Arkansas, August 1980. CAREER RELATED EXPERIENCE Student Teacher, Franklin Elementary School, Little Rock. Arkansas, Spring,. 1978. Math Lab Teacher, Williams Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1978-1979. Taught math instruction to students in K-3rd grade. Math Lab Teacher, Jefferson Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1979-1981. OTHER EXPERIENCE Kindergarten Teacher, Jefferson Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, January 1979 to June 1995. Kindergarten Teacher, Hugh Goodwin Elementary School, El Dorado, Arkansas August 1995 to June 1998. Principal, Hugh Goodwin Elementary, El Dorado, Arkansas, September 2002 to January 2003. Principal, Retta Brown Elementary, El Dorado, Arkansas, July 1998 to June 2003. Second Grade Teacher, Terry Elementary, Little Rock, Arkansas, August 2003 to June 2004. Assistant Principal, Rockefeller Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, August 2004- present. HONORS AND ACTIVITIES Delta Kappa Gamma Society Internacional, 1996-Present Arkansas Reading Association, 1995-Present Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, 1998-Present Arkansas Association of Elementary School Principals, 1998-Present REFERENCES WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 5, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant Principals (2) -(1) Terry Elementary School ( 1) Rockefeller Elementary QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree (minimum) or higher with Arkansas License as an elementary principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Knowledge of curriculum development and instruction. 5. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff. 6. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in being a strong disciplinarian and conflict manager. 10. Completion of State Evaluation Workshop. 11. Ability to evaluate instructional program and teacher effectiveness. 12. Ability to interpret policy, procedures and data. 13. Strong interpersonal skills. 14. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 15. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. f)\na m is ~_, i5 z r\"' ~ en z \"' JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. ACCOUNT ABILITY Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility of coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 2. Supervises conducts within the school, and oversees disciplinary procedures, keeping records of any disciplinary action. 3. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducts inventories, maintains records, and checks on receipts for such materials. 4. Cooperates in conducting of safety inspection and safety drill activities. 5. Works with the principal in the preparation of the Parent/Student Handbook and the Staff handbook. 6. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 7. Assists the principal in the general administration of the school. 8. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assists in parent recruitment for the PTA and other parent involvement activities. 10. Support and participate in the unique year-round program for Stephens Elementary School and Recreation Center. 11. Attends staff meetings, serve on committees, and assumes responsibility for extracurricular activities as assigned by the principal. 12. Fosters collegiality and team building among staff members. 13. Communicates and promotes expectations for high-level performance to staff and students. 14. Makes commitment and time necessary for participation in district/school sponsored staff development and become computer literate. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. SALARY AND TERMS: Payl0 - Grade 64 - $38,928 - $68,652 -A ten and one-half (10.5) month contract (210 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 20, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis ofage, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. !Jl r\u0026gt; :,0 m ,~.... C...:. ~ z !=' ~ 0 _mC: ~~ :,o-n ~~ (/)~ m~ .,....,. :,0 n m !Tl n 0 z (/) C: !:\nz Cl ~ ~ m :,,I.:. DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Terry Elementary BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Terry Elementary. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Anna Joiner-Tatum. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Eloise Booth, to the position of Assistant Principal at Terry Elementary. Ms. Booth's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williams~:r Director of Human Resources Eloise Jeannette Booth 12606 Timber Hill Drive Little Roci\u0026lt;, Arkansas 72211 501-312-1317 eloise. booth@lrsd.org ===-================--==========-==-=--====--=-=------------- Experience: Little Rock School District- Little Rock, Arkansas Rockefeller Elementary- July 1999-2001 Stephens Elementary- July 2001-2004 Terry Elementary-October 2004-Preaent Camden-Fairview School District.Camden, Arkansas July 1986-1999 5th Grade Middle School Teacher, Assistant Principal, \u0026amp; Principal El Dorado School District 1979-1985 6th \u0026amp; 4th Grade Teacher Ouachita Area Development Corporation (YMCA)- Camden, Arkansas 1969-74 Payroll/Bookkeeper Education: Southern Arkansas University- Magnolia, Arkanaae Bachelor of Science, Elementary Education, 1979 Ouachita Baptist University-Arkadelphia, Arkansas 72193 Master of Science, Elementary Education, 1982 Henderson State University-Arkadelphia, Arkaneae 72193 Master of Science, Educational Administration and Supervision, 1985 rn n 0 z \"c:': !:j z Cl li ::,) m m ~ Certification: Arkansas Deparbnent of Education Professional Teaching Licenee Arkansas Department of Education Elementary Principal Certification Leardership: Camden-Fairview School District-HIPPY Board President.. Equity Committee, Camden City Planning Commission, International Paper Advisory Board, Kiwanae, COE Chair, ACSIP Team, Outstanding Young Women of America, Nominated Principal of the Year, District Discipline Committee, Leadership Adcademy. Rockefeller and Stephens Elementary- Administrative Team, Teacher and Staff Evaluations, School-Wide Discipline Committee, TAP Certification, Parent and Student Handbook, Supervision and Scheduling of Instructional Aides, Transportation (Bus) Coordinator, 504 Coordianator, ESL Training, EYE Intersession Director, Campus Leadership Tean References: Avallable upon Request PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 5, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant Principals (2) -(1) Terry Elementary School ( 1) Rockefeller Elementary QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree (minimum) or higher with Arkansas License as an elementary principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Knowledge of curriculum development and instruction. 5. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff. 6. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experiencewith parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in being a strong disciplinarian and conflict manager. 10. Completion of State Evaluation Workshop. 11. Ability to evaluate instructional program and teacher effectiveness. 12. Ability to interpret policy, procedures and data. 13. Strong interpersonal skills. 14. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 15. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREEN! G INTERVIEW. !='\n:c m 0 _mC zcn (\")-\u0026lt;\n:c-.. !j!\n!l5 \"m'!:j!1\n:! r- ~ m rn (\") 0z \"C ' !:j z Cl a\n:c ~ :ii: \"' JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. ACCOUNTABILITY Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS I RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility of coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 2. Supervises conducts within the school, and oversees disciplinary procedures, keeping records of any disciplinary action. 3. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducts inventories, maintains records, and checks on receipts for such materials. 4. Cooperates in conducting of safety inspection and safety drill activities. 5. Works with the principal in the preparation of the Parent/Student Handbook and the Staff handbook. 6. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 7. Assists the principal in the general administration of the school. 8. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assists in parent recruitment for the PT A and other parent involvement activities. 10. Support and participate in the unique year-round program for Stephens Elementary School and Recreation Center. 11. Attends staff meetings, serve on committees, and assumes responsibility for extracurricular activities as assigned by the principal. 12. Fosters collegiality and team building among staff members. 13. Communicates and promotes expectations for high-level performance to staff and students. 14. Makes commitment and time necessary for participation in district/school sponsored staff development and become computer literate. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. SALARY AND TERMS: Payl 0 - Grade 64 - $38,928 - $68,652 -A ten and one-half (10.5) month contract (210 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 20, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTIO PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITIO DOES OT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. !ll fl \"m' ~ re:..... \u0026lt;5 z !\"' n 0 z U\u0026gt; C: !:j z Cl ~ ~ m ~ DATE: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Annual School Election BACKGROUND: In order to satisfy various legal requirements concerning school elections, budget publication, and school tax rates, the Board of Directors must approve a proposed budget for the 2006-2007 school year together with a rate of tax levy sufficient to provide such funds. RATIONALE: The requirement for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time ... not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election. (Ark. Code Ann .  6-13-622) FUNDING: Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures and tax levy for 2006-2007 as attached for publication in accordance with State law. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer !Tl n 0 z C/) C: !:\nz C) ~ Rl \"31': rr PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2006 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2007 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Amendments No. 40 and No. 7 4 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and of Arkansas Code Ann.  6- 13-622 (1993 Repl.) has prepared, approved, and hereby makes public the proposed budget of expenditures together with a supporting tax rate as follows: 1. Salary Fund Expenditures 2. Instructional Expense 3. Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense 4. Pupil Transportation Expense 5. Other Operating Expense 6. Non-bonded Debt Payment 7. Bonded Debt Payment 8. Building Fund Expense 9. Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation $111,529,328.00 $ 25,881,109.00 $ 14,611,898.00 $ 14,396,284.00 $ 36,274,934.00 $ 655,000.00 $ 12,000,030.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 5,200,000.00 The total tax levy proposed includes 32.0 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools, 12.4 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness, and 2.0 mills for current expenditures/dedicated maintenance and operation expenditures. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. The total proposed rate includes the uniform rate of tax to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. The proposed rate includes no increases. Given this 23rd day of June, 2005. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County Larry Berkley, President Katherine Mitchell, Secretary DATE: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: First Reading - Board Policy FA: New Facilities Development Goal BACKGROUND: The promotion of buildings that are environmentally responsible is at the forefront of planning for energy and resource conservation at the local, state and national levels. The District is committed to contributing to the environmental and economic sustainability of our City and State. RATIONALE: In an effort to promote a positive effect on the City's environment and healthy places for students to learn and employees to work, the attached policy is presented for the Board's approval. New construction of District buildings will utilize sustainable design practices that will decrease the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupant health while reducing operating and maintenance costs. FUNDING: Bond Account RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Board approve Policy FA as attached. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer r\u0026gt; ~ ~ E.... iz5 8 z ~ 0z \"' ..0.. ,, ~ \"C IT' ::c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: FA New Facilities Development Goal The Board of Education is committed to promoting the conservation of energy and natural resources for new construction of District facilities. This approach will provide a positive effect on the City's environment and ensure healthy places for students to learn and employees to work. The promotion of buildings that are environmentally responsible is at the forefront of planning for energy and resource conservation at the local, state and national levels. The District will join in this effort through planning, designing, constructing and operating District-owned buildings and facilities by utilizing sustair:,able design practices that will decrease the negative impact of building on the environment and occupant health while reducing operating and maintenance costs. The District will adopt the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-NC) rating system for new construction of District-owned facilities (or other nationally recognized rating system). Adopted: References: U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Resolution for Leasing Authority BACKGROUND: Verizon Communications Corporation, in conjunction with Excell Communications, Inc., has requested that the Little Rock School District lease to them three small parcels of property at Central, Parkview, and McClellan High Schools for the sole purpose of erecting communications relay towers to support their telephone systems. The three tower-sites, shown on the attached drawings, are as follows: A. Central High School - inside the stadium wall near the seating area on the east side of Quigley Field. B. Parkview High School - approximately 150 feet west of the Performing Arts Building. C. McClellan High School - east of the football stadium and approximately 150 feet from the south property line. Each of these sites will support a 150-foot monopole. RATIONALE: The Little Rock School District has granted to Excell Communications, Inc., entry and testing agreements through which this corporation is testing the sites to determine their suitability for situating a monopole in these locations. The leasing of these properties has been coordinated with the school principals, and it has been determined that the sites will not impact any of the operations presently ongoing at the schools. Other private locations and school districts are entertaining similar leases to support this nationwide communication system. ~?\u0026lt; me-, :IC,-, a- o (/) 0-\u0026lt; z- m c, m\na :i::m ~~ !\"\" n 0 z (/) C: !:\nz C) l!i ~ 31: rr FUNDING: The proposed term of the leased property would be twenty-five years, consisting of a five-year initial term and four five-year extensions. The overall revenue of $1,213,628 to be received by the District consists of a monthly rent of $1 ,000 per site beginning at construction with 15% increases after each five-year term. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution allowing the Administration to enter into lease negotiations with Verizon Communications Corporation. PREPARED BY: Douglas Eaton, Director of Facility Services Mark D. Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR LEASING AUTHORITY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-13-620 authorizes the board of directors for each school district to lease property as lessor\nand WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-21-108(c) requires that the execution of all contracts and conveyances and lease contracts shall be performed by the president and confirmed by the secretary of the school board when authorized by a resolution in writing and approved by a majority vote of the school board\nand WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, has requested the school district to lease to Verizon wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, real property at the Central International Studies High School, McClellan Magnet High School and Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School locations for the purpose of locating towers and certain equipment that will facilitate wireless communications and other related transmissions\nand WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District will receive rent from Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for such leases. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors that: The Administration is hereby authorized to enter into leases with Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, related to the Central International Studies High School, McClellan Magnet High School and Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School locations. Given this 23rd day of June, 2005 Larry Berkley, President Katherine Mitchell, Secretary rn n 0 z en C: !:\nz Cl ~ ~ 3: IT' I lll ~-EXISTING STADIUM SEATING --- --- ~---- /1 \\\\ I EXISTING FOOTBALL FIELD \\ / ---- - EXISTING TRACK EXISTING STADIUM SEATING Ill D  EXISTING _/ BRICK BUILDING PROPOSED BRICK WALL TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK BUILDING ~ / ~ ~ - PROPOSED MONOPOLE CENTRAL HIGH NOT SCHOOL SITE TO SCALE EXISTING FOOTBALL FIELD PLAN EXISTING PROPERTY UNE/F'ENCf [7 - EXISTING STADIUM SEATING  EXISTING FOOTBALL flELD EXISTING - POWER PO!S PROPOSED. 75'x75' f1:NC0 COMPOUNQ PROPOSED NEW 150 MONOPOLE EXISTING STADIUM SEATING 75' o EXISTING PRACTICE FlflD _G-= _-- - - -- -=-=:::L.-==--=-=-=----=-=-=--==--==--===--===--==--==-===--==--==------'-----------_j U:13d0Md ~O SNOll VNOO '~ MCCLELLAN HIGH NOT SCHOOL TO SCALE SITE 3S\\/3H:\u0026gt;NI 311i33MlV lNlllOSNO:\u0026gt; 3 3:\u0026gt;IMd 7\\f3W HO~ 1S3003H o J\\f3H 33A07dW3 \"IX JVW3H ONIS07:\u0026gt; x PLAN lHOd3H 1'9'1:\u0026gt;NVNI~ o VERIZON PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH QL__ ________ ___,, er: 1-------R_rv_E _____: i s\n0 - , er: I ' er: \u0026lt;{ co I' I I ' , ,' I' I I z I 0  / ,: UNPAV ED PARKING AREA -, r 0 l[) N    175' telco 8771.W2ah LTRLARRB HHGB67 DSA2124 ,7775' r PROPOSED NEW150' MONOPOLE NOTTO SCALE , , : I I I' I I I I : : I I I I 'I I I : 1 Ac i: cess lat 34 43 51.42 long -92 22 19.3 AMSL 410' I I I I ' I I I I I I Auditorium I I UNPAVED PARKING AREA CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL PHONE 501 447-2300 p arcel ID 44L-082-00-033-00 30ACRES athletic bldg n LRPVHSA G. FINANCIAL REPORT t: ~_f' . X. CLOSING REMAf XI. EMPLOYEE HEAi ,J :\ni D. REQUEST FOR MEAL PRICE INCREASE E. CONSULTING AGREEMI: F. DONATIONS Or PROPl:R r DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Breakfast and Lunch Meal Price Increase BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Child Nutrition Department supports the School Meals Program from funds received from the service of reimbursable meals. The prices for the meals claimed at the reduced rate are set by USDA, and the prices for the meals claimed in the full-paid category are set by the Board of Directors for the school district. The Child Nutrition Department works to operate basically as a self sufficient entity of the district. RATIONALE: For the Child Nutrition meals program to remain basically self supporting and continue to provide high quality service for our customers, the meal prices must be raised. Food and labor costs increase at a rate of 3% to 5% each year, and, for Child Nutrition, labor costs increased at a rate of 10% the past year. Traditionally, manufacturers pass on to the customer any economic impact that they are experiencing due to gas wars or food production restrictions and other variables. The USDA reimbursement rates for Child Nutrition programs are based on program costs exclusive of a fringe benefit package. The present funds to the program are not adequate for sufficiency and growth. We propose that the breakfast meal price is increased by $.25 at each level and that the lunch meal price is increased by $.50 at each level. For the 2005-2006 school year the meal prices will be as follows: BREAKFAST Elementary - $1.00 Secondary - 1.00 Adults - 1.25 LUNCH Elementary - $2.00 Secondary - 2.25 Adults - 2.75 The current meal prices for Little Rock School District Child Nutrition have been in effect since the 2002-2003 school year. ~ \u0026gt; 0 5 C:\n:o z\nc zm ..... FUNDING: At the present level of participation, the proposed price increases will generate approximately $340,000.00 additional revenue for the program. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Board approve the prepared meal prices for School year 2005- 2006. PREPARED BY: Morlin M. McCoy, Director of Child Nutrition Mark D. Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: CONSUL TING AGREEMENT BACKGROUND: The Board approved the recommendations of the organizational audit on March 24, 2005, completing Phase I of the process to restructure the District's administration. Phase I recommendations are being implemented and administrative staff is being assigned to fill the vacancies and positions that will result in a more streamlined and efficient operation. RATIONALE: Phase II and 111 of the reorganization will provide the support systems necessary to ensure an efficient transition to the restructured operations. Technical assistance and support is required in order to affect the most orderly and effective use of our resources. Exhibit A of the proposed contract has been revised to take into consideration your input and comments. The exhibit provides specific details of services to be rendered by the consultants, Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval to enter into the consulting agreement with Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. FUNDING: Payment of consulting fees and expenses are specified in the attached agreement. PREPARED BY: Mark Milhollen, CFO ~ \u0026gt; C a C\nc z !I: zm --, CONSULTING AGREEMENT This CONSUL TING AGREEMENT (this \"Agreement\") is executed effective as of this 23rd day of June, 2005, by and between the Little Rock School District (the \"District\"), and Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen (collectively, the \"Consultant\"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, District oversees the operation of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas public school system\nWHEREAS, Consultant has significant experience and expertise in defining organizational structure, standardized protocols and procedures, governance and management, results-based strategic planning, performance and accountability systems, and issue resolution/ decision-making procedures focused on improving student achievement and will be based upon effective school practices for schools\nand WHEREAS, the District desires to retain the services of Consultant as a consultant and independent contractor to District to focus the District, the Board and administration on more effective use of resources, increased accountability, enhanced community perception, improved morale and increased student achievement, all upon the terms and conditions contained herein\nNOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. ENGAGEMENT. The District hereby engages Consultant as a consultant and independent contractor, and Consultant  hereby accepts such engagement, upon the terms and conditions contained herein. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006, subject to Paragraph 8 below. The foregoing notwithstanding, either party may terminate this Agreement on not less than 90 days prior written notice to the other party specifying the effective date of such termination. 3. CONSULTING SERVICES. During the term hereof, Consultant agrees to provide the consulting and advisory services to the District described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the \"Services\"), and, upon request, assist the District in the implementation and management of certain programs relating to the District's educational objectives. Consultant shall work with the District's Superintendent and other personnel and shall report to the District's Board of Education as needed. The exact nature of the Services shall be defined from time to time by the District and the Consultant. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. In performing the services described herein, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall have no power or authority to bind District or to create any obligation or responsibility, express or implied, in the name or on behalf of the District. Consultant shall be solely responsible for payment of federal, state and local income taxes on all payments to him hereunder, and the District shall have no responsibility whatsoever therefor. 5. COMPENSATION. In consideration for the consulting and advisory services to be provided hereunder by the Consultant, the District agrees to pay the Consultant a total fee of$65,000 for services rendered from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The Consultant will invoice the district each month, and the District shall pay such invoices within thirty (30) days. Consultant shall be responsible for paying Consultant's expenses incurred in performing the consulting and advisory services hereunder. The foregoing notwithstanding, the District will pay on behalf of Consultant ( or reimburse Consultant for) all reasonable expenses incurred by Consultant at the request of District in traveling to and from Little Rock, Arkansas, lodging and expenses incurred in connection with the Services\nprovided that such trip was approved in advance and the request for reimbursement is in accordance with the District's normal expense reimbursement policies. 6. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. Consultant agrees that he will not, during or after the term of this Agreement, disclose, make public or otherwise utilize any proprietary or other confidential information relating to the District or its business, except as required by applicable law. Consultant shall deliver to the District no later than thirty (30) days after the date of termination of this Agreement all tangible forms of such information in his possession or control. 7. TERMINATION. (a) Consultant may, at his option, terminate this Agreement at any time upon ten ( 10) days prior written notice to the District if the District fails to make any payment hereunder to Consultant and such failure continues for a period of more than thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice of such default. (b) The District may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days prior written notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to perform his services hereunder in any material respect and such failure continues for a period of ten (10) days following receipt of such written notice from the District. (c) Upon termination of this Agreement, the District shall not be obligated to make any further payments to Consultant except amounts accrued, due and payable as of the date of termination. 2 ~ \u0026gt; ~ 0 C,,: z 3::: zm .... 8. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Assignment. This Agreement and the rights, obligations and duties of the parties hereunder shall not be assignable or otherwise transferable without the prior written consent of each party. (b) Modification. No provision contained herein may be modified, amended or waived except by written agreement signed by the party to be bound thereby. ( c) Binding Effect and Benefit. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and permitted assigns. (d) Headings and Captions. Subject headings and captions are included for convenience purposes only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. ( e) Notice. All notices, requests, demands and other communications permitted or required hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon delivery if delivered in person, or on the date postmarked if mailed, registered or certified United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: If to Consultant, addressed or delivered in person to: Dennis M. Smith 2800 Park Place Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651 Ifto the District, addressed or delivered in person to: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Attn: Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent Or to such other address as either party may designate by notice. (f) Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such determination shall not impair the enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions herein. 3 (g) Waiver. No waiver of a breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or limit or restrict any right or remedy otherwise available. (h) Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies expressed herein are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights and remedies otherwise available. (i) Gender and Pronouns. Throughout this Agreement, the masculine shall include the feminine and neuter and the singular shall include the plural and vice versa as the context requires. G) Entire Agreement. This document constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other prior agreements, oral or written, with respect to the subject matter contained herein. (k) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. (1) No Joint Venture or Partnership, This Agreement shall not be considered to create any type of joint venture, partnership, or any other legal relationship between the parties in which either party shall share or be responsible for the debts or liabilities of the other party. 10. APPROVAL OF DISTRICT. The obligations of the District under this Agreement are expressly conditioned upon the ratification and approval of the Agreement by the Board of Education of the District. 4 ~ :,,. ~ 0 C:\no z le zm -\u0026lt; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year aforesaid. DISTRICT: Little Rock School District By: ___________ _ Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent CONSULTANT: Dr. Dennis Smith Robert Klempen Ratified and Approved by the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District at the meeting held the 23rd day of June, 2005 . 5 Exhibit A Services Covered:  Advise the Superintendent on operational best practices and related matters during implementation of the LRSD administrative restructuring\n Assist (Advise) the (Deputy) Superintendent and (Government/Legislative/Public Affairs Officer) executive level staff in developing (regarding their) roles and responsibilities that are consistent with the objectives of the LRSD administrative restructuring and which make a clear differentiation between line and staff authority\no Specifically, consult with the (Advise) the Associate Superintendents of Elementary and Secondary Education regarding their roles as direct \"line\" supervisor. to principals\no Consult with (Advise) the Associate Superintendent of Education Services, Senior Director of Human Resources and Chief Financial Officer/Support Services regarding their role. as support staff to schools and principals\n Prepare (Advise) executive staff ( district leaders,) selected by the Superintendent to assume leadership roles (designated as Project Managers on) for work projects assigned by the Superintendent, including staff training and development, performance accountability and evaluation, effective communication, governance and management and results based strategic planning\n Provide continuous feedback (on progress) to the Superintendent on the progress being made during (the) successive phases of the (implementation) administrative restructuring\n Review written communications regarding the implementation of the (LRSD reorganization) administrative restructuring as directed by the Superintendent\n (Consult with Human Resources executive staff and the school attorneys in the implementation of the organizational audit\n)  (Plan with the Superintendent\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_83","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":["2005-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/83"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\n_/\nfP\"-: Arkansas e: ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,\n'4- 4 STATE CAPITOL MAIL  IJ1TI.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education May 31, 2005 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 72201 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 JUN -1 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier -,--------------------~~-\u0026amp;- --~~ ST ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN -1 2005 EASTEf{.N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONLTORING 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 2005. Respectfully Submitted, \u0026lt;\n{,u !die-- Scott Smit~ 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 May 31, 2005, 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 72201 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 _2~J.k Scott Smit 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 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, 2005 Based on the informatiq_n available ~tApril 3_Q, 200p, the APE ~lcuJated the State Foundation Funding for FY 04/05, subject to p~io9ic adjustmenJs B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 ~ased on)he informationavailable at Ap_ril 30:~20oq, tl)e:~DE:caIcu_latecl foi ,EY Q:4/05, subject.to perio.dic_adjustrn~ots_\nC. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 On April 30, 20Q5, distributions of State Foundation f:u.flding for.FY 04/05_were as follows: LRSD - $53,249,476 NLRSD - $27,248,864 PCSSD .- $,48,~88, 17 4 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 04/05 at April 30, 2009, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows\nLRSD - $65,082,694 NLRSD - $33,304,168 PCSSD - $59,752,214 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Based on the informaJion available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2005 for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 6as..est on,,_i[~ filimiiat1ortivai!~bl~. the.AO~l\n~ ~ul~d al-A- . 3..Q\n,~5JoC:EY D.MQ,~ bj~~ii cf p~ripdig__adj1Jstrneo...ts  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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LRSD on November 10, 2004. Based on the information available, the ~DE calculated at ~pril 30, 2005 for f.Y 04/05, SlJbject to periqdic adjustments. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Distributions for FY 04/05 at April 30, 2005, totaled $11,379,840. Allotment 9c1lculated for FY 04/05 was $14,062,106 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Qjstribu  EY 04 05 at,\u0026amp;\u0026gt;ril 30, 20-0-5 __ ~ LRSD-$3,213,348 NL_RSD - $3,230,224 P.CSSD - $8,878,0Qa Ttie allotments calculated for FY 04/05 at Ap[il 30, 2905, subject to periqgic agjustro~n_ts. w~ e: LRSD - $3,990,194, NLRSD - $4,091,028 PCSSD - $10,999,146 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2005 In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $4,019,063.00 NLRSD - $772,940.15 PCSSD - $2,478,863.72 In September 2004, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $1,325,043.67 NLRSD - $275,333.33 PCSSD - $845,221.22 In Maren 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts 'fof their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equaljnstallments. At.March 20_!:)q, ttle f9llowing had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSO-$2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666~66 PCS.SQ- $1,690,442,44 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 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 2. Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. Actual as of May 31, 2005 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued)  2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 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 May 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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, 199~ and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 13 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 May 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 - II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. o MaY. 3, 2QP5,, th~ lmplerne ADE,.Jead~..,, Q~segc~g?.tio desegreg~tio .. .. _ sugge~tecL_all three qi_ sww,.:. Legis!ator$_also dis~sse _. e .POSSJ.,1.1\n: avnJg \"'\"\"\"\"\"- ~ ~la~ Cqu11ty instead ofthr~e. An'Ad wa~di~ssed Q\"' ~ feasability's\\iJdY of having only_a northscnq_ol district ar\n1 a sou. ~- qp . istrici in Pulaski County. _Removing Ja_cksonville from the e.9$.QJ,...a. lP ti:ein s d~! The next lmpJementation P.h~se Wor~ing,G(O!,JP Meetinifi~i~b.ed..~l!t IYZ iop5 at 1 :30 p.f\"!l. in room 201-A at the ADE, 20 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the L~SD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2005 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 May 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. , In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued} D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 May 31, 2005 (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 May 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. ~!Lr:-,1~yJ),,f~05,~~t,f~!}.~a~~~~!$31}o~(Qf~~q~p.illevi~Y.i~sfaiop.arfutov'i.ffiJlMJ\nind.J~. .~. ~Y.tiX~~J.1JllrnirYJ'.0Lto.e ...r n9ntb1\u0026gt;.fA'P1:ill 38 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 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. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 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 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VLF. of this report. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 atte.nded 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 ACTAAP 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 (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 ses\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_1060","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-05"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1060"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED MAY 2 5 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting CONGRATULATIONS GRADUATES! MAY2005 n ,.. -0 ~~ o--:\u0026lt;r-: oz\n,:,\u0026gt; ~ ~\n,:,-., -c\n,:,z o,- n..... ,- c5 nz ,)\u0026gt;- t/) ,- :IE\n= m -o n,- o\"' On !l::m mo -c !!l~ C ,- ~ ~ ~ ::l -om m\n,:, \"..',t_/) 0 \"~' ,z.. \u0026gt;m\"'  -0 t/lQ C\n,:, -0 ..... ..... t/) i-,\n,=.l .mn ::jg Oz z =l \"'o z t/) ~ \"m' ~ .n\n,\n:,,,: ,- t/)\n,:,-., n\n,:, --\u0026lt;0 \u0026gt;:r: n =l ~ z t/) I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING May 26, 2005 5:30 p.m. B. Student Performance - Williams Magnet Elementary Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Update: Legal Issues -Attorney Chris Heller C. Report: Racial \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity Commission - Mike Daugherty D. Report: Mitchell School Facility Committee - Mike Daugherty E. Update: Tri-District Charter School Application - Linda Watson F. Student Assignment Report G. Budget Update H. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects I. Internal Auditors Report J. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A Minutes: Regular Meeting - 04-28-05 Special Meeting - 05-12-05 B. Revision to Student Calendar, 2005-06 n \u0026gt;~ ~ ~ 0-\u0026lt;\n-c oz\no \u0026gt; 0\no m-\u0026lt; -\noc \":\"\noz ,o-n-\u0026lt; r-i5 nz \u0026gt;en F ::e\n::: m~ ,-\no no On\ncm mo - C: !!l~ C: ,- ~ ~ :!:\n:::l ~m m\no\no en -on -\n,:, ~ ,z..\no -\u0026gt;m~ enc C:\no ~ -\u0026lt; :-'f!! n\n,:, =l m \u0026gt;n ::!8 Oz z=l en i5 z en !I'\no m ~ n\no :,,\n,- en\nno\n\"o\" -\u0026lt;0 \u0026gt;\nc n =l N mz en Regular Board Meeting May 26, 2005 Page2 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. Student Handbook Revisions, 2005-06 B. Homeless Education Continuation Grant VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. Report and Presentation: Measuring the Vision B. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Education Professional Development for Arts Educators C. Grant Application: U. S. Department of Education Teaching American History Program D. Grant Application: U. S. Department of Education Smaller Learning Communities Program VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES IX. X. A. Summer School / Credit Recovery Program for Secondary Schools HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Purchase of School Buses B. Consulting Agreement (for consideration of a suspension of the rules) C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report XI. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1 . Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XII. EMPLOYEE HEARING XIII. ADJOURNMENT (') \u0026gt; -0 F....~,_ 0 3: oz\n:c\u0026gt; ~~\n:c \"Tl -c\n:cz o,... n..... ,... c5 oz \u0026gt;,,......V \u0026gt;\n:c \u0026gt;m  -0 V\u0026gt;O C\n:c -0 ..... :-'{!? n::c =1m \u0026gt;(') ::!8 Oz :z: =I \"'a z (/) ?' ~ ~ O\n:c  \"' ,-v,\n:c.,., n::c -tO \u0026gt;3: (') =I ~ :z: (/) PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME / STUDENT PERFORMANL Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS C. LR CTA IV. REPORTS I COMMUNICATIONS A. BOARD MEMBERS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: UPDATE - TRI-DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE CHARTER SCHOOL BACKGROUND The Tri-District Charter School Committee is working to complete the application and is planning to present the document to the Arkansas Department of Education at their June or July Board Meeting. The school may have a late start\nhowever, everything should be in place by October 1, 2005. The committee members have viewed several sites and personnel from the Pulaski County Government are negotiating the lease agreement for the proposed site. The details regarding the facility have to be presented with the application. We have completed and/or agreed upon the following:  The letter of intent,  Approval by two of the school districts' boards (LR and NLR) to enter into a Tri-district Charter School agreement,  A facility, located at 8300 Geyer Springs Road,  The curriculum offerings and support services that will be similar to those offered at alternative learning environments, as mandated by the ADE,  Personnel and hiring procedures/practices (we will follow LRSD hiring practices), and  The funding for the program has been determined and the formula for the three school districts has been established. Committee members are finalizing the behavior modification programs and the discipline procedures. PREPARED BY: Linda Watson, Ed. D. :,, \"....'. C: 0~ CD~ C: ,,. 8(/l !:!l~ ~~ 0 IT ,,.z -1- m\n:c IT -.: C\n:c\n, r C :, (J\nt \" ~ C, !..... m (\") :c z 0  -\u0026lt; .C,,: ~ m DATE: May 26, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: May 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The bids for the remodeling of Rightsell Elementary will be received on Wednesday, May 25th . A verbal report on the costs will be presented at the Board meeting. This will be a busy summer for LRSD construction projects. As an example, interior remodeling and a new parking lot at Fair Park to convert this facility to early childhood development has to be completed by August 15th . The work cannot commence until school is out. The interior remodeling of Central High is to be completed this summer. Portable classrooms are being installed at several schools, and they must be ready to occupy by August 15th . As indicated on the attached report, there are many other projects underway as well. I will be glad to update you on any Bond construction matters at any time . You can call me at 447-1146. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer !.... ~ ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ?\n\"' !II\n:o \"\u0026lt;' in 5z .... 0 ...,u, o--\u0026lt; 0 C:\n~ .... ~ \"z' 0 \u0026gt; Facility Name Carver f- -- Central -Gib-bs - Oakhurst (Adult Educatio~) Western Hills CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 26, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Project Description I Cost Media Center Expansion $167,~90 Renovation - Interior -- ---- - -- . $10,200,266 -A-dd-ition --- $705,670 New Windows $215,000 -- Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 I t:st. compIetIon Date Dec-05 - Aug-05 Dec-05 Aug-05 - Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SUMMER/ FALL 2005 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t:st. compIetIon Date Fair Park - Remodel $799,000 Aug-05 - -Parking Lot -- . - - Fair Park - $185,000 __A ug-05 r Restrooms -- - - -Fo-rest Park $152,881 - ~g-05 Skylig~Replacement-- -- Henderson $45,000- Aug-05 -- -- -- - Meadowcliff Remodel $164,150 Aug-05 -- - Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling --- $33,378 Aug-05 Pulaski Heights E~menl_ry Clean Exterior Walls $98,660 Aug-05 -- . Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Aug-05 -- -- Rights ell Renovation $2,494,000 Aug-06 -So-uthwe-st - _N ew Corridor Ceiling $300,000 Aug-05 -- - -- - Woodruff Parking Lot $35,000 Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t:st. l\nompIeuon Date Booker Electrical Upgrade - - Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown goverdale ~ementary Addition $520,750 Unknown -- Forest Heights Rem-odel -- $1,547,000 Unknown Mitchell Renovation --+- $2,212,493 Unknown .!:_ulaski Hgt~ MS Energy monitoring system installation_ _ Unknown Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Auq-05 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration HVAC $70,000 Nov-04 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. -Energy monitoring system installation - $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 -- --- - Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 - ~ lassroom addition/renovation - - + - Bale - $2,244,524 Dec-02 - -- Bale - - - Energy monitoring system Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Baseline Renovation - $953,520 Aug-04 Booker Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 - - - Booker -ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 - - Booker - Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 - - ~ Booker - Fire alarm ------ - - $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation - ~- $973,621 Nov-04 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Auq-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 26, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Carver Carver Central Central Facilit Name Proect Descri lion Energy monitoring system installation Parking lot =====- HVAC Renovation - Band Area Reflecting Pond C-e-n-tr_a_l Pa_r_k-ing ___ _ Studenfparking Central/Quigley Stadium light repa~\u0026amp; electrical repair Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement Central/Quigley Irrigation System _-_-_-_-__ ,C_e_ ntr_al ____-_--_-_+_- . P urchaseland for school Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations Central I Ceiling and wall repair Central Fire Alarm System Desig~lnstallation Central Front landing tile repair __ Chicot Draina~ Chi~ Sound Attenuation Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade -- Dodd I EnergyefficTeriTTighting Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile Dodd Replace roof top HVAC - Dunbar Renovation/addition Facilities Service Interior renovation Facility Services Fire al~ Fair Park - Roof Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm Fair Park Energy efficient lighting Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting J. A. Fair Press box -- J. A. Fair Security cameras J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement J. A. Fair Irrigation System J. A. Fair Roof repairs Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC Forest Park Diagonal parking Forest Park Energy efficient lighting Fulbright Energy efficient lighting Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation Fulbright - - -- Replace roof top HVAC units Fulbright Parking~ Fulbright Roof repairs Franklin Renovation Geyer Springs Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall - -- Roof Repair Energy efficient lighting Energy monitoring system installation Major renovation \u0026amp; addition Asbestos abatement Energy efficient lighting Infrastructure improvements Energy efficient lighting Cost $14,480 $111)\"42 $225,000 $57,561 $174,000 $265,000 $38,000 $14, 5.QQ_ Unknown $2,000,000 $24,000 $80,876 $22,470 $64,700 $43~4- $132,678 $189,743 $1 ,393,822 $9,200 $90,665 $156,299 $215,570 $6,149,023 $84,672 $12,000 $245,784 $315,956 $90,162 $59,310 $3,155,640 $277,594 $10,784 $12,500 $38,000 $14,000 $391 ,871 $485,258 $111 ,742 $119,788 $134,463 $11 ,950 $107,835 $140,000 $200,000 $2,511 ,736 $161 ,752 $76,447 $11 ,770 $8,637 ,709 $168,222 $42,931 $93,657 $296,707 Est. Completion Date May-01 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug~1 Aug-04 Jul-04 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Nov-04 Mar-01 Aug-03 May-05 Apr-_Q2 Aug-01 Aug-01 A~g-~ Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Nov-03 Aug-03 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Sep-03 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 A r-01 2 !-.... m (\") ::c z 0,- 8 -\u0026lt; .C., ~ m !I\"\nc m $ YI 0z .... 0 ,...,u, oo-c\u0026lt; ~~.... (\") \u0026gt; f\nz 0 \u0026gt; Facilit Name Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson -Jef-fers-on- - Laidlaw Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 26, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proect Descri tion Cost Est. Completion Date Intercom Security cameras Lockers ----- Energy efficient lig~ Roof replacement gym-  Asbestos abatement Phase I Asbestos abatement Phase 2 Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement -~Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm Parkin~ - Fire Alarm Upgrade _ Energy monitoring system installation Replace HVAC units _ Asbestos Abatement Energy efficient lighting_ Renovate bleachers Renovation Partial Replacement Asphalt walks __ Walkwa cano ies Boiler replacement Fencing Partial demolition/portable classrooms Parking Lot Overlay Athletic Field Improvement Irrigation System Security cameras Energy efficient lighting Stadium stands repair Inte-rcom- - Classroom Addition Fire Alarm Upgrade Energy efficient lighting Replace roof top HVAC units Fire alarm A-sbestos- abatement Engergy efficient lighting Replace cooling tower Replace shop vent system En_ergy monitoririg system installation Building Remediation Energy efficient lighting Energy monitoring system installation Asbestos abatement HVAC renovation Energy monitoring system installation Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement Parking lot 6 classroom addition Parking .!_!!provements Addition HVAC controls Feb-01 $10,600 Jun-01 $43,854 Dec-04 $193,679 Jul-01 $107,835 May-01 $500,000 Aug-01 $250,000 - Aug-02 $109,1~ Jul-02 $43,639 Oct-01 $1,630,000- Nov-02 ---- $269,588 Jul-01 $12,~ Oct-04 $12,1~ Aug-01 $300,000 Aug-02 $107,000 Aug-02 $106,598 Dec-02 $134,793 Aug-01 $6,851,621 Mar-04 $11,500,000 Apr-04 The total $1.8 million Dec-01 . is what has been used Dec-01 so far on the projects Oct-01 listed completed for Sep-01 Mann. Aug-01 $65,000 Apr-05 $38,000 Jul-03 $~750 Jul-03 $36,300 Jun-01 $303,614 May-01 $235,000- Aug-01 $46,000 Feb-02 $2,155,622 Jul-04 $7_,700 Sep-04 $79,411 Feb-01 $476,000 Aug-02 $16,175 Jul-01 $253,412 Aug-02 $88,297 Dec-02 $37,203 Dec-00 $20,000 May-01 $17,145 Aug-01 $165,000 Jul-04 $103,642 Apr-01 $16,695 Jul-01 $13,000 Jul-01 $237,237 Aug-01 $10,695 May-01 $81,828 Apr-01 $10,000 Aug-02 $138,029 Aug-02 $888,778 Oct-02 $142,541 Aug-03 $2,121,226 Dec-04 $210,000 Jun-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 26, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 Sep-01 1-P_a_rk_v_ie_w __ --_ -=- __Exterior lights __ _=: $10,784 - Nov-00 Parkview __ 1HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700~ ea controls _ $301,938 _ Aug-01 Parkview _ Locker replacement ___ __ _ $120,000 Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient light~ __ ____ $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement _-_ - - Fire al~ _ - = $25,000 _ Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem -Renovation-- $1 ,193,259 __ Nov-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Move playground __ _ ____ $17,000 Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation ------- _ $3,755,041 __ Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller ~ nergy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller ~ - Replace rooftop HVAC _ - ----=-- $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller _ ~rking addition __ ___ $111,742 Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 __ T rack Renovations -=---=--- __ _ $289,0~ -=- May-05 Romine Scott Field Security/Transportation Bus cameras ___ _ ___ $22,500 Jun-01 _S_ou_thw_est__ Addition __ ___ $2,000,000 Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement_____ _____ $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof ___ $690,000 Oct-03 ~~~:~:::: -----', ~cc-~\n~g:g:~~t~:~:i!~~:~ing - ----- :\n:~:~~\n~~:~~ ----- - --~- - Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment--= Fire alarm -- -=- $9.~ Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Technology Upgrade Addition/Renovation - Phase II --_- $3,679,000 ----:iun-04 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data ____ Nov-02 Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Williams Williams Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Energy efficient lighting --- $73,850 - Feb-01 Driveway \u0026amp; Parking - - - - $83,484 - Aug-02 Media Center addition -~ ~-- $704,932 - Sep-02 _____ ~Rebuild ___ $5,300,000 Dec-04 Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Energy efficient lighting - ~ $74,776 Feb-01 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Fire Alarm Upgrade -- $1 {600 Oct-04 Security cameras - -- $7,900 Jun-01 -==- Energy efficient lighting___ --=-- $165,281 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation __ $a\":53o Jul-01 Asbestos abatement _ ___ $182,241 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting ___ $106,868 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 - - - Major renovation \u0026amp; addition -- - - $800,000 Aug-02 -=_---:: Fire Alarm Upgrade _ - - ~ $8,400 Oct-04 ADA Rest rooms___ $25,000 Aug-04 Asbestos abatement___ _ -==-- $191 ,946 Aug-02 Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Energy efficient lighting _ --=- - $106,000 Jul-01 _ _ _ Renovation ___ _ $2,106,492 Mar-04 Parking expansions ~ _ $183,717 Dec-03 Energy efficient light~ ___ $122,719 Jun-01 -HVAC for Cafeteria = _ $56,000 Mar-05 Renovation/expansion__ ~ $1 ,263,876 Feb-04 Parking Expansion __ $110,000 Aug-03 Renovation - $246,419 Aug-02 4 !- m\u0026lt; C') :,: z 0  -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ~ m !I'\n%l ~ en 5z -\u0026lt; 0 N\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; 0-\u0026lt; 0 C: ~~ -\u0026lt; C') ~ z 0 \u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: May 26, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker !II :I: 0 3m,..:. m \"\"m'' C C ~ 5 z C) ~ :z\n!.... m (\"'J :I: z 0  -\u0026lt; C \"0 C ?\nm !II :\u0026lt;l ~ \"5' .z.. . 0 ~~ oc i~.... (\"'J \u0026gt; i:\n:\nz C \u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: May 26, 2005 To: Board of Directors From@sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - May This is the sixty-seventh communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The amended Out of District Travel regulation is being implemented. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Audit Report - May 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115 . My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. ~ :r 0 3: m rm rrnn m C C: n ?. 0 z G) ~ z\n!.... m n :r z ,0- 8 -\u0026lt; .C.,: ~ m ~\n%l ~ rn 0 .z.. . 0 NV, o-\u0026lt; 0 C: ~~.... n \u0026gt; f\nz C \u0026gt; DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 26, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  The District received $1.1 million in E-rate funds for funding year 2003-04, last week.  This summer we plan to refresh computers in four middle schools.  The District technology staff are getting geared up for upcoming summer projects which will include: updating computers, computer moves, and telephone moves at designated district sites. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services !I'\nID ~ en z5 -\u0026lt; 0 N en 0-\u0026lt; 0 C: ~~ ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: May 26, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Revision of the 2005-06 Student Calendar BACKGROUND: The Board approved the 2004-05 student calendar on March 24, 2005. Since that time, new K - 12 literacy and curriculum mapping programs have been adopted. There is a need to move two (2) staff development days to the beginning of the school year. RATIONALE: This minor adjustment to the calendar will ensure that ample training is provided to our staff to better service our schools and enhance the education of our students. This change will not affect either spring break or winter vacation. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is recommending the Board's approval of the attached revised student calendar for the 2005-06 school year. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williams, Director of Human Resources :I: 0 3: ,m... m en en m 0 c::: (\") ?\n0z C) ?\nz..__~ MONTH M T JULY AUGUST I 2 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 3 4 :NOVEMBI R I DECEMBER JANUARY '06 2 3 FEBRUARY MARCH APR IL 3 4 MAY I 2 JUNE Legend * [] WV sv PC ST DAY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALE DAR 2005-2006 w TH F M T w TH F M T I 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 SD SD SD SD 3 4 5 8 9 10 II 12 15 16 II I 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 SD SD 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 I 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 [861 - R H 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 1-l 17 18 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 11781 R I 2 5 7 7 8 9 12 13 1st Day Students H Holiday End Quarter SD Staff Development w TH F M 13 14 15 18 SD \\VD * 17 18 19 22 14 15 16 19 142] SD 19 20 21 24 16 17 18 21 WV 14 15 16 19 18 19 20 23 re 15 16 17 20 15 16 17 20 19 20 21 24 17 18 19 22 14 15 16 19 Winter Vacation R Record Days (one-half day for teachers) Spring Vacation TCD Total Contract Days (9.25 teachers) Parent Conference WD Non-student Work Day Student Days # Last Day Students T w 19 20 23 24 20 21 25 26 H 22 ')\"\u0026gt; -\" WV WV 20 21 24 25 21 22 21 22 25 26 23 24 20 21 REVISED FOR BOARD APPROVAL 5/12/05 WV WD ST SY PC TH F M T w TH F DAY H R 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 29 30 31 9 0 I re SD 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 19 I I 27 28 31 20 0 0 H H 24 25 28 29 30 17 3 0 WV WV H WV WV WV H 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 12 10 0 26 27 30 31 20 I 0.5 23 24 27 28 19 0 I [1331 SD SV sv sv sv SV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 17 5 0 27 28 20 0 0 H 25 26 29 30 31 22 I 0 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 3 0 0.5 TOTALS 178 21 4 I STl!DE:-iTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THE DAYS SHADED ABO\\'E 1st Quarter = 42 student days 2nd Quarter = 44 student days 3rd Quarter = 4 7 student days 4th Quarter = 45 sludent days TOT AL = 178 STUDENT DAYS SD 5 I I 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 10 TCD 15 21 21 19 12 20.5 20 18 20 22 3.5 192 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: May 26, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: 2005 - 2005 Student Handbook Revisions BACKGROUND: The Student Handbook is revised yearly in an effort to update newly adopted District policies and comply with Arkansas State Standards and Statutes. Each school's committee, composed of students, teachers, administrators and parents, have been given an opportunity to review the handbook and submit recommendations for revision. The District-wide Student Handbook Committee reviewed the recommendations and is submitting them to the Superintendent and Board for their consideration. RATIONALE: The Student Handbook is the District's opportunity to inform parents of changes in policies and procedures regarding the students' code of conduct and academic requirements. FUNDING: Funding for the revision and production of the Student Handbook are budgeted on a yearly basis. RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends Board approval of the attached recommendations for the revision of the 2005 -2006 Student Handbook. PREPARED BY: Linda Watson, Ed. D. Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline .,,\no O.., a.: , Ul Cl !!1 ~ Oz .z... ~\u0026gt; om\"\"\"\" ,\"-'?\u0026gt;5 0-\u0026lt; ~~ m  z -\u0026lt; DRAFT 2005-2006 STUDENT HANDBOOK REVISIONS The following information represents the recommendations for the revision of the 2005 - 2006 Student Handbook. The recommendations are presented in bold print in the text. Rule 10: Failure to Follow Bus Rules and Regulations All school rules and regulations governing student behavior apply to conduct on the school bus and at bus stops. If a student misbehaves on a bus or at a bus stop, he/she will receive a disciplinary sanction as it is outlined in the Student Handbook. NOT PERMITTED  Eating and drinking on the bus  Smoking  Playing radios, tape players or band instruments  Yelling at anyone on the bus or outside the bus  Throwing paper or any object on the floor of the bus or outside the window  Putting hands, arms or head out windows  Tampering with any of the bus safety devices  Defacing any part of a bus  Weapons Rule 16: Sexual Misconduct/Indecent Exposure Rule 16A. The act of deliberately showing private body parts/organs in a public place will not be tolerated. The student is required to participate in counseling sessions with a school counselor or administrator. (Arkansas Code 5-14-112) Kindergarten - Second Graders First Offense: Suspension: 2 days and Counseling with school counselor/administrator Second Offense: Suspension: 3-5 days and Counseling Third Offense: Suspension: 10 days and Counseling Third - Fifth Graders First Offense: Suspension: 2-4 days and Counseling Second Offense: Suspension: 5-10 days and Counseling Third Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 26A. Possession/Use of Paging Devices, Cellular Phones and/or Other Electronic Communication Devices The use or possession of a beeper or other electronic communication device (CD, MP3, DVD, IPODS, Cameras) on a school campus, a school bus or at a school-related activity, during the regular school day, is prohibited, except when they are required for medical reasons. Medical documentation must be on file with the student's administrator and school nurse. (Arkansas Codes 6-17-113 and 6-18-502) First Offense: Warning, confiscation of the device and parent conference. Second Offense: In-school suspension: 3 days Third Offense: Suspension: 5 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 6 days and probation (block schedule schools) Fourth Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Anti-Bullying Policy Bullying is defined as a pattern of behavior of one or more individuals intimidating one or more persons through verbal, physical, or emotional abuse\nwritten or electronically transmitted abusive messages\nor attacks on the property of another. Examples of bullying include, but are not limited to verbal taunts, name-calling and put downs, taking of money or possessions, and exclusion from peer groups within school. Bullying is prohibited while in school, on school property, in school vehicles, on school buses, at designated school bus stops, at school-sponsored activities, or at school sanctioned events. The Student Handbook will include all newly adopted or revised Board policies that pertain to students. .,,\n:c .O.,c_:, rn\" !!!~ Oz_z, ~\u0026gt; c\" m\" ~~ 5~ ~~ mz... .  ....n ~\n, ~~ z~ \u0026gt;\".,, !C .,, mr- '2n C\"l  \u0026gt; --\u0026lt; z i5 :CZ ~ -- 0 DATE: TO: FROM: May 26, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Homeless Education Continuation Grant Application Background: The Little Rock School District is required, by federal law, to provide academic, personal and familial support and assistance to homeless students enrolled in the Little Rock School District. During the 2004-05 school year, approximately 450 homeless students were identified and provided a range of services to remove all barriers to the immediate enrollment and academic success of these students. Through the federally funded McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grant, the Little Rock School District has received funding, through a competitive grant application process, to serve this target population. This proposal is a continuation application for year two funding in a three-year grant cycle. Supplemental funding is provided this program through Titles I, IV, and V to support district efforts in maintaining compliance. Goals and Objectives: 1. 2. 3. To support the academic achievement of homeless students by providing tutoring, supplemental instruction and enriched educational services to enable homeless students to meet or exceed state academic standards. To provide and maintain ongoing professional development and awareness activities to Little Rock School District personnel designed to heighten their sensitivity to and understanding of the rights and specific educational needs of homeless children and youth. To provide education and training to the parents/guardians of homeless students regarding available school and community resources, special programs and family support services relating to employment, transition housing, education and training and physical/mental health needs. ~\u0026lt; en:= C:. !!II::(\"\"') m:i::\n:oO -0 nr ill~ 0~ =l (\") ::Om Pl\"' ~ ~ 4. To eliminate all barriers to the enrollment and academic success of homeless students through coordination of transportation services, free nutrition services, provision of adequate clothing, school supplies, case management and other emergency services. Rationale: All local education agencies, who receive federal education funds are required to provide activities and services to homeless children and youth which include but are not limited to: 1) supplemental academic support\n2) expedited enrollment in school, including transportation\n3) immediate enrollment in free food services programs\nand 4) the development and maintenance of documented policies and procedures that ensure that homeless students have the same free and appropriate education services as provided to other children and youth. These services are needed to ensure that homeless students have an opportunity to meet the same challenging academic achievement standards to which all students are held. Funding: Grant Budget: $41 ,000 - No match required Recommendation: It is recommended that the board approve the submission of this grant application. Prepared By: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent - Administrative Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director - Pupil Services Department Assurances McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Funds The applicant, local educational agency (LEA), will assure with the acceptance of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance funds, the following provisions as stated in H.R. 1, Public Law 107-110, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)- 2001, Title X, Part C - Homeless Education, Subtitle B of Title Vil - McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistant Act of 2002: Education for Homeless Children and Youth (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.), Sections 721-726. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS l) SCHOOL SELECTION (A) According to a child or youth's best interest, the local educational agency of each homeless child or youth shall continue the child or youth's education in the \"school of origin\" [Section 722(g)(3)(A)], (1) for the duration of homelessness [Section 722(g)(3)(AXi)]\n(2) for the remainder of the academic year if becomes permanently housed during the academic year [Section 722(gX3XAXiXII)]\nand/or (3) for the following academic year if becomes homeless in between academic years (Section 722(g)(3)(A)(iXI)]. (B) In determining the best interests of the child or youth for purposes of making a school assignment under paragraph (A), consideration shall be given to a request made by a parent or guardian or youth regarding a school selection [Section 722(g)(3)(BXi)]. (C) The term \"school of origin\" means the school that the child or youth attended when permanently housed, or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled [Section 722(g)(3XG)]. (D) The choice regarding placement shall be made regardless of whether a child or youth is living with the homeless parents or has been temporarily placed elsewhere [Section 722(gX3)(F)]. (E) In the case of an unaccompanied youth, the LEA homeless liaison must assist in placement/enrollment decisions, consider the youth's wishes, and provide notice to the youth of the right to appeal under the enrollment disputes provisions [Section 722(g)(3XBXiii)]. (F) If the LEA sends the child/youth to a school other than the school of origin or the school requested by the parent or guardian, the LEA must provide written explanation to the parent or guardian, including the right to appeal under the enrollment disputes provision [Section 722(gX3XB)(ii)]. 2) ENROLLMENT (A) The school selected shall immediately enroll the child/youth in school, even if the child or youth lacks records normally required for enrollment, such as previous academic records, immuniz.ation or medical records, proof of residency, lack of birth certificate, or other documentation, guardianship issues or uniform or dress code requirements [Section 722(g)(3)(C)(i)]. (B) The terms \"enroll\" and \"enrollment\" are defined to include attending classes and participating fully in school activities [Section 725(3)]. (C) The enrolling school shall immediately contact the last school attended to obtain relevant academic and other records [Section 722(g)(3)(C)(ii)]. (D) If a child or youth lacks immuniz.ations or immuniz.ation or medical records, the enrolling school shall refer parent/guardian to the LEA homeless liaison, who shall help obtain necessary immuniz.ations or immunization or medical records [Section 722(g)(3XCXiii)]. 6 ?\"\u0026lt; cen= :e\u0026lt;n :en m:,: :c 0 -n 0,- Rl ~ C :C =is\nan mm n\u0026lt;n 0 ~ ~ ,, :c .0. ,_a , ~ Cl !!l~ Oz Z-1 ~\u0026gt; C-,, m.,, ,~-~\u0026gt; 0-1 ~~ zm - -I (E) The McKinney-Vento Act does not prohibit LEAs from requiring parents or guardians to submit contact information [Section 722(g)(3)(H)]. 3) DISPUTE RESOLUTION (A) Local educational agencies shall follow the procedures for prompt resolution of disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless children and youth according to the McKinney-Vento plan submitted by the State [Section 722(g)(l)(C)]. (B) If a dispute arises over school selection or enrollment, the child/youth must be immediately admitted to the school in which he/she is seeking enrollment, pending resolution of the dispute [Section 722(g)(3)(E)(i)]. (C) The parent or guardian shall be provided with a written explanation and a copy sent to the Office of State Coordinator of the school's decision on the dispute, including the right to appeal [Section 722(g)(3)(E)(ii)). (D) The parent/guardian/youth shall be referred to the LEA homeless liaison, who will carry out the state's grievance procedure as expeditiously as possible after receiving notice of the dispute [Section 722(g)(3)(E)(iii)]. (E) An unaccompanied youth shall be assisted by the LEA homeless liaison to ensure that the youth is immediately enrolled in school pending resolution of the dispute [Section 722(g)(3)(E)(iv)]. (4) RECORDS Any record ordinarily kept by the school, including immunization or medical records, academic records, birth certificates, guardianship records, and evaluations for special services or programs of each homeless child or youth shall be maintained [Section 722(g)(3XD)] (A) so that the records are available, in a timely fashion, when a child or youth enters a new school or school district\nand (B) in a manner consistent with Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act. (5) TRANSPORTATION The LEA shall adopt policies and practices to ensure that transportation is provided, at the request of the parent or guardian or in the case of an unaccompanied youth, at the request of the LEA homeless liaison [Section 722(g)(l)(J)(iii)]. (A) If the homeless student continues to live in the area served by the LEA in which the school of origin is located, that LEA shall provide or arrange transportation. (B) If the homeless student moves to an area served by another LEA, though continuing his/her education at the school of origin, the LEA of origin and the LEA in which the student is living must agree upon a method to apportion responsibility and costs for transportation to the school of origin. If the LEAs cannot agree upon such a method, the responsibility and costs must be shared equally. (C) LEAs shall provide services to homeless children and youth that are comparable to those received by other students in the school selected, including transportation [Sec.722(g)(4)]. (6) COMPARABLE SERVICES (A) Each homeless child or youth shall be provided services comparable to those received by other students in the school selected, including transportation services, and education services for which the students meet eligibility criteria\nsuch as services provided under Title I or similar State or local programs\nprograms for students with disabilities\nprograms for students with limited English proficiency\nvocational or technical programs\ngifted and talented programs\nschool nutrition programs [Section 722(g)(4)]\npublic preschool programs\nand local before- and after-school care programs. 7 (B) Children and youth who are homeless and attending any school in the LEA shall be eligible for services in a Targeted Assistance School Program [Section 115(b)(2)(E)]. (7) ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS Homeless children and youth shall have access to the education and other services they need to ensure that they have an opportunity to meet the same challenging State student academic achievement standards to which all students are held [Section 721 ( 4)]. (8) LEA HOMELESS LIAISON All LEAs shall designate an appropriate staff person, who may also be coordinator for other Federal programs, as a local educational agency (LEA) homeless liaison for homeless children and youth to perfonn duties described in paragraph 6(A) [Section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii)]. (A) The LEA homeless liaison shall assist unaccompanied youth in placement/enrollment decisions, including considering the youth's wishes in those decisions, and providing notice to the youth of the right to appeal such decisions under the enrollment disputes provisions [Section 722(g)(3)(B)(iii)]. (B) The LEA homeless liaison shall ensure that unaccompanied youth are immediately enrolled in school pending resolution of disputes that might arise over school enrollment or placement [Section 722(g)(3)(E)(iv)]. (C) The LEA homeless liaison shall assist children and youth who do not have immunizations, or immunization or medical records, to obtain necessary immunizations, or immunization or medical records [Section 722(g)(3)(C)(iii)]. (D) The LEA homeless liaison shall collaborate and coordinate with state coordinators and community and school personnel responsible for the provision of education and related services to homeless children and youth [Section 722(gX6XC)]. (9) SEGREGATION lt is the policy of the Congress that homelessness alone is not sufficient reason to separate students from the mainstream school environment [Section 721(3)]. (A) LEA shall adopt policies and practices to ensure that homeless children and youth are not segregated on the basis of their status as homeless or stigmatized [Section 722(g)(l)(J)(i)]. (B) The LEA application for McKinney-Vento funds shall include a description of these policies and procedures, consistent with the prohibition on segregation, and the implementation to ensure that activities carried out by the LEA will not isolate or stigmatize homeless children and youth [Section 723(b)(5)]. (C) Services provided with McKinney-Vento funds shall not replace the regular academic program and shall be designed to expand upon or improve services provided as part of the school's regular academic program [Section 723(a)(3)]. (10) AGENCY COORDINATION (A) Local educational agency (LEA) serving homeless children and youth and receiving a McKinney-Vento funds shall coordinate the provision of McKinney-Vento funded services with local social service agencies and other agencies or programs providing services to homeless children and youth and their families, including services and programs funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act [Section 722(gXSXA)(i)]. (B) LEA receiving McKinney-Vento funds shall coordinate with other LEAs on interdistrict issues, such as transportation or transfer of school records [Section 722(g)(5)(A)(ii)]. (C) LEA homeless liaison duties include the collaboration and coordination with state coordinators and community and school personnel responsible for the provision of education and related services to homeless children and youth [Section 722(g)(6)(C)]. 8 \"'O\n,, .0,.,c,c rn C) ~?\nOz .z... ~\u0026gt; c-o m\"'O\n~ 5~ ii!~ m .. z -f DATE: . TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 26, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Measuring the Vision BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District's vision is to become the highest achieving urban school district in the nation. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) has been asked to develop a plan and a process to measure progress towards achieving the vision. RATIONALE: PRE has developed an evaluation plan that will allow us to measure progress, over time, against three groups: 1. the eleven largest districts in Arkansas 2. a norm group of ten districts located outside of Arkansas that mirror our District's demographics and socio-economic levels but whose students are currently achieving at a much higher level 3. a group of ten of the highest performing districts in the country A timeline has been defined to show when data will be collected and reported. By the end of June, 2005, the following tasks will be completed:  gain support from school district personnel and community,  identify benchmarking partners,  determine data measures to be collected ,  collect baseline data from each district (2003-04 scores), and  notify each district of our intent to collect and compare data over time.\ni\u0026gt;\u0026lt; V, i= C: 3:VJ 3:C\"\u0026gt; m:,:\n_,ooO c-,r ill~ c:,\nJO =I :S\n,oC\"\u0026gt; mm C\") V, ~ ~ .,,\nJO .0. , a_, ~ C) !a~ Oz_z. ~\u0026gt; cm\"\"\"\" ~~ r\u0026gt; 0-\u0026lt; ~~ m  .z.. . By the end of September PRE staff will collect comparative data, analyze, and report the data to the Board of Directors, including determining where the school district is in relation to each group we are measuring against and making projections for gains within the next 1-3 years. See attached file for specific districts named within each group. FUNDING: Not Necessary Eleven Largest Districts in Arkansas District Little Rock Pulaski County Springdale Fort Smith Rogers Bentonville North Little Rock Conway Favetteville Cabot Brvant Norm Group District Little Rock Beaumont ISO Muscogee County Durham Chatham County Richmond County Clayton Indianapolis Portsmouth Norfolk City Caddo Parish McK.innev ISO Rockwall ISO Forsvth County Geor2ia wwo:i DNINMV31 M3ll'fflS NOllll:llldd\\f lN~D a State Enrollment Arkansas 23,225 Arkansas 17,364 Arkansas 14,384 Arkansas 12,854 Arkansas 12,755 Arkansas 9,165 Arkansas 8,722 Arkansas 8,424 Arkansas 8,195 Arkansas 8,061 Arkansas 6,589 State Enrollment Arkansas 23,225 Texas 20,612 Georgia 32,944 North Carolir 30,794 Georgia 34,554 Georgia 34,691 Georgia 49,594 Indiana 40,731 Virginia 15,977 Virginia 36,745 Louisiana 44,556 Texas 15.155 Texas 9 488 Geor2ia 20.407 O.lSIH Nlf:llM3Wlf DNIH:lV3.l '.NQlllf:llldd\\f lN~D :i Reading - 2003 Percent Proficient White Black 75.5% 32.4% 52.8% 30.6% 68.4% na 64.0% 32.4% no data no data no data no data 64.8% 29.4% 70.0% 36.5% 70.3% 56.4% 64.5% na 59.4% na Reading - 2003 Percent Proficient White Black 75.5% 32.4% 91.5% 71.0% 89.8% 75.5% 91.6% 69.7% 86.2% 69.3% 82.7% 72.3% 84.0% 77.4% 56.4% 40.6% 79.3% 60.4% 85.1% 65.5% 78.9% 39.1% 94% 81% 94% 84% 94% 88% 1N3Wd013A30 l'INOISS3~0Md '.NQl.llf:llldd\\f lN~D g Math - 2003 Percent Proficient White Black 65.5% 18.5% 47.6% 20.6% 64.9% na 59.7% 28.6% no data no data no data no data 51.0% 14.5% 65.1% 28.1% 73.9% 46.3% 64.2% na 57.4% na Math-2003 Percent Proficient White Black 65.5% 86.3% 82.7% 92.4% 76.7% 74.0% 75.4% 56.6% 80.3% 85.6% 78.7% 93% 91% 85% :3NNOSM3d \"If JnOS3M N'IWOH \"Xl 18.5% 60.0% 60.1% 73.2% 52.4% 56.0% 61.3% 39.5% 60.5% 69.2% 36.3% 74% 77% 84% Percent Enrollment White Black 25.2% 68.7% 57.3% 39.5% 63.2% 1.2% 59.0% 14.6% no data no data no data no data 38.2% 57.6% 74.4% 20.9% 79.7% 8.4% 96.2% 0.7% 94.4% 2.4% Percent Enrollment White Black 25.2% 68.7% 23.0% 63.8% 33.1% 60.0% 28.0% 58.9% 28.7% 65.7% 25.1% 69.9% 14.3% 69.6% 31.1% 57.9% 26.8% 71.3% 26.4% 68.6% 35.3% 62.9% 67% 8.90% 80% 4.80% 91% 0.60% AM3AO:l3M 1103M:) / M3WWns \"If S3:llAM3S lOOH:lS mi\\ Highest Performing Districts District State Brazosoort ISO Texas Carroll ISO Texas Coooell ISO Texas Cypress Fairbar ISO Texas Frisco ISO Texas Ft. Sam HoustonTexas Texas Grapevine-Colleyville ISO Texas Katy ISO Texas Lewisville ISO Texas McKinney ISO Texas Rockwall ISO Texas Forsyth County Georgia Georgia Enrollment 13,105 7,186 9,891 70,985 11,144 1,160 13,797 39,478 42,922 15,155 9,488 20,407 Reading - 2003 Percent Proficient White Black 93% 97% 94% 94% 95% 95% 94% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% Math - 2003 Percent Proficient Percent Enrollment White Black White Black 82% 92% 78% 51 9.9 97% 96% 97% 92 1.8 85% 93% 78% 73 3.9 84% 93% 78% 54 10.6 89% 94% 85% 73 7.8 88% 89% 74% 41 36.6 84% 93% 79% 82 3.2 84% 93% 78% 67 6.2 84% 92% 76% 71 7.8 81% 93% 74% 67 8.9 84% 91% 77% 80 4.8 88% 85% 84% 91 0.6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: US Department of Education- grant submission: Professional Development for Arts Educators BACKGROUND: The District proposes to submit a Professional Development for Arts Educators grant application to implement a high-quality professional development model program in elementary music and visual arts at high poverty elementary schools. The elementary schools to be included are: Franklin, Stephens, Baseline, Wakefield, Watson, Woodruff, Chicot, Wilson, Rightsell, Meadowcliff, Bale, Mabelvale, Cloverdale, Brady, Washington, Western Hills, Romine, Rockefeller, Dodd, McDermott, King, Otter Creek and Carver. The purpose of this program is to strengthen standards-based arts education programs and to help ensure that all students meet challenging State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards in the arts. This threeyear grant would begin in October 2005. RATIONALE: The LRSD Professional Development for Arts Educators proposal will include extensive professional development reflecting up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practices in the areas of music and visual arts as well as opportunities for the integration of arts across the curriculum. FUNDING: Year One - Year Two - Year Three - Total Request - $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $1,050,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the board approve submission of the Professional Development for Arts Educators proposal. PREPARED BY: Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum ?\u0026gt; \u0026lt; u,= C:. == (J) 3r:::n m:C\no 0 -n 0,- ~ ~ c::o ::is ::on mm nu, ~ ~ .\n,,\u0026gt;, .X C: a,\no C: nu, $:z ~~ Ou, .,,m ~~ :c n Om ,O-U\u0026gt; a, C: __.n ~\n, Q~ z~ G) \u0026gt; \u0026gt;-,, 3r:::.,, m ,- 2!! 1'i n\u0026gt; \u0026gt;--\u0026lt; z i5 :c z ~ -- 0 DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 26, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: US Department of Education - grant submission: Teaching American History Grant Program BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Teaching American History Grant program. The purpose of the program is to raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of traditional American history. RATIONALE: Grant awards assist local educational agencies, in partnership with entities that have extensive content expertise, to develop, document, evaluate, and disseminate innovative, cohesive models of professional development. By helping teachers to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of traditional American history as a separate subject matter within the core curriculum, the program will improve instruction and raise student achievement. The district will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Department of History, National History Day, and the Clinton Library. All LRSD teachers of American History will be involved in this grant initiative. FUNDING: Total Three Year Request $1,000,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the board approve submission of the Teaching American History proposal to the US Department of Education on June 14, 2005. PREPARED BY: Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum\ni\u0026gt;\u0026lt; u, = C:. 31::Y\u0026gt; 31::0 m::C\ncO -0 (') ,- ~ ~ o::c =I :$\ncC'\u0026gt; mm (') u, ~ ~ ?\u0026lt; ?\u0026gt;2 ril~\ncZ u,\nc om zu, zO ,m- :c,:, ?\u0026gt;x -c C: tD\nc C: (') u, i\nz m~ 0 u, ..,m ~~ ::,:0 Om ,0- u, tD C: \"' DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 26, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: US Department of Education - grant submission: Smaller Learning Communities Program BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Smaller Learning Communities program. The purpose of the program is to raise the academic performance of all high school students and to secure the skills necessary for future success in postsecondary education and adult life. Students are encouraged to take more rigorous courses, especially in the areas of math and science. RATIONALE: Grant awards assist local educational agencies, in partnership with local high schools, to: 1) restructure the target schools into smaller learning communities based on students' career and academic interests to create a more personalized and supportive school environment\n2) improve overall academic achievement in reading and mathematics for all students and narrow the achievement gap that exists between minority and non-minority students\nand 3) enhance teacher capacity to incorporate research based instructional strategies into their daily teaching practices that engage student in learning through targeted, ongoing professional development and capacity building activities. The district will partner with the Southern Regional Educational Board, High Schools that Work, in the implementation of this program. This grant initiative will include Hall and Parkview High Schools. FUNDING: Total Five Year Request $1 ,600,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the board approve submission of the Smaller Learning Communities proposal to the US Department of Education on June 7, 2005. PREPARED BY: Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum =\"'\u0026lt; cni= C:\ni:cn 31:C\"\u0026gt; m::C\n_:coO c-,r- ~~ o::c =l :S ~ ~ c-,Cll ~ ~ ?\u0026lt; :\"'2 ~~\n:cZ Cll::0 om zcn zO m c: r- :c =\"'x \"D . C: a, :c C: (\")Cl) $: z ~~ Oen -nm f'l~ ::cC\"\u0026gt; Om ocn r-a, C: \"' 0 0 0 z ~ 6 z (/) DATE: TO: FROM: May 26, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Credit Recovery Program for Secondary Schools BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District supports the tenet that additional time and resources should be made available to students with needs that are not met during the regular school year. RATIONALE: There is a compelling need to continue to provide interventions aimed at removing the barriers of our low-performing students. To this end, a credit recovery program will be offered during a six (6) week summer session which is designed to assist our students in overcoming their learning challenges while developing their potential so that they may reach their educational goals and become productive and worthy citizens. FUNDING: In compliance with Arkansas Statute 6-16-702, districts offering summer school for the purpose of remediating student failures must provide the program free of charge to enrolled students who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. For the 2004-05 school year, in grades 6-12, the LRSD has 5,615 eligible for the free lunch program and 811 on the reduced-price lunch program. Costs to the district for tuition-free summer school for identified students are estimated at $289,000 for staff salaries and $9,180 for transportation for middle school students (stops throughout the city). Detailed costs will be available later. ?\u0026lt; ?\"2 ~ f\n0 z (J)\n0 om zrn zO me: ,.... :0 .!'.:\u0026gt;, z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt;,.... (J) .\n,,,,,.x C: CD :0 C: c-, en $: z ~~ Oen -nm en\no ~~ Om ,o... . en CD C: \"' RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of this program that will afford our low-performing students the opportunity to recover credits for failed classes. PREPARED BY: Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintend, Secondary Schools DATE: TO: FROM: May 26, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williams~ctor of Human Resources .!=.,' z \u0026gt;z (\"') \u0026gt;,.... en .?.\u0026gt;, \u0026gt;. \u0026lt; C: Dl\n,:, C: c-, en $:z m~ .O.,emn Q~ Om ,o.... en Dl C: \"' !JI (\"') 0 z en C: ~ z C\u0026gt; ~ ~ m lC mz 0 0 0 z ~ 0z (/J Personnel Changes Page 2 May 26, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Resignations!Terminations Certified Employees Anderson, Timothy Oral Communications/ 8-7-03 Reason: Leaving the city MCCLELLAN 4-27-05 Beggs, Melinda English/ 1-21-80 Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-6-05 Belotti, Virginia Librarian/ 8-19-87 Reason: Retired CARVER 6-10-05 Biehslich, Lisa Art/ 8-13-02 Reason: Accepted another HALL 6-6-05 position Bolden, Alice Geography/ 8-22-88 Reason: Retired SOUTHWEST 6-6-05 Brandon, Barbara Reading/ 8-12-99 Reason: Retired SOUTHWEST 6-6-05 Briscoe, Ill Joseph Physical Science/ 8-24-87 Reason: Retired FOREST HEIGHTS 6-6-05 Carson, Leon English/ 8-24-92 Reason: Retired SOUTHWEST 6-6-05 Carson , Rene Lead Teacher/ 8-27-74 Reason: Retired SCIENCE 6-16-05 Comins, Ruth Spanish/ 9-5-00 Reason: Leaving the city DUNBAR 6-6-05 Daniel, Anita Math/ 8-11-04 Reason: Leaving the city MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Davis, Dorothy Reading SpecialisU 9-7-71 Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE 6-6-05 MIDDLE Deaton, Betty Elementary V/ 8-24-87 Reason: Retired BASELINE 6-6-05 SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-02 30617.00 TCH925 4-18 53061.00 TCH925 2-17 49217.00 LIB950 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 1-17 47715.00 TCH925 5-19 55776.00 TCH925 6-21 60020.00 TCH925 5-19 55776.00 TCH10 6-21 60020.00 TCH105 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 1-06 34661.00 TCH925 6-21 60020.00 TCH925 2-17 49217.00 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page3 May 26, 2005 .!=.,' z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL \u0026gt;z n CLASS SALARY NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE \u0026gt;,.... CJ) Doolittle, Heidi Elementary II/ 8-7-03 1-02 30617.00 Reason: Accepted another FRANKLIN 6-6-05 TCH925 position Duerkop, Melanie Lead Teacher/ 8-7-02 4-14 48439.00 Reason: Accepted another ENGLISH 6-6-05 TCH925 ~g~ position m~,..n.. ..,o ,-!!? oz -\u0026lt; Cl Dumas, Elaine Librarian/ 8-23-71 5-20 57276.00 ~~ Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-7-05 LIB950 ::c~ ~~ ZCJ\u0026gt; Dyson, Carol Art/ 8-27-74 5-20 57276.00 Cl Reason: Retired WILLIAMS 6-6-05 TCH925 Eddings, Aminah Math/ 7-22-99 3-07 38820.00 Reason: Personal PULASKI HEIGHTS 6-6-05 TCH925 MIDDLE \u0026gt;\"\" .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; C: CD Ervin, Nickey Algebra 1/ 11-17-92 4-09 42662.00\n,o C: C\")CJ) Reason: Accepted another J. A. FAIR 6-6-05 TCH925 !\nz position ~~ OCJ\u0026gt; ..,m ~~ Fuller, Karonda Elementary Ill/ 8-11-04 4-01 34575.00 :en Om Reason: Going back to OTTER CREEK 6-6-05 TCH925 ,O...C. J\u0026gt; CD C: school \"' Gage, Mary English/ 9-21-77 6-21 60020.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-6-05 TCH925 ?' Gilbert, Jean Special Education/ 1-3-66 4-19 54561 .00 n 0 Reason: Retired GEYER SPRINGS 6-6-05 SPE925 z CJ) ,C...:. --\u0026lt; z Gray, Carolyn Gifted and Talented/ 8-21-73 6-21 60020.00 Cl Reason: Retired FRANKLIN 6-6-05 G\u0026amp;T925 \u0026gt; Cl\n,o m m ~ Green, Christine American History/ 9-2-69 6-21 60020.00 m z Reason: Retired HALL 6-6-05 TCH925 Hendrickson, Tina Chemistry/ 8-9-00 6-05 41189.00 Reason: Accepted another PARKVIEW 6-6-05 TCH925 position 0 0 Henry, Sarah English/ 9-30-74  4-19 54561.00 0 z Reason: Retired PARKVIEW 6-6-05 TCH925 ~ 0 z CJ') Personnel Changes Page4 May 26, 2005 NAME Hiddleston, Steven Reason: Leaving the city Hollingsworth, Judy Reason: Retired Howard, Caroline Reason: Retired Johnson, Kristie Reason: Personal Johnson, Wondrue Reason: Retired Lacey, Marian Reason: Retired Lasker, Alberta Reason: Retired Leffingwell, Donald Reason: Personal Lewallen, Marilyn Reason: Retired Maher, Donna Reason: None given Mahnken, Susan Reason: Retired Mays, Romonda Reason: Personal McFadden, Charles Reason: Retired McFadden, Sandra Reason: Retired POSITION/ SCHOOL Science/ J. A. FAIR Elementary II/ CHICOT Business Education/ HALL Art/ J. A. Fair Guidance Counselor/ CENTRAL Assistant Superintendent/ ADMINISTRATION Special Education/ HALL Physics/ HALL Special Education/ PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE Instrumental Music/ MABELVALE MIDDLE Reading/ BOOKER Home Economics/ CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Science/ CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Physical Education/ FOREST HEIGHTS START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-11-04 4-05 38041.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-24-87 1-17 47715.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-29-97 1-14 43904.00 6-7-05 TCH950 12-15-93 4-11 44973.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-26-70 6-21 60020.00 6-16-05 CNL 10 8-27-74 79-20 107424.00 6-30-05 ADC12 10-07-87 4-19 54561 .00 4-15-05 SPE925 4-1-99 5-06 40756.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-3-72 6-21 60020.00 5-26-05 SPE925 8-25-03 6-05 41189.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-20-79 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-2-00 3-04 35354.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-17-90 1-15 45059.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-26-70 1-17 47715.00 6-6-05 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page 5 May 26, 2005 .~., z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL \u0026gt;z (\") NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY \u0026gt; r- \"' McGowan, Doris Elementary 1/ 8-24-87 5-20 57276.00 Reason: Retired GEYER SPRINGS 6-6-05 TCH925 McLennan, Ann Elementary Ill/ 8-24-87 4-19 54561.00 Reason: Retired BRADY 6-6-05 TCH925 ~g~ mC\"\u0026gt; Means, Barbara Title 1/ 8-24-87 6-18 56209.00 .3r,:: ,ro- Reason: Personal SOUTHWEST 6-23-05 TCH11 ro- z!!! -\u0026lt; C) Hi~ Moore, Joyce Special Education/ 8-15-94 4-17 51905.00 x~ i\no Reason: Retired HENDERSON 6-30-05 SPE925 -ZC\"/\u0026gt;' C) Mothershed Lucille Math/ 8-20-79 6-21 60020.00 Reason: Retired HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 Mulkey, Mary Music/ 8-13-98 1-17 47715.00 Reason: Retired OTTER CREEK 6-6-05 TCH925 .\u0026gt;,, x . C: c:, Peyton, Emma Business Education/ 8-20-79 6-21 60020.00\no C: (\")(/) Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-6-05 VOC105 $:z ~~ 0\"' Phillips, Tabitha Principal/ 8-14-78 69-20 79692.00 -nm !!l~ Reason: Retired MABEL VALE 6-29-05 ADC11X :z:(\") Om OV\u0026gt; ELEMENTARY r-c:, C: \"' Roachell, Richard Social Studies/ 8-12-03 1-02 30617.00 Reason: Personal ALC 6-6-05 TCH925 Robinson, Renee Journalism/ 9-13-99 4-06 39196.00 ~ Reason: Accepted another CENTRAL 6-6-05 TCH925 (\") 0 z position \"' C: r- -\u0026lt; z Scogin, Annette Assistant Director/ 7-22-03 56-14 45192.00 C) \u0026gt; Reason: Accepted another ATHLETICS 6-30-05 ADC105 C)\no m position m 3r:: m z Simpson, Angie 4 Yr. Old/ 8-22-88 3-18 51874.00 Reason: Retired GEYER SPRINGS 6-6-05 4YR925 Stewart, Shirley Physical Education/ 9-25-61 4-19 54561 .00 Reason: Retired PULASKI HEIGHTS 6-6-05 TCH925 0 MIDDLE 0 0 z Tankersley, Abby Elementary I/ 8-13-01 1-12 41593.00 )\u0026gt; -i Reason: Personal GIBBS 6-6-05 TCH925 5 z CJ) Personnel Changes Page 6 May 26, 2005 NAME Thomason, Marian Reason: Retired Tidmore, Jerome Reason: Retired Wade, Roy Reason: Retired Walker, Ella Reason: Retired Wilder, Barbara Reason: Retired Wittenburg, Amy Reason: Accepted another position Wilson, Priscilla Reason: Retired Winston, Jane Reason: Retired Zakrzewski, Merry Reason: Retired START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Fine Arts/ 8-18-86 FOREST HEIGHTS 6-6-05 Math/ 8-7-90 MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Assistant Principal 8-14-67 HALL 7-1-05 Assistant Principal 8-27-74 HALL 6-13-05 Algebra I/ 8-25-75 CENTRAL 6-6-05 Speech Pathology/ 8-12-99 FRANKLIN 6-6-05 Elementary Ill/ 8-20-90 CARVER 6-6-05 4 Yr. Old/ 1-27-75 FRANKLIN 6-7-05 Math/ 8-22-77 FOREST HEIGHTS 6-6-05 New Certified Employees NONE Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Agnew, Henrean Reason: Retired Bennett, Georgetta Reason: Job Abandonment Bus Driver/ TRANSPORTATION Instructional Aide/ ALC 11-18-98 6-3-05 8-17-98 5-10-05 SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 3-18 51874.00 TCH925 3-14 46908.00 TCH925 66-20 72864.00 ADC105 66-20 72864.00 ADC105 6-20 58520.00 TCH925 62-10 47976.00 SPE925 2-15 46561.00 TCH925 6-21 60020.00 4YR925 6-21 60020.00 TCH925 3-07 14368. 00 BUSDRV 33-11 13875.00 INA925 Personnel Changes Page 7 May 26, 2005 .~., z START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL \u0026gt;z (\") NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY ,\u0026gt;- CJ) Bolton, Mattie Custodian/ 2-3-92 31-15 17281.00 Reason: Job Abandonment M. L. KING 2-1-05 CUS928 Bracy, Saundra Assistant Registrar/ 8-8-03 39-02 19020.00 Reason: Leaving the city HALL 6-10-05 ~g~ Bryant, Rodney Instructional Aide/ 1-05-04 33-17 16595.00 m\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; 31: ,- \"C 0 Reason: Accepted another CHICOT 5-20-05 INA925 ,- !!! oz -\u0026lt; C) position rn~ :r:~ Caradine, Charles Bus Driver/ 3-1-00 3-05 13466.00 ~_\n:\n,c:: ZCJ\u0026gt; Reason: Retired TRANSPORTATION 6-23-05 BUSDRV C) Curry, Virginia Instructional Aide/ 9-8-87 33-17 16595.00 Reason: Retired BOOKER 6-6-05 INA185 Dukes, Raynard Security Officer/ 2-2-03 36-11 15929.00 \u0026gt; Reason: None Given J. A. FAIR 5-10-05 SOFR9  \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \"C. C: a,\nc C: (\")CJ) Farmer, Dennis Custodian/ 1-10-05 31-07 13616.00 ~z Reason : Personal DUNBAR 4-6-05 CUS925 ~~ OCJ\u0026gt; ..,m CJ)\nc Faulkner, Janet Child Nutrition/ 11-1-04 3-01 9350.00 ~~ Om Reason: Personal WILLIAMS 4-25-05 FSH550 ,O-CJ\u0026gt; a, C: c,, Floyd, Betty Instructional Aide/ 9-6-90 33-17 16595.00 Reason: Deceased ALC 5-13-05 INA925 Givens, Vera CARE/ 2-21-05 3-15 10.05 !l' Reason : None Given CARE 4-22-05 CARE per hour (\") 0 z en C: Grimmett, Jeffrey Instructional Aide/ 8-21-00 33-12 14291.00 ,- --\u0026lt; Reason: Going back to J. A. FAIR 6-6-05 INA925 z C) school \u0026gt; C)\nc m m 31: Hudson, Harold Custodian/ 8-20-93 31-15 17281.00 mz Reason : Resigned without CENTRAL 4-7-05 CUS928 notice Hill, Joanna Bus Driver/ 8-28-78 3-11 16390.00 Reason : Retired TRANSPORTATION 6-3-05 BUSDRV ri Lem, Louie ROTC/ 12-1-88 51-20 46572.00 C 0 Reason: Retired PARKVIEW 6-30-05 AN12 z )\u0026gt; --\u0026lt; 6 z C/) Personnel Changes Page 8 May 26, 2005 NAME Mitchell, Kashunda Reason: None Given Murphy, Demetria Reason: Job Abandonment Parker, Michelle Reason: Personal Putt, Paulette Reason: Retired Qualls, Lynda Reason: Retired Robertson, Jr. Thomas Reason: Accepted another position Shaw, Elvan Reason: Terminated - no appeal pending Smith, Tammy Reason: Going back to school Steverson, Patrick Reason: Accepted another position Tolbert, William Reason: Leaving the city Tucker, Kelsey Reason: Personal Williams, Mary Reason: None Given Williams, Bertha Reason: None Given Wright, Lona Reason: Retired POSITION/ SCHOOL CARE/ CARE Custodian/ MCCLELLAN Child Nutrition/ FOREST PARK Bookkeeper/ VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Secretary/ MANN Air Force-ROTC/ CENTRAL Custodian/ FULBRIGHT Instructional Aide/ J. A. FAIR Custodian/ METROPOLITAN CARE/ CARE Instructional Aide/ BASELINE CARE/ CARE Custodian/ METROPOLITAN Instructional Aide/ OTTER CREEK START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 1-24-05 2-02 7.70 4-26-05 CARE per hour 6-10-04 31-01 11379.00 4-19-05 CUS928 9-20-99 3-06 9575.00 4-19-05 FSH550 10-1-67 42-20 35592.00 6-13-05 CLK11 8-15-85 38-20 31596.00 6-10-05 CLK10 8-17-92 56-20 54060.00 6-15-05 AN10 9-9-02 31-05 12821 .00 5-19-05 CUS928 2-24-94 33-17 16595.00 6-6-05 INA925 8-4-04 31-01 11 379.00 4-19-05 CUS928 3-6-03 3-06 8.54 6-3-05 CARE per hour 8-20-97 33-15 15637.00 5-17-05 INA925 10-4-04 1-05 7.56 4-18-05 CARE per hour 9-9-91 31-01 14532.00 5-5-05 CUS12 1-3-01 33-11 13875.00 6-6-05 INA925 Personnel Changes Page 9 May 26, 2005 NAME Dawson, Bruce Gordon, Mary START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE New Non-Certified Employees CARE/ 4-22-05 CARE CARE/ 4-18-05 CARE SALARY CLASS 4-01 CARE 3-09 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 6.25 per hour 9.00 per hour ~g~ mn 3....,.1 ,:o' ~ oz -\u0026lt; C) Hl Rl %~ ~\nc ~\n,:: zcn C) \u0026gt;., , .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; CCD\nc C (\") (/) $:z m~ Ou, \"Tim ~~ %(\") Om o,-cn CD C \"' !Xl (\") 0 z (/) C !::\nz C) ~ Rl m lC zm ~ C 0 z ~ 6z CJ'\u0026gt; DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of the Director of Professional Development BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors voted on March 24, 2005, to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted, and directed the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. RATIONALE: The position of Director of Professional Development is critical to the District as it begins planning for the professional development workshops for certified staff during the 2005- 06 school year. This individual will work with building level administrators to determine the needs of the District's staff in order to meet all educational goals. The Director will also advise the Senior Director of Curriculum regarding all professional training needs, trainers, schedules, and any new topics for professional training. FUNDING: This position will be funded from the District's operating budget according to the appropriate salary schedule. RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Dr. Lloyd Sain, to the position of Director of Professional Development. Dr. Sain's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PLEASE POST REVISED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 18, 2005 PLEASE POST REVISED The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Director - Professional Development OUALIFICA TIONS: 1. A valid Arkansas License as a Supervisor or Administrator or be eligible for same. 2. Master's Degree with special interest/experience in professional development. 3. Minimum of five (5) years successful teaching and supervisory experience. 4. Expertise and experience related to learning/thinking skills. 5. Mastery of effective teaching techniques. 6. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 7. Strong interpersonal skills. 8. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To provide the leadership and technical assistance to establish and maintain a Professional Development Component for LRSD in order to respond to the learning needs of its school population/staff (certified and non certified), Board of Directors and patrons. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports Directly to Senior Director - Curriculum Job Titles which report directly to Director - Professional Development Coordinator( s) of Professional Development \"!\"x \"D. C: a, (\"\"') CC/:) ~z ~~ Ov, .,,m ~~ :en Om OV\u0026gt; r a, C: \"' !XI (\") 0 z C/) C: !:\nz Cl ~ ~ m 31: zm 0 C 0 z ~ 0 z VI ESSENTAIL FUNCTIONS I RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility for planning, coordinating and successfully implementing ongoing professional development activities and programs in the Little Rock School District. 2. Plans, coordinates, and successfully implements customized training opportunities in the areas of instructional methods, use of data, assessment for learning, curricula, classroom management strategies, parent involvement, and parent education 3. Assists principals and others with building-level professional development needs and activities. 4. Conducts in-service sessions for specified groups of employees who must deal with special problems, (e.g., principals and assistant principals will participate in in-service sessions which address the problem of closing the achievement gap of students). 5. Continually investigates possible funding sources and other sources for Little Rock School District Professional Development and to work with area universities, state agencies, and foundations whenever possible and appropriate. 6. Develops, plans and directs a progress monitoring/ assessment system for determining the effectiveness of the district's professional development programs. 7. Keeps abreast of current trends and effective practices regarding pedagogy, assessment, and professional development at district, state and national levels. 8. Serves as the liaison between LRSD and the office of Professional Quality Enhancement at ADE. 9. Coordinates and manages the Aspiring Principals Program consistent with the Associate Superintendent's direction, district priorities and state regulations. 10. Directs, oversees and evaluates the performance of Professional Development staff members including their ability to service the needs ofLRSD. 11. Plans and directs a quality induction program for novice and new teachers to the district. 12. Manages all budgetary components of the Professional Development department. 13. Approves salary credit information for the LRSD employees, approves staff development proposals, administers professional advancement credit and equivalency clock hour systems, and maintains the information by schools on the computer. 14. Distributes combined salary credit and in-services information every nine weeks to all LRSD employees. 15. Serves on the Tri-District Council to improve the relations between the three districts. (North Little Rock, Pulaski County, and Little Rock) 16. Serves on the Professional Development Strategic Planning Council, the Arkansas Department of Education Committee, The National Professional Development Council Committee, and the State Professional Development Committee. 17. Organizes and provides leadership opportunities for district staff. 18. Secures grant money to enhance the Professional Development Department. 19. Performs other duties as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS\nPay0l - Grade 73 - $50,928 - $89,808 - Twelve month administration contract (250 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement on the salary range will be determined based upon experience and education. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATIO DEADLINE: April 25, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams -Director Little Rock School District HUMAN RESOURCES 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITIO DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. ?\"x \"C  C CD\n,oc (\")\"' ~z ~~ Oen -nm ~~ :,:(\") Om o,...c n CD ,C,. 0 C 0 z ~ 0z Cl) Lloyd Sain, Jr., Ed.D Lsainjr@sbcglobal.net or Llovd.Sain@LRSD.org 2300 Rebsamen Park Road, Apt. A208 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 H: (501) 280-0593 W: 501-447-1016 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY:  To believe that effective leadership offers to its organization support, delegation, coaching, and direction as it appropriately creates, coordinates, monitors, and adjusts to the environment in achieving institutional effectiveness and reaching its vision.  To believe and promote that all children, despite their economic status or available resource, are capable of learning and achieving when appropriate systems, programs, and instructions are purposefully designed to meet their present needs and deficiencies. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 1985 1989 1994 2001 University of Central Arkansas Conway, Arkansas B. S. E. Degree, English Education Special Education, minor Middle school certification University of Central Arkansas Graduate Studies: English \u0026amp; Writing Education, 39 hours Arkansas State University Jonesboro, Arkansas M. S. E. Degree, Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction/ Administration \u0026amp; Supervision Endorsement University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas Ed.D, Educational Administration \u0026amp; Supervision CERTIFICATION: Type: WORK EXPERIENCES: August 1985 - August 1993 January 1991 - May 1993 August 1993 - July 1996 January 1994 - 2003 July 1996 - July 1998 July 1998- June 2003 July 2003 - Present Secondary English, 7-12 Middle School certification Curriculum Specialist, K-12 Supervisor, K -12 Secondary Principal, 5-12 Administration Forrest City Middle School English Instructor, Gr. 7-8 Forrest City School District Adult Education Program Instructor Little Rock School District Central High School, Grade 10 Philander Smith College Department of English Adjunct Faculty Pulaski Heights Junior High School - Assistant Principal Alternative Learning Center Principal Coordinator of Leadership Development/Central Office PROFESSIONAL AND PUBLICATIONS CREDITS: Sain, L. (2003). Using From Rage to Hope: The principal's role in creating a school vision. Alternative Network Journal, 17, 30-31: 38-40. Sain. L. (2001). A comparison of pre-post student outcomes and perception after an intervention of a secondary alternative program disruptive students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Little Rock. .,,.x \"ti. C CD :,:,c nen ~z ~~ .O.,emn enn,:\n,:\n, s\no,...e n CD C \"' ~ n 0z en C ~ z C) \u0026gt; C) ~ m lC zm 0 C 0 z ~ 5z (J) DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of the Director of Career and Alternative Education BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors voted on March 24, 2005, to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted, and directed the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. RATIONALE: The position of Director of Career and Alternative Education is critical to the District since the placement for students in the alternative classrooms for the 2005-06 school year has already begun and all career and vocational programs are being monitored. This individual will work with building level administrators and the student hearing officer to meet the placement needs of the District's students. The Director will also advise the Associate Superintendent for Secondary Education regarding career/ vocational needs as well as the needs of the alternative learning programs. FUNDING: This position will be funded from the District's operating budget according to the appropriate salary schedule. RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Carol Green, to the position of Director of Career and Alternative Education. Ms. Green's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 18, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Director - Career/ Alternative Education OUALIFICA TIONS: 1. Master's degree or higher including eighteen ( 18) semester hours in vocational education in an approved vocational teacher education program. A valid Arkansas teaching license as a Vocational Administrator or School Administrator required. 2. Successful experience in teaching and administration of vocational education in an urban setting. 3. Evidence of strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and vocational education. 4. Successful experience in dealing with students, parents, and staff in decision making and communication. 5. To develop, expand, and provide quality vocational and technical education programs to our students that will enable them upon graduation to be competitively employed. 6. Evidence of successful experience in developing and implementing Tech Prep program of studies. 7. Evidence of successful involvement of parents and staff in problem solving. 8. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in dealing with students' problems. 10. Strong interpersonal skills. 11. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 12. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. .!=.\u0026gt;, z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt; I\"'\" Cl)\n..,,, ,.x C: CD\n,:, C: (\")Cl) ~z ~~ 0 C/) ..,m Cl):\u0026gt;l (\") c5 Bm OCI\u0026gt; I\"'\" CD C: \"' 0 C 0 z ~ 6z (J) JOB GOAL: To Supervise the District's Alternative Education Programs. To provide students enrolled in the vocational education program with education and training of sufficient excellence to enable them upon graduation to enter the job market with entry-level skills, varied intellectual interests, and sufficient understanding and curiosity to continue their growth and maturation as a worker and as an individual. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports Directly to Associate Superintendent - Secondary Education Job Titles which report directly to Director Career/ Alternative Education Coordinator of Alternative Leaming Center Coordinator Accelerated Leaming Coordinator Metropolitan Vo-Tech Coordinator of Adult Education ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS I RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Develops and supervises quality and technical education programs. 2. Assists the District in developing Tech prep program of studies. 3. Assists in developing and providing quality staff development activities for vocational and other support staff. 4. Assists in the development and/or revision of curriculum for vocational programs in the District. 5. Assists instructors and administrators in selecting state-of-art equipment, materials, and supplies for vocational education. 6. Knows and interprets local, state, and national trends, standards, guidelines, and policies pertaining to vocational education. 7. Assists in the work of Vocational Education Advisory Committees and with vocational student organizations. 8. Prepares proposals for vocational and technical education. 9. Develops plans for needed renovation/expansion of existing laboratories and/or classrooms in coordination with Plant Services and other appropriate departments/individuals. 10. Assists in recruiting and screening qualified applicants for teaching positions. 11. Evaluates the Coordinators of ALC, ACC, Metro Vo-Tech and Adult Education. 12. Provides leadership and oversight of Metropolitan High School and the alternative / diploma / GED programs in the District. 13. Advises the Coordinators on budgetary, disciplinary and personnel issues. 14. Collaborates with the Senior Director of Student Services and District principals when placing students in and out of an alternative learning environment. 15. Performs other duties as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Pay0l - Grade 76 - $55,704 - $98,220 Twelve (12) month contract, (250 days) plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 28, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director Little Rock School District HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTIO PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES OT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. ~ \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \"C . C Dl\n,c C nen ~z ~~ Oen -nm ~:l! :en Oiii oen r- 0:, C Cf' !XI C') 0 z en C ~ z C, ~ Rl m :!C zm 0 C 0 z ~ 0z Cl) CAREER OBJECTIVE: EDUCATION: Work Experience: CAROL B. GREEN 14200 Taylor Loop Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 (501) 868-5605 h (501) 447-1390 w carol.green@lrsd.org. To provide students enrolled in the career and technical programs of Little Rock School District with education and training of excellence that will enable them, upon graduation, to enter the job market with entry level skills, varied intellectual interests, and sufficient understanding and curiosity to continue their growth and maturation as a worker and as a productive citizen. Sweet Home High School - 1966 Philander Smith College 1970 - Bachelor of Science Major - Special Education for Mentally Handicapped Minor - Elementary Education University of Central Arkansas 1971- Master of Science in Education Special Education for the Physically Handicapped Additional Studies: George Peabody University- Nashville, Tennessee University of Arkansas at Fayetteville - Fayetteville, Ar Arkansas State University- Jonesboro, Ar Auburn University -Auburn, Alabama Areas of certification: Secondary Principal, Secondary Vocational Administration, Elementary Education, Special Education - Mentally and Physically Handicapped, Marketing Technology Education, and Assistant Director/Post Secondary Education Little Rock School District 1993- Present 1998-Present Director Career and Technical Education Area Center Director/Metropolitan Director/Principal Accelerated Learning Center (non-traditional education program) 1992- 1993 1992 Oan. - June) 1984- 1992 1973-1984 1971-1973 Interim Principal Metropolitan Area Center Supervisor Trade and Industrial Education Marketing Education Coordinator Central High Parkview Magnet High Vocational Evaluator Metropolitan Area Center Special Education Instructor Metropolitan High School ACTIVITIES/ MEMBERSHIPS (past and present):  National Skills USA Technical Quiz Bowl Committee  Commissioner -Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation  Private Industry Council/JTPA Member  The Centers - Board of Directors  Economic Development Council - Pulaski Enterprise Community  Board of Examiners for Arkansas Quality Award  Leadership Greater Little Rock Class XII - Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce  Southern Region Education Board Site Evaluator  Pocahontas Service Unit -Girl Scout Leader Troop #544  Central Arkansas Career Opportunities Committee  Mentor - University of Arkansas at Little Rock EDAS Administrative Intern  Arkansas Promise to Pulaski County Youth Program  Southwest Little Rock Community Coalition  Arkansas Association of Career Technical Education  Association for Career and Technical Education  Little Rock School District Technology Committee c:, .., z )\u0026gt; z (\") ,\u0026gt;- v,\n,,\u0026gt;, X. C: CD \"(')' CV:) $:z ~~ 0 V, ..,m V,\"' Oc5 Sm O,-V\u0026gt; CD C: U' ~ 0 C 0 z ~ 6z (/l REFERENCES:  Chairperson - Greater Second Baptist Church Board of Trustees  Resource Speaker - S.W.I.S.T.A.R Investment Partnership\nPLATO Learning Educational Software (state and national)\nMartin Luther King Celebration (local schools)  Panelist - City-wide Volunteer Planning Committee  New Futures Youth Career Development Policy Team  Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Incorporated  Greater Second Baptist Childcare Oversight Committee Dr. Marian G. Lacey, Assistant Superintendent School Services Division Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. J.C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dr. Katherine Mitchell Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Lee F. Griffith As ociate Director for Workforce Training Arkansa Department of Workforce Education #3 Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dr. Curtis Ridout, Pastor Greater Second Baptist Church 5615 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of the Director of Maintenance and Operations BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors voted on March 24, 2005, to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted, and directed the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. RATIONALE: The position of Director of Maintenance and Operations is critical to the District as the District begins routine summer maintenance on all facilities. The Director will advise the Chief Financial Officer of any issues regarding this department. FUNDING: This position will be funded from the District's operating budget according to the appropriate salary schedule. RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Mr. Wayne Adams, to the position of Director Maintenance and Operations. Mr. Adams' resume and a job description are attached for your review. .!=.,' z )\u0026gt; z (\") \u0026gt; rt/)\n,,,x \"C. C a,\noc (\")(/) ~z ~~ Ov, \"Tim ~~ ::,:(\") Om .C-V\u0026gt; a, C u, PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 15, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Director - Maintenance and Operations QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Engineering or related degree from accredited college or university. At least eight (8) to ten (10) years of experience in managing a complex maintenance organization. Experience may be considered in lieu of education. 2. Demonstrated knowledge of the principles of financial programming, planning, management, and maintenance and repair of physical facilities and real property. 3. Experience in a managerial capacity in a business, school, industry, or governmental agency. 4. Demonstrated ability in effective written and oral communications, computational skills, organizational tasks, budgeting, and solving problems related to maintenance, repair, construction and operations. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. 6. Evidence of successful experience with parental and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Experience in the utilization ofan automated internet-based, multi-site, work-order system. 8. Strong interpersonal skills. 9. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 10. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDE CE OF THESE OUALIFICATIO SIN THE INITIAL SCREENI G INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To maintain physical school facilities in a condition of operational excellence, cleanliness, and safety so that full educational use of them may be made at all times. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports Directly to Chief Financial Officer Job Titles which report directly to the Director of Maintenance and Operations: Maintenance Supervisors Grounds Supervisors Custodial Managers ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Responsible for overall coordination of comprehensive maintenance and repair programs for all physical facilities of the Little Rock School District. 2. Responsible for providing comprehensive cost analysis of school plant services expenditures, as a basis for budget projections, to the Chief Financial Officer on an annual basis for the Maintenance and Operations budgets. Is additionally responsible for the administration of budgets and allocated funds to the Director. 3. Responsible for developing programs to ensure the adequate inspection of all buildings, grounds, and installations to determine that high standards of workmanship and cleanliness are maintained. 4. Responsible for determining the maintenance, repair, grounds keeping, and custodial requirements for all schools and administrative buildings in the District. 5. Responsible to ensure that standards applicable to operations, maintenance, and repair are consistent with applicable laws and local codes. 6. Responsible for organizing and implementing a program of preventive maintenance commensurate with allocated resources and the requirements of all District equipment. 7. Responsible for developing programs and plans for dealing with emergency situations with regard to the operation and maintenance of all Little Rock School District facilities. 8. Responsible for overall coordination of special requirements affecting the operations of the Little Rock School District such as the Asbestos Program, Environmental Protection Agency Permit Programs, and Energy Conservation Program. 9. Responsible for the implementation and orientation and training programs of the proper operation and maintenance of school facilities for all Maintenance and Operations personnel and other personnel directed. Training covers such vital areas as asbestos training, new products, plant operations, and custodial operations. 10. Responsible to stay informed of the latest trends, developments and products in the areas of Maintenance and Operations and for developing programs to incorporate such trends as required. 11 . Responsible for preparing special reports, as requested, to the Administration and Board of Directors on all operational, repair, and maintenance matters as necessary. 12. Assists in the recruitment, employment, assignment, transfer, or dismissal of Maintenance and Operations personnel in accordance with applicable personnel policies. 13. Oversees a custodial support staff to provide technical assistance, manpower, and operational recommendations on custodial matters to school principals. Provides custodial direction only in cases of emergency as required and temporary summer cleaning crews organized to providing District-wide support. ,:, .,, z \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt; r( J) .,..x -0  C: CD :,, C: (\")(J) $\nz ~~ Ou, .,,m tn:\u0026gt;l ~ Om .O- tn CD C: tft ~ (\") 0 z tJ\u0026gt; C: !::\nz Cl ~ Rl m :!I: zm r C 0 z ~ 0z (/) 14. Performs such other responsibilities as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Pay02 - Grade 75 - $54,060 - $95,328 Twelve (12) month contract, (250 days) plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Support Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 25, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director Little Rock School District HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. MEMORANDUM FACILITY SERVICES DATE: April 19, 2005 TO: FROM: Beverly Williams, Director of Human Resources Wayne Adams, Facility Services Coordinator Professional Experience and Qualifications for the Position of Director of Maintenance and Operations SUBJ: Enclosed is a summary of my experience and qualifications in response to the posting for the position of Director of Maintenance and Operations. I am a professional in the area of facility operations with 34 years of experience in physical plant engineering, maintenance, and construction. I have over 22 years of experience with the Little Rock School District as Coordinator of Plant Services, which affords me a unique and comprehensive knowledge of all Little Rock School District sites and their mechanical support systems. I have 1 O years of direct experience in management of construction services. Enclosed is a detailed description of the specific responsibilities that I performed throughout my career. Also, I have enclosed several letters of recommendation and descriptions of achievements from individuals with whom I have had a professional relationship for many years and who have firsthand knowledge of my abilities and performance. In summary my experience, prior to being employed by the Little Rock School District in 1983, is as follows:  Arrow Automotive Corporation - Plant Engineering Manager  Ward Bus Manufacturing Corporation - Plant Engineering Manager  Metal Stamping Corporation - Plant Engineering and Quality Control Manager  Timex Corporation - Product Engineer/Camera Assembly  Westinghouse Corporation, Lamp Division - Chief of Quality Control  University of Arkansas GIT - Computer Programming  University of Arkansas at Little Rock - Major in Math/Minor in Chemistry \u0026amp; Physics .?.\u0026gt;, \u0026gt;. \u0026lt; C: a:, ::,:, C: C\")(/) ~z mra Ocn -nm cn::,J nc5 s1n o.-cn a:, C: \"' In addition to the above professional experience, I have voluntarily served the community in the following capacities:  Finance Committee - River Market Art Fest 2004, 2003.  Environmental Advisor - Christ Lutheran  Building Committee Advisor - Christ Lutheran appreciate this opportunity to continue to serve the Little Rock School District as Director of Maintenance and Operations. WA:cg DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of the Director of Finance and Accounting BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors voted on March 24, 2005, to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted, and directed the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. RATIONALE: The position of Director of Finance and Accounting is critical to the District. This individual will work with the Chief Financial Officer in the preparation of the budget and oversee the routine payroll and accounting procedures of the District. The Director will advise the Chief Financial Officer regarding any issues in this department. FUNDING: This position will be funded from the District's operating budget according to the appropriate salary schedule. RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Jean Ring , to the position of Director of Finance and Accounting. Ms. Ring's resume and a job description are attached for your review. ~ \"T1 z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt; r \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\n,,-x \"ti  C CO :,:,c (\")\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ~z ~~ CV\u0026gt; -nm !ll~ ::,:(\") Om CV\u0026gt; r co C \"' !D PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 15, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Director - Finance and Accounting OUALIFICA TIO NS: 1. Bachelor's degree in Accounting required. 2. CPA required. 3. Experience with fund accounting. 4. Strong interpersonal skills. 5. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To administer the fiscal affairs of the district efficiently, expeditiously, and to the ultimate benefit of each individual student enrolled. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports Directly to Chief Financial Officer ESSENTAIL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Directs all financial accounting. 2. Oversees the preparation and recording of all disbursements of district funds 3. Recommends the purchase of and oversees the maintenance of accounting equipment. 4. Oversees the reconciliation of all bank accounts monthly. 5. Prepares all reports that are the result of the accounting function including required state and federal reports with the District auditors, both internal and external, and provides information to them as requested. 6. Reports to the Chief Financial Officer on the accounting affairs of the District and recommends changes and improvements as needed. 7. Oversees investment of available district funds. 8. Performs other duties as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS\nPay02 Grade 75 - $54,060 - $95,328 - Twelve month administration contract (250 days), plus benefits package and car allowance. NOTE: Precise placement on the salary range will be determined based upon experience and education. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 25, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director Little Rock School District HUMAN RESOURCES 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITIO MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITIO DOES OT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. .~., z z\u0026gt; n \u0026gt;.... v, .,,. \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \"\"  C a,\noc (\"\") V, ~z ~~ Ov, ..,m V,\no n\ns\n5iii .O-V\u0026gt; a, C \"' 0 C 0 z ~ 0z (/l OBJECTIVE JEAN A.RING 4106 Sam Peck Road Little Rock, AR 72223 ( 501) 224-3425 Seeking a career in the accounting field that will provide increasing technical challenge and responsibility. EXPERIENCE Little Rock School District - Little Rock, Arkansas Assistant Manager, Financial Services 1986-Present Duties include managing district daily cash account positions in order to meet immediate needs while achieving optimal return on investment for funds that exceed current cash flow requirements. Responsibilities include: supervision of the accounts payable staff, scheduling daily accounts payable check runs, scheduling all payroll check runs, maintaining and balancing all files used in the preparation of all payroll tax and retirement reports, as well as the supervision of payroll clerks. Responsible for monthly reconciliation of all district bank statements, and balancing the general ledger. Duties also include assisting independent auditors by preparing financial statements and schedules for use in the annual district audit. Provides assistance to the Manager of Financial Services in the preparation of the annual budget, including submittal of budget and actual expenditures to the State of Arkansas. Responsibilities also include working with Software Vendors, Systems Analysts, and Information Services personnel in order to implement, maintain and upgrade District information systems resources. Thomas and Thomas, CPA - Little Rock, Arkansas Staff Accountant 1985-1986 Responsibilities include assisting in the coordination of the auditing and financial reporting for all major clients, as well as the supervision of assistant accountants and accounting clerks. Client industries have included: Governmental, Manufacturing, Telecommunications, Construction, School Districts and Automobile Dealerships. Thomas and Thomas, CPA - Little Rock, Arkansas Accounting Clerk 1983-1985 Responsibilities included assisting professional staff in accounting clerical functions such as preparation of client financial statements and tax returns with the assistance of electronic data processing. Bausch and Lomb, Inc - Pine Bluff, Arkansas Accounting Clerk 1980-1982 Responsibilities included preparation of financial statements, payroll and payroll tax reports and various receivable and payable functions. Responsible for billing under the state Medicaid contract. EDUCATIO Bachelor of Science in Business Administration - Major in Accounting, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 5/85 Certified Public Accountant - Received designation, 9/87 I TERESTS, AND ACTIVITIES Member - Williams Magnet PT A - Good Citizen Committee Chairman Treasurer - Paiirs Sunday School Class, St James United Methodist Church Member - (past president) - Pi Beta Phi DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of the Coordinator of Grants BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors voted on March 24, 2005, to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted, and directed the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. RATIONALE: The position of Coordinator of Grants is critical to the District as we continue to develop and write for discretionary grants to benefit the students, schools, and various programs of the District. This individual will also manage some of the entitlement programs. The Director will work with building administrators to help them address, via grant funds, the goals and objectives for their school. The Director will advise the Senior Director of Curriculum regarding all grant submissions. FUNDING: This position will be funded from the District's operating budget according to the appropriate salary schedule. RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Linda Austin, to the position of Coordinator of Grants. Ms. Austin 's resume and a job description are attached for your review. .!=.\u0026gt;, z z\u0026gt; (\") \u0026gt;,... (J) .?.,\u0026gt; .x C: CD :,:, C: (\") (J) $: z ~~ Ou, ..,m un,\n::,0\nSm ,O...U \u0026gt; CD C: \"' PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 15, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Coordinator - Grants Manager QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree or higher. 2. At least five (5) years successful experience in education and/or social services. 3. Experience in education and administration. 4. Knowledge of the schools and District policy and procedures. 5. Knowledge of New Futures Initiative and all of its component parts. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 7. Strong interpersonal skills. 8. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 9. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: Provides leadership and coordination of the District's grant writing activities and ensures their alignment with District priorities. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports Directly to Associate Superintendent of Educational Services ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Reports monthly the status of grant proposals and project. 2. Studies all federal legislation, projects, and programs for the possibilities and opportunities they offer for educational grants, entitlements, and allocations offered relevant to the needs of the District. 3. Informs, interprets, and recommends to the Associate Superintendent the effects of current and impending federal legislation. 4. Prepares and submits annually an application for federal funds, and coordinates and supervises all activities paid from these funds. 5. Writes/approves all federal project proposals and the filing of such applications for federal funding. 6. Assists the Associate Superintendent and the professional staff in planning wise utilization of funds available to schools through various federal programs. 7. Disseminates pertinent information about federal programs-grants, legislation, program progress-through correspondence and staff meetings. 8. Facilitates with professional staff--content area supervisors, coordinators, directors-the relevancy of curriculum content and the appropriateness of teaching strategies as related to program objectives and goals. 9. Coordinates the professional staff informative and summative evaluation of all federal programs funded through this office. 10. Complies and maintains written records and reports on results of all federal projects and disseminates this information, as appropriate, to other educational institutions, lay groups, the State Department of Education, and the U.S. Office of Education. 11. Facilitates the desegregation process in the assignment of staff in the area offederal programs. 12. Provides specific means to keep parent council members abreast of federal regulations, state guidelines, and local program activities. 13. Serves as a liaison between the school and other agencies on all possible federal funded projects of a joint community nature. 14. Prepares an annual report for the Board summarizing the evaluations offederally funded programs including those completed and those in progress. 15. Prepares and administers a budget for assigned departments. 16. Performs such other responsibilities as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Pay0l - Grade 72 - $49,428 - $87,168 Twelve (12) month contract, (250 days) plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATIO : Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z C'l .\u0026gt;... u, .'.?, \".x C: c:,\ni:, C: C') u, ~z ~rn .0. ,mu, [ll~ ::cC'l Om .0.. . u, c:, C: \"' 0 C 0 z ~ 0z (/) APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 25, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director Little Rock School District HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. EXPERIENCE 1999 - Present 2004 - Present 2002 - Present 2002 - Present 2001 - Present 1988 - 1999 1986 - 1988 1984 - 1987 1976 - 1978 1975 - 1976 1972 - 1975 Summer 1973 1971 - 1972 LINDA YOUNG AUSTIN 14108 BELLE POINTE DRIVE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212 (501) 225-5439 Director of Planning and Development, Little Rock School District Project Director, Smaller Learning Communities Grant Initiative/Central and Fair High Schools, Little Rock School District Project Director, Smaller Learning Communities Grant lnitiativeiHall and McClellan High Schools, Little Rock School District Project Director, 21 st CCLC grants/Hall, Woodruff, Henderson, McClellan and Mabelvale Middle, Little Rock School District Southern Regional Education Board District Coordinator, Little Rock School District New Futures Liaison/Director of Restructuring, Internal Facilitator, Strategic Planning, Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR University of Arkansas at Little Rock Employed to redesign and coordinate the student teaching program Self-employed: Real Estate Development/Construction Management Specialization in historic renovation Pulaski Academy, Little Rock, AR Employed as Elementary Principal Pulaski Academy, Little Rock, AR Employed as a sixth grade teacher Pine Haven Elementary School, Bauxite, AR Employed as a sixth grade teacher. Assistant Director, University of Arkansas graduate summer reading practicum program. Washington Elementary School, Fayetteville, AR Employed as a sixth grade teacher. .!=.,' z \u0026gt;z C\") \u0026gt; r (J) ,\n,\u0026gt;, .X C CD\n,\n,c C\")(J) ?\nz ~ra O\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; -nm v,\n,\n, n\u0026lt; :c C\") Om O\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; r CD C \"' f) C 0 z ~ 5z (fl EDUCATION 1970- 1971 - Graduate Work: CIVIC ACTIVITIES University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR Degree: B.S.E. in elementary education with emphasis in business and social science University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR Degree: M.Ed. in elementary education with emphasis in reading 1972 - 1998, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, UALR, UCA\ncompleted 42 graduate hours in the areas of administration and curriculum Commission member: City of Little Rock Education Commission, 1994 - 1998 City of Little Rock Advisory Board for the Neighborhood Resource Center, 1997 - 1998 Parents for Public Schools, 1996 - 1998 Technical assistance to the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and Boy Scouts of America to develop comprehensive youth leadership program for high risk youth, 1995 President, UALR Reading Auxiliary, 1984 - 1986 President, Arkansas Symphony Orchestra Guild, 1986 - 1987 Board of Directors, Arkansas Symphony Orchestra, 1986 - 1987 Board of Directors, Arkansas symphony Orchestra Guild, 1979 - 1987 Served as a member of the transition team for then Governor Bill Clinton, 1979- 1980 Volunteer and leadership positions with Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors, Jefferson PT A, 1986 - 1988 Board of Directors, Pulaski Heights Junior High PT A, 1993 - 1994 RECOGNITIONS Who's Who in American Education - 1993 Recipient of the 1990 Arkansas Juvenile Justice Recognition Award Volunteer in Public Schools Award LRSD, 1987 - 1988 Leadership of Greater Little Rock, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Board Member: Center for Middle Level Education, Research and Development University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR Founding Board Member: Arkansas Middle Level Association, Urban Representative 1989 - 1998 National Middle School Association Phi Delta Kappa Educational Association National Association of Secondary School principals 2 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Charter member of the Arkansas Association of Elementary School Principals ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Associate, Cambridge Group, International Strategic Planning Center, Montgomery, AL Fellow, Center for Leadership in School Reform, Louisville, KY Senior consultant, Center for Middle Level Education, University of Arkansas Fayetteville Editorial Board, MidSouth Journal of Middle Level Education Member, Southern Forum for Middle Level Education Presenter, Arkansas Department of Education, Comprehensive School Reform Statewide Technical Assistance Workshop 2004 Presenter, High Schools That Work Urban Council Meeting, 2003 Presenter, University of Arkansas's Summer Institute on Middle Level Education 1993 - 1998 Consultant/Developer, Philander Smith College, Middle School Course Sequence/Curriculum 2000 Presenter, National Middle School Association National Conference 1992 Presenter, regional conferences on change process, middle level reform, leadership, and building community school connections Participant in the New Futures Institute, Harvard University, Graduate School of Education Instructor, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Summer 11, 1998 - Middle School Methods\nAdolescent Development, Fall I, 1998. 3 .r:.:,, z \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt; r( J)\n,-x -0  C: tD \"'C: (\")(J)\nz ~ ~ .O.\u0026lt;,mJ\u0026gt; (J)~ ~!} Om ,O--\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; to ,C,.:. p C 0 z ~ 0z CJ) DATE: May 26, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of the Coordinator of the Early Childhood Education Center BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors voted on March 24, 2005, to approve and accept the organizational audit report as submitted, and directed the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. RATIONALE: The position of Coordinator of the Early Childhood Education Center is critical to the District as preparation begins for opening the ECE center for the 2005-06 school year. This individual will work with parents, teachers, and students to create a state of the art learning and enrichment center for the District's youngest students. The Director will advise the Director of Early Childhood Education regarding all needs and programs as this Center grows. FUNDING: This position will be funded from the District's operating budget according to the appropriate salary schedule. RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Judy Milam, to the position of Coordinator of the Early Childhood Education Center. Ms. Milam's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 15, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Coordinator - Fair Park Early Childhood Center OUALIFICA TIO NS: 1. Master's Degree or higher 2. Valid Arkansas Teaching License as an Elementary Principal 3. Knowledge of the Early Childhood State Program Standards, Early Childhood Framework and Benchmarks. 4. Evidence of Pre-K ELLA Training preferred. 5. Knowledge of early childhood development. 6. Knowledge of pedagogy and curriculum development appropriate for preschool education. 7. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems and successful experience with parent and staff involvement. 8. Evidence of strong commitment to quality integrated education. 9. Strong interpersonal skills. 10. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 11. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: Responsible for providing administrative assistance to the Associate Superintendent of Secondary Education in the area of office administration in order to achieve the departmental goals. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports Directly to the Director of Early Childhood ?\u0026gt; X \"ti . CID ~c ncn $:z ~~ Oen .,,m CJ)~ n c5 s1n ocn r ID C \"' !l' ~ C 0 z ::\n0z C/) ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility for the management and monitoring of the Fair Park Early Childhood Center, and serves as a chief advisor to the Director of Early Childhood on matters pertaining to administration and early childhood program implementation in the Center. 2. Serves on such advisory groups and task forces as assigned by the Director of Early Childhood. 3. Has a working knowledge of the Early Childhood Program Standards and Assurances. 4. Implements the process whereby Center needs are identified. Alerts the Director of Early Childhood regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 5. Creates a learning community of children and adults that promotes optimal child development and healthy families\nestablishes a personal relationship with staff\nworks with staff to function as a professional learning community\nmaintains a personal relationship and familiarity with the children and parents\nworks with parents to promote cooperation and understanding of the program 6. Administers, plans and oversees implementation of instructional preschool activities which promote developmentally appropriate student learning according to established guidelines. 7. Coordinates and facilitates curriculum development for the program\nworks with PRE to develop procedures for evaluating new programs, strategies, procedures\ncollects pertinent data\nworks collaboratively with PRE to analyze the data and prepares an annual report of the research. 8. Maintains records of each child's growth\nensures the needs of individual children are met\nrefers children to support services within the community as needed. 9. Formulates and develops policies, procedures, rules regulations, programs and activities related to the Center's programs and services\ndevelops and implements plans for the personnel in areas related to special needs, recruiting students, selecting program staff and estimating and ordering needed equipment and supplies. 10. Assists in the development of the annual preliminary preschool budget\nanalyzes and reviews budgetary and financial data\ncontrols and authorizes expenditures in accordance with established limitations, maintains an inventory of all equipment, furniture and costly instructional items. 11. Trains and evaluations the performance of assigned staff\ninterviews and selects employees and recommends transfers, reassignment, termination and disciplinary actions. 12. Implements immediate and long-term objectives adopted by the Fair Park Advisory Committee and the Fair Park Early Childhood Center Leadership Team. 13. Establishes partnerships with program staff, family members, board members, community representatives, civic leaders, and other stakeholders to design and improve services for children and their families. 14. Communications with other administrators, personnel, departments and outside organizations to coordinate activities and programs, resolves issues and conflicts and exchanges information. 15. Advocates on behalf of high-quality services to meet the needs of children and their families\ncooperates with state and community organizations in providing information to the public on the need for research related to effectiveness of early childhood education for preparing children for school. 16. Maintains membership in professional organizations and associations related to early childhood. 17. Cooperates with the Center's Resource Facilitator and other agencies in the development and presentation of parent education and involvement workshops\nassists in organizing recruiting volunteers and speakers\nprepares and delivers oral presentations to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1768","title":"Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-04-18/2005-05-31"],"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.)--History--21st century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School enrollment","School integration","Transportation","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and 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/1768"],"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":["90 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act; District Court, Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice; District Court, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond; District Court, Order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget; District Court, Notice of Filing of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION RESPECTING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS  INTER VEN ORS I. The Arkansas School Choice Act was enacted in 1989 and is codified at 6-18-206 - of the Arkansas Code. 2. Certain provisions of the Act permit the cross-district transfer of students under certain specified conditions and pursuant to certain limitations. 3. The North Little Rock School District is currently utilizing the School Choice Act to permit the transfer of substantial numbers of white PCS SD students all as depicted in Exhibit A, an analysis performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 4. It is the belief of the PCS SD that the volume of these transfers is having a current and will have a negative short-term affect upon its ability to fully desegregate its schools and to attain unitary status. 5. The PCSSD further believes that Section 6-18-206(f)(5) of the School Choice Act prohibits the current operation of the Act as it is currently being applied and implemented. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court suspending the current operation of the School Choice Act between the PCSSD and the NLRSD at least until such time as the PCSSD is declared unitary as to student assignment. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 0) ty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett I 010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 I le I I I I I I I ~ I I  I FINDINGS ON THE NORIB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PARTICIPATION IN ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE AND ITS EFFECT ON SCHOOLS IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004-05 February 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas EXHIBIT I /I I  I I I ~ Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District 2004-05 Table of Contents Introduction . . ...... . ....... .. ....... . ..... . ...... . . .. .... . ..... . ... . ..... . ... 1 ADE Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedures, and Enforcement of the Arkansas Public School Choice Act ..... . .. . . ..... .. . . ... . ...... 3 NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 . .... . ........... 1       .                 10 Sources of NLRSD School Choic~ Students Residing in the PCSSD 2004-05 ... . .. . .. . . . . 11 Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 . ... . .. ...... . .................. . . 12 Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice . .. . ...... . ........ .. . . .. 13 le INTRODUCTION The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the Urrited States District Court, prepared this report. ODM assists the Court in monitoring the compliance of the three Pulaski County school districts with court orders and the desegregation plans that form the substance of their settlement agreements. Key Issues  The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) asserts that its ability to desegregate its schools is impeded by the continued loss of white students from the Sherwood area who transfer to the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) under the provisions of the Arkansas School Choice Act.  The PCS SD further questions the \"propriety\" of the NLRSD enrolling white school choice students from PCSSD in predominantly white schools in the NLRSD. Purpose The PCS SD and NLRSD requested that ODM establish a data profile of the students transferring from the PCS SD to the NLRSD under the School Choice Act and provide data on the demographic effects of school choice transfers on both districts. This data will serve as a reference for the districts to use during discussions the parties scheduled for February 23, 2005. Background on Arkansas School Choice Public school choice in Arkansas allows students to attend a public school in a district other than the one in which they reside. The General Assembly passed the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 to give parents and guardians greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their children's individual educational needs. Before a student can attend a school in a nonresident district, the student's parent or guardian must complete and submit an application to the nonresident district they desire the student to attend. The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than July 1 of the year the student would begin the fall semester in the nonresident district. Under the Arkansas Public School Choice guidelines, no student may transfer to a nonresident district where the percentage of enro11ment for the student's race exceeds that of the student's resident district. Additionally, no student may transfer under Public School Choice if that transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. Since the PCSSD is predominantly white and the NLRSD predominantly African-American, only white students may transfer to NLRSD via school choice. The Public School Choice Act charges the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) with the responsibility of morritoring school districts' compliance with provisions of the law. le I I ~ Information Sources The student enrollment and racial composition figures contained in this report were extracted from ODM's report entitled 2004-05 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District. The data we used to prepare that annual report were furnished to us by the three Pulaski County school districts. We drew our total numbers of school choice students in the NLRSD from a printout of school choice students provided by the NLRSD district. In addition, we used the same information to identify the specific PCSSD school attendance zones in which those students live. In addition to examining enrollment data, ODM monitors interviewed both the principals ofNLRSD schools receiving school choice students and the PCS SD schools most significantly affected by the loss of those students. Finally, we interviewed some of the parents of school choice students to detennine which factors affected parents' decisions to pursue the school choice option for their children. Terminology The Pulaski County desegregation litigation refers to only black and white racial designations. Traditionally,, we have counted students who are of racial or ethnic groups other than white or African-American (such as Hispanic or Asian) along with white students in statistical totals and comparisons in order to remain consistent with the two racial categories identified in the districts' desegregation plans. Page 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES GOVERNING THE GUIDELINES, P.ROCEDURES,AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT August2003 1.00 PURPOSE 1.01 These rules-shall be known as the Arbnsas Department of-Education Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedure$, and Enforcement of the Arlcansas Public School ChoiceAct 2.00 AUTHORITY 2.01 The Arkansas State B:aard ofEducatian'sauthority forpromulg~ting these .rules is pursuant to.Ark. Code Ann. \"~11-105,  6-15-429, and .6-18- 206. 3.00 DEFINITIONS 3 .QI Student - for purposcs .. oftbis rule means ~ person legally enrolled or entitled to .be ,enwlled in Ii pilblit .school distriet in Arkansas. \"3 .02 Resident district - for purposes of this rule means the.-ptiblicschool -district wherc .. a studentis considered to reside pursuant IQ Ark. Code:Ann. - 6-l8- 2!)2, 3.03 Ni:m-resident district  for p.urposes_.ofthis rule-means the,pulilic school ,district a student. last made legal application to,attend pursuant\" to the Arkansas :Pubiic School Choice Act:'for:the,currentschool year. 3 .04 -A_.p.plication -.for purposes f;lf tl:iis r-ule. mcans:a request submitted t0 .a non- resident district to transfer from a-student\\s-rcsident district to a nonresident district on the official form approved.'by the Arkansas Department of Education.  J .05 Boar-d - for purposes ofthis rule means.the Arkansas State Board of -Education. 3;06 Depal1ment-for.purposes of this rule means.the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.07 Minority - for purposcs ,of this rule minority includes thefollowing racial ,:groups: African American; Hispanic, Asian .or. Pacific Islander, American .1ndian or Alaskan Native. 3:0$. tv{ajoricy  for pul,'poscs :of this rule majorify includes the following racial group: Caucasian: Page 3- 4.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL DISTRJCTPARTICIPATION lN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 4.'0 i Each school district sh~II panicipa:te in publ-ic school choice consistent with this section. 4.02 Every.s.chool district must adopt a resolution setting forth specific standards for. acceptance and rejection of applications. 4.02.1 Such standards may include the capacity of .a schoQI program, cla:ss, grade level, or school building. 4.02.2 School districts shall not be required to add teachers, staff, or classrooms or .in any way exceed current requirements or standards established by existing law when considering whether to accept,'an application. 4.02.3 A school district's standards shall include a statement that priority will be given to applications.of siblings or step-siblings residing in the same residence :or household,of students already attending the district l?y-choice where an application has been filed. 4.02.4 A school .district's standar,ds for -a~ptancc and rejection -of applications shalLnot include a student'.s previous academic achie:v.ement, athletic or. extr.acumcular al,ilicy, handicapping cond.iti.ons; English pr.ofitiency lev.el, .or:prcvious rlisciplinary proceedings except that an expulsion from .. 'BDother school dis.trict .may be included as a standard. 4.03 Adistrictshall make public announcements overthe0broadcast media and in print media at such times and in such manner so as to inform parents or guardians ofstudents in agjoining distri:cts of the availability -of the program,'the July 1 application deadline, .and'the-rcq.uirements lind procedure for nonresidentstud~nts to participate in the program. 5.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPLlCATJONS FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO TIIEPUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 5;01 .Any s.tutlent may make application to enroJI and attend a scihool in a district in which the stdent do.es not reside, subject to the restrictions and procedures, contained in this rule-and regulation and Arkansas law. 5.:01 .1 Before,'2 student may attend a sch.o.ol in a nonresident district, the 'Student's parent or guardian must submit an application on the Page4 fonn approved by and provided by the Department (see attached .application) to the nonresident district. 5:Dl .2 The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than.July 1 of the year the student would begin th.e fall semester in the nonresident school district. 5.02 Any student attending a residentdistrict classified as being. in academic distress shall be el~gible and entitled to apply to transfer to another geograph-ically contiguous nonresident district not in academic distress during the .time period a district .is classified as being in academic distress subject to the restrictions.allow~ in 5.02.1 and 8,0D. 5.02.J Any student submitting an 11pplicatfon under this section shall not be required to file the petition by the July 1 deadline, but.shall meet all other rcquirements:and conditions of this rule. 5 .03 Within thiny (30) days of receipt of.an application for public scho.ol choice transfer from.a nonresident.student, the nonresident district shall notify the parent or guardian and the resident dis.wict in writing . .( via first class United States mail) asto whether the nonresident district.accepted .or rejected.the student's application. 5.03'1 Tfthe application is rejected, the nonresident district must state in the notification letter -the . specific reasons for rejection. 5J'J3.2 Iftbe application is accepJcd, the nonresident district shall state in the notification letter: a. An abspJute-d.cadiine for the student tQ enroll in the .district, or the acceptance notification is mill; and b. Any instructions fQr the renewal procedures established by the district 5.04 Any :student that stibinitted -a valid applfoation -for transfer, which was deriicd a trans(er by the nonresident district, may petition the Board to r.econsider the applicationfor transfer. The petitioning party shall se.t forth its arguments 1l!ld evidence supportin_gthe request for the Board's reconsideration ofthe'11pplicati.on along with a copy of the nonresident district's :riotificatlori of.rejection letter. 5.04.I The_petitiori for reconsideration before the Board shall be .in ,w..iling and shall. be postmadced (via certified first class United States-mail; retum r.ecelpt requested) no later than ten (IO} days after the student or Stlldent'.-s parents or guardian receives notice ,of reject-ion .from1hc nonresidentdistrict. Any request for a hearing :l?cfore 'the lioard must tie made in the petition for. reconsideration. Page5 .5.04.2 The petitioning party must mail or personally file their peiition for reconsideration of the:application to tbe nonresident district with the Office of the Director of the Department 5.04.3 The nonresident district may sqbmit iri writing-additional faformatioq, evidence or arguments supporting its rejection of tbe student's application. 5.04.4 The Board, at its sole discretion, .may grant a .publfo hearing -on the petition for r.eeonsideration or con.sider without n public hearing the pet-ition; briefs and evidence submitted in. Writing before issuing its final decision on the petition for reconsideration of the application. 5.04.5 The Board may requirethe nonresident district .to reconsider its rejection ofthe student iipplicatioil 'by a date.established by the Bo.ard before deciding whether to_,grantthe petition for reconsideration:of the -application. 5;04.6 The Board, at its discretion, shall have the -authority to require any person.associated wjth the .studem application (i.e. student, parent, guardian, etc.), the-nonresident district or,the resident -district to appear iri person .or by _pleiiding before-the Board as .a witness-on the.matter of a.petition for reconsideration,-ofan appJication. 6.00 TRANSPORTATION OF STUD~TS\u0026lt;IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 6.01 Transportation of a ,studcht:from the r.eside.nt district to a -nomesident district is the responsibility of the ~tudent .or the student's parents,or guardians. -6.0l.l When -a student:transfer:s :under section .S,04, .. -the ,cost.of transportationofa student from the,resident district to the no~sident district shall be the responsibility of the resident district. 6.02 The -nonr.esident district may enter into a written agreement with the  ~udent studenfs parents or,guardians, or resident school djstrfot to pr.ci:v1de tr:an~ortation to .er from any place in the resident .district to the nonresident -djstric'~ or both.  6.03 A nonr:esiderjt disefJct $h11U terminate transponlition services toa student .-upon-receiprofwr.itten no:tice (via certified first class United States mail, return T.ece\"i_pt.requested}frorn 1hc-Beyilitmerit to cease and desist transporting a student:fromthe student-'s resident.district. Page 6 I ,_ I I I  I 7 .Ob NONRESIDENT DISTRICT'S RESPONSfBILJTlES 7:01 The nonresident district shall acceptall credits toward graduation of a student that were awarded by another district. 7.02 The nonresident district shall .award a rliploma to a nonresident student accepted for transfer under the Public -School Choice Program if that student meets the nonresident district's graduation requirements. 7.03 The nonresident student accepted far: . iransfer under the Public Scho.ol Choice Program shall be counted as a.part cif the average daily membership of the nonresidentdisirict to which the student transfr;rred. i.oo PROVISIONS FORANDLIMitATIONS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE TRANSFERS 8:02 8.03 No stl.!dentmay transfer to a nonresident districtw.herethe p.ercentage of enrollment for the student's race exceeds that percentage in the student's resident district, except as.provided in 8.01.1 and 8.0i.2. 8.0:l.l A-transfer is permitted if{l)theti:lUlsferis :betwceo distr~cts within the .same county; and{2) ifthe .trailsfei' does. not result in either districtexceedigg,Uie ,acceptable =gc or varil!nce for representation ofaninority/maj.ority~dents. The .acceptable range .of~ariance., is,detCffllined,as provjded ;in .Section 8.02, or R.O 12 A transferis permitted :if each school.:district within the county does.not have:\"a ,.critical mass,of minority percentages of more than ten .percent (JO) ofany single race and the fr.ans fer is between two school tliStricts in the sanie:county. The Depart!J).ent shall each.year compute the minority/majority racial percentage(s}ofthe public sch6.61 population for each cotmty from the October Annual $chooJ Report. School districts may vary jn the underrepresentation or over~representation.cifminority/majbrity students bye maximum of'twcnty-fi:ve.p.ercent (25%) oftl')e difference in majo:rity/rhinoritypercenteges, for the county anletennined by the D~artment, Fpr.-:exa~p;le, when the Department has calculated the county'Hacial balance for eacb student race category, each district is allowed :~n ovcr-'represen.tation or under-representation of minority or ma jor1ty students ofa range, of up to twenty-five (25%) of the county's racial'balance.    No student transfer sha'lrbe permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such.a ,transfer would .conflict with a district's Page 7 I desegregation court order or ad~trict's. court-approved desegregation plan. ' 9.00 REPORTING AND MONITORING OBLIGATIONS 9.;0 I The Department shall monitor schooldistricts for colnplianee with the Public School Choice law (Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-206) and these rules. 9.02 Each school district shall provide to the Department, within thirty (30) working. days. of receipt of a written request from the Department, any information or reports the Department deems necessary for. review and determination of thescho:ol district's compliance with the Public School Choice Jaw and these rules. 9;03 All s.chool dlstricts shaJJ.reporHo the Equity Assistance Center of the Department,on an annual basislhe race, .gender, and o.ther pertinent infonnation needed tl:i properly monitor compliance with theprovisions,.of this section. 9.04 The reports may be on tho.sefor.ms that are prescdbed by the Department, or the data may be submitted electronically :by the district using a format authorized by the Department. 9;05 The Department may withhold state aid from any school district that fails t(l) file its r,epoJt each year or.fails.to file any other information with a published deadline requested from school ,districts by the Equity Assistance Center, so fo~g .~s thircy,(3l\u0026gt;} calendar d~ys are given between the request for the information and the published deadline, except when the requC$t .comes from  a member pr committee of the General Assembly. 10.00 DISPUTES  I 0.01 Any school district rriay petition the .StateBoard of Education to resolve alleged disputes0arising under subsectiens (!:!) - (f) oi'A.rk. Code Ann. ' 6- 18.:206. 10,02 Any,st::.hool district seeking to petition the-Stiite Board of Education must subi:nitwith its pet1.tion pr,o.of ofpublic nofrc~ of th.e. district's intenttq .petition:the State Board. The public notice shall.be piib1ished;.at least -an:ee per weekf or.twq consecutive weeks in a new~aper of general :circulation in ,all the school:distiicts impacted or involved in .the ,aUeted d.isp.ute. Hk03 The school dist:r-ictshall file its written petition with the Office .of the Director .of the Oe,piufunent at least thirty (30) working days prior to the Sta:te Board of.Edwcat10Ii rrieeting where the ~petition will be hear.d. Page 8 ,_ I I 10.04 10.05 The schoel di-striet :s'hair provide_proof in the petitidn that they have served (via certified first lass United'States-mai._, return receipt requested) a copy of their petition,to. the super-intendentc\u0026gt;fa:11 other'scbool districts invoJved in the alleged dispute: The petition shall set forth in writing the,particular issues of dispute under the Public School Ch9ice pr~gram, .the specific relief for whieh the petitio11ii1fparty is requesting the Board to-address; and sha:11 list all school distri.cts and other relevant parties in the dispute, I 0.:06 The petition shall set forth what efforts.have been attempted by ail relevant school boards and superintendents of the involved school districts to resolve the alleged dispute. 10.07 The petition shall state in writing whether the \\petitioning .school district requests A hearing before the Boar:d. I 0.08 The Bpa:rd, in it$ sdle discretion, shall determine whether to grant a pubHc hear.~g -on a.peiition or to take action on the petition and pleadings submitted without granting.:a: public bearing. 10.09 Any si.h00Ldistr,ict that is. listed as.:a party in a pe~ition to resolve a dispute .shall file a wr.itten-,response with tbc 'Officc: -of'the Director of the Deparnnent. The written CC$ponse sha:U be.submitted iorthe Board's consideration al:ong0with the. petition within ten (10)-working days of receipt of noti.ce ofibe p.etition. ro. LO The Board shall ~~e a written decision regarding all issues of alleged disp.ute mentioned in .the petition, anti the written decision shalJ be served on.-an the schooi districts listed as.parties of dispute in the petition (via certified fustc-l~s UniteciStates rnail, .retum receipt requested) within twenty (20) working days oftheiBoard'sfina-1 dec.ision. I OJ 1 Except for the procedures specifically set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-18- 20.6 and these ,rules, aHhear,ings conducted by the Board shall be c:.bnducted pursuantt,o,the Ar.kansa.s Administtative,Procedures Act, Ark. Cod.e Ann.  25-15-201 et. seq .. Page 9 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'School Crestwood Elem Indian Hills Elem Lakewood Elem Meadow Park North Heights NLRHS-West District Totals NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 .Tptal l:. ru oll,ne~ \" ... , Sche\u0026gt;ol Phoice l;nrqllment . Data Su~mary I 81, cLI . White \" !Total .'' Grade 'Level  '.Enrollment I 104 I 212 I 376 Kindergarten 13 School choice students comprise 13% of 111 grade 6 the total enrollment and 18% of white students. 2nd grade 6 3rd grade g Crestwood is 72% white with school choice 4\"' grade 10 students and 68% non-black without school choice students. 5\"' grade 6 Total so  I 11a I 390 I 508 Kindergarten 19 School choice students comprise 24% of 111 grade 22 the school's total enrollment and 32% of white students. 2nd grade 18 3rd grade 20 Indian Hills is 77% white with school choice 4\"' grade 16 students and 69% white without them. 5\"' grade 28 Total 123 I 100 I 25s I 361 Kindergarten 5 School choice students comprise 3% of the 11 grade 0 total school enrollment and 4% of white students. 2nd grade 1 3rd grade 2 Lakewood is 71 % white with school choice 4\"' grade 1 students and 70% white without them. 5\"' grade 2 Total 11 I 160 I 35 I 195 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 11 grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4\"' grade 5\"' grade Total 1 I 261 I 203 I 470 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 1st grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4\"' grade 5\"' grade Total 1 I s1s I 631 I 1,309 11 th grade No info Impact of the single school choice student 12th grade available is statistically minimal. Total 1 I s,61s I 3,ss1 I 9,496 Kindergarten 39 School choice students from PCSSD 1st grade 28 comprise 2% of the NLRSD enrollment. The district is 41 % white with the PCSSD 2nd grade 25 school choice students and 40% without 3\"' grade 31 them. 4th grade 27 5th grade 36 No Info 1 Total 187 - - -------------- Sources of NLRSD School Choice Students Residing In the PCSSD 2004-05 PCSSD Schools E E .c a, a, iii j\":' \"O iii a, i ~ CD = :! C :f '\u0026gt; \u0026gt;CD ~ \"O i :E C e 0 I 0 % :E C ::, i C ~ 0 i ! C C 0 0 .s en J C) I .!! J 1 1 J \u0026gt;- i en ~ .5 Q. 'E u .II: ! .! ! ~ ftl ::, ftl ftl ~ Cl m 0 0 0 0 :c -, 0 a: a, ~ a\u0026gt;,- :::, Crestwood 1 5 2 6 2 1 3 7 2 - - 6 7 - 4 4 50 lndlan HIiis - 2 2 15 8 1 - 8 - 1 1 32 42 - 1 10 123 Iii Lakewood Elem 1 2 8 2 - - - 1 - - - - 4 1 - - - 11 .c Meadow Park - - - - - - - u - - - - 1 - - - - 1 a, a0 , North Heights - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 Di: .z.J NLRH-West - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 Totals 2 9 6 21 10 2 4 15 2 1 1 43 51 1 5 14 187  Based on the information prnvided, we could not determine the PCSSD school zones in which these students reside. I The Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 le I PCS SD' s Plan 2000 continues the standards for student assignment and guidelines for racial composition established in the district's 1992 desegregation plan. The plan defines a specific range in which the racial composition of each PCS SD school, except Bayou Meto, and the interdistrict schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill) is to fall. The minimum enrollment of African-Americans is to be 20% at each school; the maximum differs between the elementary and secondary organizational levels because the upper limits are based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage ofblack enrollment at each of these two levels. The racial balance range for PCS SD elementary schools in 2004-05 is 20% to 49% black. The targeted range for secondary schools is 20% to 54% black. I I I I I I I I I I I The ideal compositi_on at the interdistrict schools will be as close to 50%-50% as possible, with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the interdistrict school. Baker Interdistrict School is not subject this requirement. 2004-05 Actual Enrollment 2004-05 Enrollment Schools Wrth the addition of NLRSD school choice students Black White Total Pct. Black White Total Pct. Black Black Bayou Meto 10 383 393 3% 10 385 395 3% Cato 97 264 361 27% 97 273 370 26% Crystal HIii 401 413 814 49% 401 419 820 49% Clinton 337 305 642 52% 337 326 663 51% Dupree 134 1n 311 43% 134 187 321 42% Harris 196 46 242 . 81% 196 48 244 80% Jacksonville 282 263 545 52% 282 267 549 51% Oak Grove Elem. 98 290 388 25% 98 292 390 25% Oakbrooke 108 255 363 30% 108 270 378 29% Pinewood 178 252 430 41% 178 253 431 41% Scott 30 96 126 24% 30 97 127 24% Sherwood 144 248 392 37% 144 291 435 33% Sylvan Hills Elem. 137 237 374 37% 137 288 425 32% Sylvan Hills High 440 610 1,050 42% 440 611 1,051 42% Tolleson 116 189 305 38% 116 121 310 37% Page 12 1. le I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice The following information is based on our conversations with school administrators, parents, and daycare providers regarding some of the reasons PCSSD parents chose to send their children to NLRSD schools under school choice. Convenience Some parents and administrators mentioned that the geographic contiguity of Indian Hills Elementary, Crestwood Elementary, and Lakewood Elementary in the NLRSD to Sherwood neighborhoods of the PCSSD as a factor in school choice transfers. Numerous Sherwood-area parents work in North Little Rock ( e.g. Baptist Memorial Hospital) and find it easier to deliver their children to one of the aforementioned NLRSD schools during the morning commute and make arrangements for them to attend after-school programs located in close proximity to the schools. Proximity of Quality Pre-School Programs and After-School Care Our study shows that 123 school choice students attend Indian Hills Elementary in the NLRSD. This number far exceeds the next highest number of 50 at Crestwood Elementary. Our investigation of the seeming popularity of Indian Hills revealed that the proximity of the well-known First United Methodist Church pre-school and after-school programs is one of the factors leading to Sherwood area parents seeking a placement at Indian Hills. The First United Methodist Church facility is located directly across the street from Indian Hills. According to the assistant director of the First United Methodist pre-school program, numerous parents who reside in the PCS SD enroll their children in the pre-school program at the church. Once those children reach school age, their parents pursue a school choice transfer so their children can attend the church's after-school program. The assistant director cited the proximity of the First United Methodist program to a public school, parents' familiarity with the staff, and a sense of continuity for the children as factors affecting school choice. In 1996, First United Methodist discontinued transportation from the Sherwood area schools to the after-school program, thus making Indian Hills Elementary a more attractive choice for parents whose children had attended the pre-school program. We found that some Sherwood area parents whose children participate in the Lakewood United Methodist Church Mother's Day Out program become interested in the adjacent Lakewood Elementary School as their offspring reach school age. Familiarity with other parents whose children attend Lakewood, in addition to an established routine, tend to attract parents to seek a school choice transfer to Lakewood. Our inquiry revealed that when Sherwood area parents in the PCSSD viewed their area school and an NLRSD school as equal, the availability and convenience of reliable after-school care became the deciding factor in pursuing school choice. Page 13 r  - ' I I I I I I I I I I \"Curb Appeal\" Some PCSSD parents cited what they perceived to be the poor condition of some facilities in the district as a factor as they weighed where to send their children to school. Most educators no doubt view the \"curb appeal\" or attractiveness of a school building to be a shallow basis for selecting or rejecting a school. However, the reality is that to some patrons the building is a reflection of the school and if they don't find the edifice appealing, they won't bother to investigate the program. Page 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 is codified at ACA 6-18-206. Basically stated, it permits a degree of transfer between school districts under certain prescribed conditions and pursuant to certain statistical measures calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education. Currently, the North Little Rock School District is accepting a substantial number of white PCSSD students to its district, particularly at the elementary level, pursuant to School Choice. These students are being largely drawn from established PCSSD student assignment areas for Sylvan Hills Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, Oakbrook Elementary and Clinton lnterdistrict School. The PCSSD states that these transfers are compromising its ability to maintain the racial balance goals to which it committed in Plan 2000, all of which likewise date from 1989. 6-18-206 (f)(5) provides that: In any instance where the foregoing provisions [the transfer . provisions] would result in a conflict with a desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan, the terms of the order or plan shall govern; The Arkansas Department of Education has promulgated rules governing the operation of School Choice. Rule 8.00 is headed Provisions for and Limitations on Public School Choice Transfers. Sub-part 8.03 states: No student transfer shall be permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such a transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. 1 The North Little Rock School District is majority black. However, it was declared unitary as to racial balance several years ago. In the meantime, it has somehow managed to reconfigure certain elementary schools, including Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary so that they are actually whiter than the schools in the PCSSD from which they currently draw School Choice children. (See Exhibits to motion). The PCSSD believes that these circumstances represent a conflict with both the M-to-M stipulation and order as well as Plan 2000. The M-to-M stipulation was agreed to and ordered by the Court during the second half of the 1980s. It sets forth the rules pursuant to which cross-district transfers can be made in this case. The PCSSD submits as a federal court order, it legally trumps the School Choice Act and precludes its operation, at least as it is currently being applied, in these instances. This is true not only because federal law predominates over state law in these circumstances but also because these transfers are artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCS SD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance. This Court should rule that the current application of the Arkansas School Choice Act should be suspended until the PCSSD has been adjudicated to be unitary. 1 Although subsection (t)(7)(g) authorizes the State Board of Education to resolve disputes arising under this section, the PCSSD is informed that the State Board has traditionally declined to exercise its discretionary authority for desegregation cases that remain in litigation. 2 Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Scho u / , Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol  Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett l O l O W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 :t::- FILED ,._.. ~DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -. -;. WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 7 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t:.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFFDEP CLERK v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. APR 2 8 2005 INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING INTERVENOR$ - - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND COMES NOW, the Defendant, North Little Rock School District, et al., by and through its attorney, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A., and for this motion for extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act states as follows: 1. Service was perfected on Defendant April 18, 2005, via U.S. mail. The time to respond within the rules including the additional three days for mailing would be May 2, 2005. 2. We respectfully request an additional seven days in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act. The requested extension would be up to and including May 9, 2005. 3. We have contacted the counsel for Pulaski County Special School District regarding the extension of time to respond. Counsel has no objections to the extension. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the court to extend the time in which to respond up to and including May 9, 2005, and fo'r all other just and proper relief. April 27, 2005 By: Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Jjttle-ReGk.,..Arkansas 72201 '{:, )7-11. :_2- . -l / ; A,{.lcl-(_,J, ,_---- ~hen W. Jones (7S:08 ) Attorney for North Little ock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing , Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 2th day of April, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little fwc-k--;-AR 72201 / ~ ' . ~i .l ,, . \\ ---- /  l.1.{,--L \\ _ :~--. .,.~-- -.-siap;:w Jones :. / '. ,,/ Offices In: Conway, Arkansas Nashvill e, Tennessee JACK, lLYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier: (501) 375-1027 April 27, 2005 James McCormack Court Clerk United States District Court Eastern District Western Division 402 US Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 e-mail: s1ones@1l j.com di rect dial no. : (50 1) 707-5520 APR 2 3 2005 --OF-~ICE-'lf -- RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 WRW Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter is the original and 10 copies of North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond . Please return the extra file stamped copies to the courier. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. /pea enclosures cc: Parties of Record Sincerely, GJodb OdCW114/ Paula Adams Legal Assistant t\" ILt:.U U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR 2 8 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ ~=-=-c= EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. APR 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is Defendant North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Doc. No. 3913) to PCCSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act. There are no objections. For good cause shown and because there are no objections, NLRSD's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond is GRANTED.  Accordingly, NLRSD must file a response by 5 p.m. Monday, May 9, 2005. -If. IT IS SO ORDERED thi.Jff_ d; of April, 2005. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREDON ~ftlCT JUDGE '::' -::r'.ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. .iT i RALE 58A~~a)fRCP 4-~?$_-s::; B~,4 -. ;. ,.., ... ~ 3' -,-,, 91 4  ri~9. Arkansas -~-::=-..,,,,_ ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,____- ~,..,~ 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.v.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education April 29, 2005 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 72201 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 R-ECEIVED MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General 's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, , J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier TATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, Bar # 9 251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 29, 2005, 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 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 S.cott Smith - - --- ----- - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY - 3 2005 REOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT - EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS M,~.Y   2 2005 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --:::D-:=:EP,,.-:C:;:-L;::-;ER=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 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 OD M's proposed budget will be accepted as p\u0026amp;.ed and become effe~tive immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED_this .. day of May, 2005. TM\u0026amp; DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH~~ 58__.ANm:9(a) FRCP  ON S: ;L,'(}~ BY ~ ae2 ' ; UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring A United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas -------------------- One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 29, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached for your approval are the revised proposed ODM budgets for 2004-05 and 2005-06. The format ofthe_budget document follows that of OD M's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Polly Ramer Office Manager Enc. e. -LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 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 OroerofDecemberl2, 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- Allocatlon (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 State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 N/A 200,000 N/A N/A 200,000 N/A 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 200,000 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: I. 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) of OD M'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. - 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 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 8,000.00 _ 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 brganizations 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 orin general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as 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 Page4 - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless 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 Act11 of1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 2at11 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 fiinge benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures Expenditures 80,018.00 78,447.40 75,311 .00 Below is a breakdown b Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn 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 Page 6 -Below is a breakdown b cate o Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn 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 ,21-9.01 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 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 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 572.00 - 2005-06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase in the annual premium. Page 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD's share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NLRSD'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 2003-04 Actual  .......................... . 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 257.66        oooo      uoOoHOO oo 61,042.00 62,864.34 127,415.00 520.00 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 Communications Dues and Fees Equipment Food Services Management Services Periodicals Printing \u0026amp; Binding Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services Rent Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance Resource Library Salaries Benefits Staff Development Supplies Travel 2003-04 BUDGET 8,000.00 735.00 500.00 0.00 5,000.00 121.00 6,000.00 1,700.00 48,860.00 400.00 0.00 405,419.00 80,018.00 0.00 6,000.00 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual 7,813.33 930.00 2,590.99 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,033.07 1,717.50 .,,_ :t,?PQ.0\u0026lt;:t\\ 434.95 ' . . ,, 400.o~F 0.00 2004-05 Estimated 9,006.00 265.00 i, 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,245.00 1,554.00 50,691 .00 52,564.og:  252.00 ' '400;9ct; 332,042.00 75,311 .00 0.00 4,000.00 1,066.00 572.00 500:oci;; Jra~Jfo1 ~- 446.739.0Q!; 0.00 F~LED N THE N U.S. DISTRICT COURT I U ITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTER~J DIGrn:cT r.;:::wiSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCO;'.:.:/\\CK, CLERK By LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ----:P=-L=-A-=--=-=-1N- :::T=-=-1F =fDE=.P,... .c,-LE-R- K v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS RECEIVED M~Y 10 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAl\\ON MONllORIMG INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, AC.A 6-18-206 sets forth the - public policy of the State of Arkansas in favor of parents and students having \"greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their individual educational needs.\" Id. , 6-18-206(a)(1 )(1999 Repl.) \"The General Assembly further finds that giving more options to parents and students with respect to where they attend public school  will increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of the State's schools .... \" Id., at 6- 18-206(a)(2). As a result, the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas determined that \"[a] public school choice program is hereby established to enable any pupil to attend a school in a district in which the pupil does not reside , subject to the restrictions contained in this section\". Id., at 6-18-206(a)(4) (emphasis supplied). The PCSSD suggests that the NLRSD's acceptance of students transferring pursuant to the School Choice Act is somehow discretionary with the NLRSD. See 1 PCSSD Motion Respecting the School Choice Act, paragraph 3. This is not accurate. - While the Act does permit a receiving district to refuse to accept any school choice transfers at all, AC.A.  6-18-20(b)(3), it does not allow districts to discriminate between students as to who it will accept outside of a specific and limited list of statutory exceptions. Rather, it creates an obligation to accept transfers unless one of the specifically delineated exceptions applies. A fair reading of the Act makes it clear that any \"rights\" it creates attach to the parents and students, not to the district. The latter has only obligations. In fact, parents and students even have a right to appeal the denial of a school choice transfer to the Arkansas Board of Education. Ark. Dept. of Educ. Rules Governing School Choice Act, 5.04 (found at page 5 of Ex. A to PCSSD  Motion). It is noteworthy that the individuals whose \"rights\" will be affected by the decision on this motion, that is, the parents and students, are unrepresented in this proceeding. The PCSSD now invites this Court to disregard summarily the rights of these parents and students and the express public policy of the State of Arkansas by declaring that the School Choice Act is incompatible with the M-to-M Stipulation and the desegregation plan of the PCSSD. This issue arises because of the differing racial restrictions contained in the School Choice Act and the M-to-M Stipulation. The latter requires that a transferring student be in the majority in both his school and his school district and be transferring under circumstances where he will be in a minority in both his new school and his new district. The School Choice Act, on the other hand, requires only that a student be transferring from a district where his race is in a greater proportion to a district where his race is in a lesser proportion. In the present case, the 2 transferring students satisfy the school choice definition but only meet three of the four - requirements of the M-to-M definition since they would be transferring to a school where they would be in a majority status. This does not mean, however, that these transfers do not benefit the NLRSD in its desegregation efforts. These students create an additional pool of white students who may matriculate to the NLRSD's majority black secondary schools. Additionally, it is unknown how many of these students would actually attend schools in the PCSSD if their school choice transfers were denied. After all, 75-80% of them enter the NLRSD in kindergarten and have never been enrolled in the PCSSD. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin attached hereto. It is entirely possible that a significant proportion would opt out of the public schools entirely. Such an outcome would not help any district's desegregation efforts. Moreover, to accept the PCSSD's invitation would require this Court to ignore the standards for constitutional and statutory construction which seek to harmonize allegedly conflicting statutes and constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Nordgren v. Burlington Northern RR. Co.;- 101 F.3d 1246, 1253 (8th Cir. 1996) While the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution does empower federal courts to override state law, that power is used sparingly, and only when the provisions of federal law and the allegedly offending state law cannot be interpreted to be consistent with one another. See, e.g., DeCanas v. Bicas, 424 U.S. 351, 357 n.5 (1976), citing, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner \u0026amp; Smith v. Ware, 414 U.S. 717, 127 (1973). In the present case, there is simply no reason for this Court to embark on such a course of action . 3 As the PCSSD notes, the Act provides that school choice transfers will not be - permitted under circumstances where it would \"conflict with a desegregation court order or a districts court-approved desegregation plan .\" AC.A. 6-18-206(9)(5). The PCSSD specifically challenges school choice transfers to the NLRSD's Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary Schools from the PCSSD's Clinton, Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan Hills Elementary Schools. However, it fails to specify why these transfers offend the provisions of its desegregation plan or the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD states only that these transfers should be prohibited because they are \"artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCSSD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance.\" PCSSD Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice, at 2. -\\ It does not explain how these transfers frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. Its suggestion that increasing the overall minority population of the PCSSD is somehow offensive to its plan is baffling . After all, the express purpose of M-to-M transfers is to effectuate the movement of black students from majority black districts to the majority white PCSSD and the movement of white students from the PCSSD to the majority black districts. In other words, they are intended to increase artificially the overall minority population of the PCSSD. To suggest that furthering this goal is now contrary to anyone's desegregation plan defies explanation. Moreover, this position is inconsistent with the PCSSD's past practice and current procedures. When the School Choice Act was initially passed in 1989, Arkansas Acts 1989 No. 609, the resident school district as well as the receiving school district both had to first agree to participate in school choice transfers. All three districts 4 in Pulaski County did so. Subsequently, the Act was amended to eliminate this - affirmative requirement and now only permits a school district to refuse to allow all school choice transfers into that district. There is no corresponding provision permitting a district to refuse to permit transfers out of that district, as the PCSSD seeks to do here. Notably, even when the program was voluntary for the PCSSD and the NLRSD was majority white, these two districts both participated in school choice transfers, specifically of black students from the NLRSD to the PCSSD and of white students from the PCSSD to the NLRSD. See Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. While both districts were majority white at that time, the NLRSD's proportion of black students was much greater than the PCSSD's. Allowing these transfers assisted the NLRSD in maintaining racial balance. The same is true today. While the Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary - Schools are majority white and have a greater proportion of white students than the schools in the PCSSD in question, the additional white students from the PCSSD will later be available to advance to the NLRSD's majority black high schools. Such an outcome is certainly consistent with the NLRSD's desegregation plan as well as the purposes of the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD, without further explanation, contends that these transfers somehow frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. There is no indication regarding why this is true. The NLRSD has already agreed not to accept students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone since that school is presently majority black and that might imperil its eligibility for M-to-M transfer payments. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. No such circumstances, however, attach to transfers from the Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan 5 Hills Elementary Schools. All three of those schools are well within the PCSSD's racial balance guidelines which provide that its elementary schools must be between 20% and 49% black. These schools are 30%, 37% and 37% black, respectively, placing all of them comfortably within the attendance guidelines set forth in the PCSSD's desegregation plan . Accordingly, there is no present threat to the PCSSD's plan compliance caused by the NLRSD's receipt of school transfers from these schools. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best convenient speculation without any supporting evidence. As discussed previously, the rules of statutory construction require that federal law, or in this case a desegregation plan , be construed consistently rather than inconsistently with state law. The PCSSD argues without explanation that the transfers in question interfere with its ability to attain unitary status even though it is clear that - they are consistent with the underlying purpose of M-to-M transfers and leave the PCSSD schools in question comfortably within their racial balance guidelines. Accordingly, there is no reason why this Court should apply the heavy hand of federal supremacy to frustrate the clear public policy of the State of Arkansas favoring more educational choices for parents and students. May 9, 2005 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 ,-- (501) 75-1122 ,--, ~, ~' I- - I I / By:. ) c? L.(.. ,~- ~-----Stepnen W. Jones ~78 Attorney for North l:.jtt District 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of May, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 7 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. 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 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 ( . / / AFFIDAVIT OF BOBBY J. ACKL.DJ I am Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for the North Little Rock School District (1\\TLRSD) and state as follows : 1. I was hired as the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs by the =:--lLRSD beginning the 1989-1990 school-year. In that capacity, I was responsible for student assignments and worked directly with the School Choice Act from its adoption. 2. In 1994 I became the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation in the ::--TLRSD and have served in that capacity to the present date. In that position, I have monitored student assignment inciuding school choice transfers. 3. 'foe NLRSD has participated in the State's School Choice Act since its inception as have the other two school districts in Pulaski County. It is our understanding that the 1'1LRSD is obligated to accept students for School Choice transfers unless we lack teachers or classroom space; the transfer we cause a violation of state educational standards; or it would undermine desegregation. 4. Accepting black students from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and white students from the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) is consistent with the :v1\u0026lt;\\iorityto- Minority (M-to-M) program which is a part of all three districts desegregation plans. However, in some cases, a student might not meet the qualifications to participate in the M-to-:vf program but may meet the guidelines set forth in the School Choice .Act. Therefore, NLRSD accepts black students from some schools in the LRSD and non-black students from some schools in the PCSSD under the School Choice Act. \\Ve also accept School Choice students from other sun-ounding school districts. We have done so since the inception of the School Choice Act. 5. The NLRSD is aware of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. Each year we request and receive a list of schools that are not eligible for M-to-M transfers from the PCS SD. Not only do we use this list to assign M-to-M transfer students but also use this list to govern what School Choice applications we approve. If a student does not qualify for an M-to-M transfer from a school in the PCSSD, we will not accept this student on a School Choice transfer. 6. lvfost of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ?-JLRSD from the PCSSD have never attended school in the PCSSD. Approximately 75% to 80% of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ~LRSD enter at the kindergarten level. 7. On February 23, 2005 a meeting was held between representatives from the Office of Desegregation \\1onico1ing (ODM), NLRSD, and PCS SD to discuss School Choice transfers. It was called to our attention that we accepted students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone and should not have. We were not aware that Clinton Elementary was not eligible for School Choice. Once vve became a,vare of this we immediately stopped accepting students from Clinton Elementary attendance zone. We requested a map or other information indicating the Clinton Elementary attendance zone so that this mistake would not happen again, and, we are no longer accepting students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone. 8. The PCS SD and :::--rLRSD representatives also agreed on the follov.i:ing items: a. That each district would provide and exchange information so that we can accurately calculate racial percentages in schools. b. That each distiict would provide lists of students which show what school attendance zone School Choice students are coming from. c. That we would use the student's current address to determine which school attendance zone students live in and not the last school attended. d. That both districts will adhere to the July 1 School Choice deadline. FURTHER AFFLA.l\\'T SAYETH NOT. DATE: _tJ._-_\u0026lt;j_._O_b _ State of 1\\.rkansas County of Pulaski Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of May, 2005. ~kwt=-=-=-=--AA~\u0026lt;...___~t~ Kotary Public Mv commission expUesc ~ L3 .:J.oo 1 - ~?mm====') ~: Sandra K. CoJlins !\u0026lt; -  ----------- \u0026gt;' Not:iry Public, S!it~ o! A,kunsns { ~~ ~!,~ski Co,wy :\u0026lt; , My Con:m:s~1ori Exp (', !.'lJ/2007 ~ 'J./J.\u0026gt;.l;.J.J.\u0026gt;).l./.,'.l.;;'r,'.llN.1.l '.' ; ;;,:;,.11,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2005 OFFICOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its objections to the budget proposed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for the 2005-06 school year, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. The ODM budget for 2005-06 continues to allocate costs to LRSD based solely on LRSD's student population with no recognition of the substantial reduction in the number of desegregation requirements left to be monitored with respect to LRSD. 2. Since the ODM formula for allocating costs among the three Pulaski County school districts and the State was developed, LRSD has achieved unitary status in every area except for one remaining requirement to evaluate certain academic programs. 3. The cost of any necessary monitoring of LRSD's compliance with the program evaluation requirement should not be significant since LRSD must submit to the Court \"quarterly 1 - written updates on the status of the work being performed\" with respect to those evaluations. Memorandum Opinion, June 30, 2004, p. 65 . 4. ODM proposes that LRSD pay about 48 percent of the funds required of the three Pulaski County school districts to fund ODM's operation. With only one remaining obligation to be monitored, LRSD should not be required to pay so large a share of the funds contributed by the Pulaski County school districts. 5. LRSD proposes that ODM develop a new budget tailored to the present circumstances which separates the costs of reviewing LRSD 's quarterly status reports and conducting any necessary monitoring to verify the contents of those reports. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD objects to ODM' s proposed budget for 2004-05 and proposes that ODM submit a revised budget which allocates costs to LRSD in - accordance with the actual cost of the monitoring necessary to assure LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining desegregation obligation. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BChristop;Hell ~ ~ 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 9th day of May, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp;WOODYARD 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner and Ivers 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 05/23/2005 16:54 --- 5016045149 WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTH:\u0026gt;USE 600W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 Sill. WILSON JUDGE Mr. Sam Jones UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (601) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 May23,200~ LETTER/ORDER VIA FAX MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones J A.CK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, 4:82CV00866-WRW LRSD Objections to ODM Budget Dear Counsel: PAGE 02/02 Please let me have your position on the LRSD's objection to the ODM proposed budget (filed May 9, 2005). It seems to me 'that LRSD bas a pretty good point, but I want your written responses, and perhaps we will have a hearing after your responses are filed. Please fax your i:esponse to me no later than 5 p.m., next Wednesday, June 1, 2005. Please file the original with the Clerk and send fax. copies to opposing counsel, the ODM, and to Judge Ray. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring, The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record D!l:?--=--- Wm. R. \\\\ ilson. Jr.  Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  urru ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://ark,du.stat,.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education May 31, 2005 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 72201 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 JUN -1 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING 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 May 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier T.ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTE!{N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 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 2005. Respectfully Submitted, s\u0026amp;~t.tillfr= 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 May 31, 2005, 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 72201 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 _fl/k Scott Smi 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 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, 2005 silla~~:~,~~'.~~!?~!ii~t!~~.avaU~bl~~~~P.J'.~922.~~~~@~~e.;:aK~~~ifedJti'tr sfate fqunqa~tQ.t:Jl/iuJ1d1r:ig JqtEY.i,Q4/0S;:$UbJe.~t tg .. p_@nQq19.~ijclJysJmeo~ 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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 :nur:~.~t,.l.fJllMO{!NfffItOE OIIf JDIIIG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS I. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. It acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring associated with the LRSD increases any monitoring required of or appropriate for the PCSSD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to reduce its overall expenditures to a level corresponding to its reasonably anticipated reduced monitoring activities.1 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successful claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard, the PCSSD is fully aware of the difficulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSD response to PCSSD motion regarding school choice filed on May 31 , 2005. Stated another way, the PCS SD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73    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_149","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":["2005-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/149"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\n}\n-1r:~~ Arkansas - ~ . \u0026gt; ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,\n'4.(c 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education April 29, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 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 MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Si'\n'rely, 0 . _jtf~lh General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair -JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2005. Respectfully Submitted, '\"-gi\nSmith, Bar# 9 251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 29, 2005, 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 72201 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 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFSDESEGREGATION 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 April 30, 2005 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. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 a~ afOJlaV ~_, SU9J~ P..QrjQgiC~~\n:::,i.,.,\n~~:\n:\n,. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Q.[Mi[g:QO.Q.Q.'\n-  ufions_of tat~Eounclat1onE.unaiogJor EYMLOS,,were ~B. NL -2 c ,,_~ - . e ~ _o III.fill sof Staie' FoundaiiooFundin ~00,5.,.subj.e_Q.t to..P.erio_dydjusfments.i@r D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Mag net School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 ~ ~rno~=a~ti~on~a~v~~~ffi~e~A~D\\CE~c~al~ aj,:\n':\n+1~~~~~~~ b4 c  penodjc,a . ts, E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 e , =,,~~,~~ It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LRSD on November 10, 2004. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 In September 2004, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $4,019,063.00 NLRSD - $772,940.15 PCSSD - $2,478,863.72 In September 2004, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $1,325,043.67 NLRSD - $275,333.33 PCSSD - $845,221.22 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (Continued) 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. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 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. 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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. 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 April 30, 2005 (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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date  Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 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 April 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY97/98 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 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 April 30, 2005 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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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-Aat 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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, th~ 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 April 30, 2005 {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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to detennine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 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 April 30, 2005 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 April 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles.  1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 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 April 30, 2005 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 w.ere 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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 (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\nthe 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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 {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. 38 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 April 30, 2005 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. 39 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 April 30, 2005 (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. 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 April 30, 2005 (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. 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 April 30, 2005 (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 April 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VLF. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 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 April 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 1~. 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 48 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 {Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children {BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, {i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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_t he program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with spec\nial 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the us~ of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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. Cin 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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 MP 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 ACT MP. 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2005 (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:\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_1052","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1052"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED APR 2 t 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting APRIL 2005 n\n)\u0026gt;-: :\"o\" r-m .... !:: o\n:\n0 2: ::0 )\u0026gt; o::o m-\u0026lt; ::o.,, -c: ~~ r- .... r-5 nz )\u0026gt; U\u0026gt; rr-- :e\n= m-o r- ::0 no On 3:m mo - C: ~ ! C: r- 0\n:: ml\u0026gt; ~=I -om m::o ::0 U\u0026gt; c3- ::o\n:: ~ n m !]) ~ z~ m ~ :r =\nen fl ::0 m f o::o  :,S r- en\n,a-,, -o:,:oO )\u0026gt; 3: 0 =\u0026lt; N m z U) I. II. 111. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 28, 2005 PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - Stephens Elementary REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 03-24-05 Special Meeting - 04-05-05 Special Meeting - 04-14-05 B. Board Meeting Dates, 2005-06 n i\u0026gt;-\":\"0 rm ..... !::: 03: oz :0 \u0026gt; 0 :0 m-\u0026lt; :0 .., -c:: :0 z on rr-ot nz \u0026gt;u, r r ~ := rm \":o\" no On 3:m mo -c:: ~H~ c::r 0 3: m\u0026gt; ~=l m\"\":mo :0 (I)\ng- :0 3: \u0026gt;z n m \u0026gt;~  \"\" \"c::' O ..,..:..0, :-'u, n\n:il =l m \u0026gt;n -tO O- Gz\"l z =l \"'o z (I) ?\u0026gt; \"\u0026gt;\" =l z m ~ :r 'ti Cl\u0026gt; f) :0 m ~ !='~ r\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ::0\"T1 ~~ \u0026gt;3:: n =l mN z en Regular Board Meeting April 28, 2005 Page2 VI. SCHOOL SERVICES A. Elimination of the Sixth Grade Athletic Program B. Report: Mitchell School Update (Daugherty) VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. Report of Recommendations: Fair Park Early Childhood Center VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes B. Update: Reorganization / Continuation of Services IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Request for Right of Way and Easement Geyer Springs Elementary School B. Donations of Property C. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. ADJOURNMENT n )\u0026gt; \"b\n-\nJJ r-m ..... c 03: oz\nJJ )\u0026gt; 0\nJJ m-\u0026lt; :o..,, -c::: :oz on r- .....\n:\no \u0026gt;~ rr- :E\n::: m \"b r-\nJJ no On 3: m mo -c::: !!l~ c::: rem ,3.: ~=l \"b m m\n,:, :O\u0026lt;n\ng-\nJJ 3: )\u0026gt; z n m !\" \"b )\u0026gt; z~ m ~ :r '6 \u0026lt;n PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME/ STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. LRCTA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: April 28, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnerships: Accelerated Learning Center and Carl Gray Henson Construction Company Accelerated Learning Center and Hurricane Golf and Country Club Metropolitan Career-Technical Center and Remington College Terry and Toys \"R\" Us Terry and Papa John's Pizza Terry and CiCi's Pizza PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Director !'.D rn -\u0026lt; C: 0 m z -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; rn Cl) cz5\ni: m z -\u0026lt; f) a, C: 0 G'l m -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ~ m f)\na m 5'= !='~ ,- Cl)\na.., l~ )\u0026gt;3: n :::\nN zm Cl) Partner-in-Education Agreement Between The Carl Gray Benson Construction Company And The Accelerated Learning Center The Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) will demonstrate its commitment as a partner-in-education with the Car) Gray Henson Construction Company in the following manner: 1. acknowledge the Carl Gray Henson Construction Company in each ACC Newsletter. 2. highlight the Carl Gray Henson Construction Company during the annual ACC Parents plus Partners Celebration Brunch. 3. identify qualified students for employment possibilities with the Carl Gray Henson Construction Company. 4. apprise the Carl Gray Henson Construction Company of all ACC educational programs. 5. recognize the Carl Gray Henson Construction Company at ACC's annual graduation ceremony. The Carl Gray Henson Construction Company will demonstrate its commitment as a partner-in-education with the Accelerated Learning Center in the following manner: l.recognize qualified ACC students for employment possibilities with the company 2. volunteer educational services on the ACC campus 3. contribute to the Carol Green Scholarship 4.donate refreshments for selected ACC programs 5.provide seminar speakers for ACC assemblies Partner-in-Education Agreement Between The Hurricane Golf and Country Club And The Accelerated Learning Center The Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) will demonstrate its commitment as a partner-in-education with the Hurricane Golf and Country Club in the following manner: l. acknowledge Hurricane Golf and Country Club as a partner-in-education in each ACC Newsletter 2. highlight Hurricane Golf and Country Club dw-ing the annual ACC Parents plus Partners Celebration Brunch. 3. identify qualified students for employment possibilities with Hurricane Golf and Country Club. 4. apprise Hurricane Golf and Country Club of all ACC educational programs. 5. recognize Hurricane Golf and Country Club at ACC's annual graduation ceremony. The Hurricane Golf and Country Club will demonstrate its commitment as a partner-in-education with the Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) in the following manner:  1. recognize qualified ACC students for employment possibilities 2. direct physical fitness initiatives on the ACC campus 3. contribute to the Carol Green Scholarship 4. donate refreshments for selected ACC programs 5. provide health related seminars/speakers for ACC Healthy School Initiatives ~ ~ C: C m z -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; CJ) CJ) G5 z s:: zm -\u0026lt; p CD C: C G\") m -\u0026lt; C: -c ~ m p\no m ~ !='~ ,-en\no.., ~ el \u0026gt;S:: C') :::\nN mz CJ) Partnership Between Remington College and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center The Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Remington College as a Partner in Education on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Remington College as a Partner in Education at the next Little Rock school Board meeting. 3. Display plaque received at Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the Partnership with Remington College in the central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify qualified students who meet the requirements outlined in the articulation agreement and recommend them for this program. 5. Arrange field trips for students and or parents to tour Remington College to coordinated through the Director of Education and/or the Director of Admissions of Remington College. 6. Provide a display for Remington College to recruit potential students and parents to review during Open House, Parent or Advisory Board day and Job Fair. Remington College will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on the Advisory Council to Metropolitan Career and Technical Center's various articulated programs in order to provide guidance and strategic planning support regarding the enhancement of school's curriculum, recruitment policies and the marketing of programs. 2. Provide technical credit hours toward a degree area for students at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center who meet the articulation qualifications. 3. Provide an opportunity for field trips and visiting the campus. 4. Provide assistance with annual Skills USA Competition in Hot Springs. 5. Provide assistance with Open House at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. Terry Elementary School and TOYS \"R\" US Partnership Proposal TOYS \"R\" US will contribute the following to the partnership:   Host a Terry PTA fundraising night at the store with refreshments and children's educational activities  Invite Terry parents to monthly educational events at the store  Provide bulletin board space for Terry's parent events and volunteer opportunities  Develop a newsletter and devote space for Terry information and student artwork  Provide in-kind donations for student recognition Terry will contribute the following to the partnership:  Participate in special events held at the store, such as the September 11th remembrance ceremony  Provide student artwork  Look for opportunities to invite TOYS \"R\" US employees to the school  Provide student artwork and school news for the store's bulletin board ?\" ~ C: C m .z.. . \u0026gt; en en G'i z\n: m .z.. . 0 a, C: C C\u0026gt; !:!l C: \"O ~ m Terry Elementary School and Papa John's Pizza Partnership Proposal Papa John's Pizza will contribute the following to the partnership:  Host a Terry PTA fundraising night once per month with 20% of net sales going to the PTA  Provide incentives for honor roll recipients or other student rewards  Serve as judges for student competitions and contests  Provide resource speakers during career week  Serve as a field trip site  Provide each teacher with a coupon for a free pizza during their birthday month  Provide door prizes to build parent involvement Terry will contribute the following to the partnership:  Provide students to perform for special events  Provide student artwork for display  Look for opportunities to invite Papa John's employees to the school Terry Elementary School and CiCi's Pizza Partnership Proposal CiCi's Pizza will contribute the following to the partnership:  Host a Terry PTA fundraising night once per month with 10% of net sales going to the PTA  Provide Super Star cards (free buffet pass) for honor roll recipients or other student rewards  Serve as judges for student competitions and contests  Provide resource speakers during career week  Serve as a field trip site  Provide each teacher with a teacher pass for one free buffet  Provide door prizes to build parent involvement Terry will contribute the following to the partnership:  Provide students to perform for special events  Provide student artwork for display or for customers' to-go boxes  Look for opportunities to invite CiCi's employees to the sch_ool \u0026gt;\n:o :,,m m-C ~ ~\n:o -\u0026lt;\n,\n~ \"-n'\no\n:\n:o\n: 0 C: 3:z o'\u0026gt;o\n\u0026gt;:-o\u0026lt;oOz Cl') !\"' Cl') -\u0026lt; C: 0 m z -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; Cl') Cl') ci z\n: m z -\u0026lt; 0 a, C: 0 C) !:!l C: -c, ~ m r\u0026gt;\n:o m ~ !='~ ,--Cl'l ~\na\n!~ n ::\n,::\nm z Cl') DATE: April 28, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: April 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: I am pleased to report that on May 25th bids are scheduled to be received for the renovation of Rightsell Elementary. Based on this schedule, the building will be ready for occupancy by staff and students for the 2006-07 school year. The construction contract for the seven-classroom addition at Gibbs has been awarded. The bids for this work were above our projected cost estimate. The low bid illustrates what is taking place in the construction industry. The rising costs of oil and metal is resulting in a construction cost increase of one percent (1 % ) per month. Experts predict this trend will continue because of the growing economies of China and India which are putting pressure on oil and metals markets. If you need additional information or have any questions, please call me at 44 7-1146. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer\n-r, ..... ~ :c z 0 r- 8 -\u0026lt; c:: \"C .~.... m ?'\n: m ...,..m.., gz V' G\"l a:~ ..... m en CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD APRIL 28, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION t:st completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver Media Center Expansion $1 67,490 Dec-05 Central -----~Ren_o_vation - Interior ___ -+- _!!Q,200,2~ ~ g-:OS Fair Park ______ _,_R_o_o_f _________ __j __ - ~245,784 - ~ ay-05 Gibbs Addition $705,670 I Dec-05 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Win_d_ows ~----~ -1-- $215,000 Aug-05 Scott Field Track Renovations $289,056 May-05 Western Hiclcl-s------+E=1,.e...-ct-r-i,-ca...,l..,U...,..p...-g-r-a_d_e...\u0026amp;.,,__,H--,V...,.A- C~-----I- -- $622,1 60 Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING/ SUMMER 2005 t:st. (\nompletIon Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Date Fair Park Remodel ------+--- $799,000 Aug-05 Forest Park Restrooms $152,881 ~ Aug-05 Henderson Skylight Replacement $45,000 Aug-05 Meadowcliff Remodel -- --- $164,150 Aug-05 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling ~ $33,378 Aug-05 Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls - - -----+-- ~ 660 I A~g-05 Pulaski Heiqhts Elem/Middle Replace Entry Doors $13,990 Aug-05 Rightsell Renovation 1 $2,494,000  Aug-06 Southwest New Corridor Ceiling $300,000 I Auq-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. 1,.\nomp1euon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknow_n~I _ Chicot Electrical Upgrade __ f---__ U_n_k_n_o_w_n ___ _ Cloverdale Elementary Addition $520,750 , Unknown Unknown - Unknown Forest He~ig~h_ts_ ____ _ +R=em_od_e.,.I.. ________ $1 ,547,000 Mitchell Renovation -+----~$2,~2_12~,493-+: ___ _ Pulaski Hgts. MS !Energy monitoring system installa~ Unknown Woodruff ~ addition 1 $193,777 Unknown -- Unknown Unknown Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Facllitv Name Proiect Description Cost Date Administration Asbestos abatement I $380,495 j Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 1 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration HVAC $70,000 Nov-04 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Leaming Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Leaming Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Aug-04 Booker Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 Booker ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 1--Bo_oke_r_ ______- -+E_n_e-r'g\"y''--e_ffi1cie_n_t_lig,,_h_t1n,g,_ ______ ,_ ____$1 7_0~,2_9_5~--- _ Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system in-stallation ' $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Nov-04 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Auq-02 Facility Name Carver Carver Central Central Central Parking Central/Quig~y Cen_!!\"al/Quigley - Central/Quigley Central Central Central f--- Central Central Chicot Chicot Cloverdale Elem. Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dunbar Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbriqht Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 28, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Parking lot $111 ,742 I HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Reflecting Pond $57,561 Student parking $174,000 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 - Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 . Irrigation System $14,500 -, Purchase land for school Unknown Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Front landing tile repair $22,470 Drainage $64,700 Sound Attenuation I $43,134 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 . Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Renovation/addition $6,149,023 I Interior renovation $84,672 Fire alarm i $12,000 IHVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 , Press box I $10,784 I Security cameras I $12,500 I Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,000 Roof repairs $391,871 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Diagonal parking $111 ,742 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,950 Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Parking lot $140,000 Roof repairs $200,000 Renovation $2,511,736 Roof Repair $161,752 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Maior renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Asbestos abatement $168,222 Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Est Completion Date May-01 Auq-03 - Dec-04 Sep-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug~ Aug-01 Aug-04 Jul-04 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Oct-04 Aug-01 Ju-l-01 Aug-02 Nov-04 Mar-01 Aug-03 Apr-02 _ Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-04 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Nov-03 Aug-03 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-04 Apr-01 Jul-01 Sep-03 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aor-01 2 cl .... m (\") :r:: z ,0.. . 8 -\u0026lt; C: -u 0 .\u0026gt;... m\ni\u0026gt;s \"-'\u0026lt; \"n' :r:: :r:: Clo ~i2 Oen mm ~~ :r::n r- m ~en 0 en !T1 .z... m ~ ~ \u0026gt; C: C ~\nc Facility Name Hall Hall Hall ,H_e_nd_e r_son_ _ Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw -Mablevale Elem Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mabelvale MS Mann -Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDennott McDennott McDermott . Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 28, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Infrastructure improvements -- $93,657 Intercom ~ Security cameras ' ---- $10,600 !Lockers $43,854 Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 I Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 I Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement I $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm ____ i-- $1 ,630,000 Parking lo_t __________ 1-- $269,588 Fire Alann Upgrade , $1 2,000 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 I Replace HVAC units $300,000 i Est Completion Date Au..9:.Q.!_ Feb-01 Jun-01 ---De-c-0-4 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 ~ -t--04 Aug-0_1_ 1 Aug-02 Asbestos Abatemen_t __ ~ $107,000+-- Aug-02 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Dec-02 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Auq-01 Renovation $6,851 ,621 I Mar-04 Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 Apr-04 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Dec-01 Walkway canopies is what has been used Dec-01 Boiler replacement so far on the projects Oct-01 - Fencing listed completed for Sep-01 Partial demolition/portable classrooms Mann. Aug-01 Parking Lot Overlay $65,000 Apr-05 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,750 - Jul-03 Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 , Energy efficient lighting $303,614 May-01 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 Intercom $46,000 Feb-02 Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 Fire Alann Upgrade $7,700 Sep-04 Enerm1 efficient lighting $79,411 Feb-01 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Aug-02 Fire alann $16,175 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Aug-02 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Dec-00 Replace shop vent system $20,000 May-01 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Building Remediation $165,000 , Jul-04 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Energy monitorinq system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 HV AC renovation $237,237 Aug-01 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 Enerqy efficient liqhting I $81 ,828 Apr-01 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 Parkinq lmorovements $142,541 Auq-03 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 28, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Facility Name Proiect Description Cost Date Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement I $273,877 +-- Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 I Nov-00 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Aug-01 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 ' Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 I-Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation I -- $1 ,193,259 Nov-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 I Dec-02 Pulaski Hqts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 j Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller - Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HV AC $539,175 ~ Rockefeller Parking addition $111 ,742 Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement I $10,000 ~ Romine 'Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I Mar-03 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-=o-f Southwest Addition $2,000,000  Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 I Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 I Jan-02 Southwest Drainage / street widening $250,000 I Aug-03 Student Assignment !Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 I Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 - Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terrv Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Dec-04 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11 ,600 Oct-04 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washinqton Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Aug-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Oct-04 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Western Hills Asbestos abatement - $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Mar-04 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson HVAC for Cafeteria $56,000 Mar-05 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Feb-04 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Aug-02 4 :n -I ~ :r z 0 r- 8 -\u0026lt; C: -c 0 ~ m !l' 3: m m \"-\u0026gt;-I gz 'i' c\n) a:~ -I m en ?\u0026gt; ~ .,, en -le-, :r :r c\n)Q ~~ o en mm ~~ :c (\") r-m ~ en n en Date: April 28, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From(l,andy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - April This is the sixty-sixth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The amended Out of District Travel regulation is being implemented. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. a) Served as a trainer for financ.ial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. :n\n:: C\") :zc 0 5 G) -\u0026lt; C: -a 0 )\u0026gt; ..... m\n,,,s -at,c \"-,' :c :c G\"lO ~ ~ 0 en mm :!:.~ :c C\") r-m !:!)en n en !II !!: =. C\") :c rmr- ~ :c 8,... C: -a 0 :!:. m Audit Report - April 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and sman spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. DATE: April 28, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  The Edline project expanded to include all high schools this month. The first round of teacher training has been held for all high school sites, including Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. Parent training is ongoing.  The Dana wireless carts that were purchased as part of a EETT grant have been incorporated into instruction at the two sites that were part of the grant: Henderson Middle School and Southwest Middle School. Projects that students have been involved in include preparation for ACT AAP with students using the wireless devices to do practice tests and beam answers to the teacher. They also used them for writing responses and beaming them to the printer.  The District will undergo an audit this month by the Universal Service Administrative Corporation, the group that administers the E-rate Program. The audit will include a site visit by representatives of USAC who will examine District e-rate policies, procedures, and record keeping. They will also interview staff at selected sites that have received e-rate funding. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A\n\u0026gt; s .0..,. .in., ::i::::,: Cl 0 ~ ~ CU\u0026gt; mm ~~ ::i::.-, rm !:!l rJ\u0026gt; n U\u0026gt; lX'\nc: ::::\nn ::,: m r r U\u0026gt; n ::,: 8 r C: \"C C ~ m RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: April 28, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Elimination of Sixth Grade Athletics BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School Districted implemented the sixth grade athletic program when the transition was made from junior high schools to middle schools. The LRSD is the only District in the state that provides athletics for sixth grade students. RATIONALE: The Arkansas Activities Association does not regulate athletic programs until students enter the seventh grade. The Arkansas Department of Education requires football, basketball and track coaches to have a coaching endorsement to their license, effective at the seventh grade, as governed by the AAA. No credentials, certification or training are currently required for an employee to be a sixth grade coach. This could present a liability issue for us in case of accident or serious injury. Elimination of the sixth grade athletic program would provide additional time for our students to focus on the academic aspects of the transition to middle school. Youth athletic programs in football, basketball and soccer are provided by the City of Little Rock, the local YMCA, Girls and Boys Clubs, and other organizations, and are scheduled outside the school day. FUNDING: This recommendation will save approximately $80,000\n$40,000 from coaching stipends and $40,000 from transportation.  RECOMMENDATION: I recommend board approval to eliminate the sixth grade athletic program. PREPARED BY: Johnny Johnson, Director of Athletics Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools ~ C: \"tJ C ~ m Al 0\no C) \u0026gt;z ~ 0 z\n,,,, ?\u0026lt;\no a, 0 C: ~~ Im c, en men -\u0026lt; en mm\no\no enS \"t:10 c, m ~ en ~ 3: =l 0 :,: m rren 0 :,: 8 r-e: ~ m DATE: April 28, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Update: Mitchell School BACKGROUND: The committee to develop a recommendation for reuse of the Mitchell School facility has been meeting on a regular basis to review options and determine a suitable use for that facility. Dr. Micheal Daugherty has served as co-chair of this committee, along with staff members Dr. Sadie Mitchell and Dr. Linda Watson. Dr. Daugherty will provide a brief status report on the committee's work and recommendations. bjg ~ :i:: ?\u0026gt; ~ ~~ ~~ om zO zC:: m\n,, ,- n m \"' ?' c,:,: ~ m\n,, m 0 ~ \u0026gt;z ~ 5z ?\u0026gt; ?\u0026lt;\n,, a, 0 c:: :E ~ Im ~~ m-\u0026lt;m\"'\n,,\n,, r.,n, Sn c, m !\"\"' DATE: April 28, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Fair Park Early Childhood Center BACKGROUND: During the past few months, the LRSD Early Childhood Department has met with individual district personnel, the Fair Park Early Childhood Center Planning Team and Advisory Committee. The result of those discussions is The Big Picture - Fair Park Early Childhood Center, which details the plan for converting the Fair Park Elementary School into a high quality and effective early childhood education center. RATIONALE: Research on the effectiveness of preschool education for increasing children's success in school has shifted the national and state agendas toward providing increased opportunities for preschool education. LRSD has been a leader in the state in providing quality preschool education on a first come, first serve basis. The conversion of Fair Park Elementary into an early childhood center will increase the availability of preschool programming so that more children in the District will have access to a quality preschool education. FUNDING: The Fair Park Early Childhood Center will be funded with District funds and Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS) grant funds. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report as presented. PREPARED BY: Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy !l' c::: -c Cl ~ m Rl 0 el z\u0026gt; ~ 5 z ~?\u0026lt;\noo:, 0 c::: :E ~ ,m G) (I) -m\u0026lt; \"' (I) mm ~~ -c (') c\n,m !\"\"' !l' Cl 0 z ~ 5 z en DATE: April 28, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are consider.ed intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williamfoirector of Human Resources f) .., ~ zn \u0026gt; r( J) !\" C: --0 0 ~ m ill 0 ::c C'l \u0026gt;z ~ -I z6 !\" 0 0 z ~ 5 :z (J) Personnel Changes Page 2 March 24, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Tenninations Certified Employees Buettner, Sally 4 Yr Old/ 9-28-87 Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE 4-7-05 ELEMENTARY Hunter, Karen Gifted and Talented/ 8-04-04 Reason: No Reason Given STEPHENS 4-15-05 Wood, Mary Kindergarten/ 8-13-97 Reason: Terminated - No BRADY 4-1-05 Appeal Pending Mims, Richard Science/ 8-18-86 Reason: Deceased MANN 4-7-05 New Certified Employees Burleson, Kimberly Elementary I/ 3-8-05 MCDERMOTT Nickerson, Vickie Elementary I/ 3025-05 MCDERMOTT Nunez, Teresa Mathematics/ 4-7-05 HALL Resignations/Tenninations Non-Certified Employees Berg, Elizabeth Reason: None Given Care/ CARE 8-19-04 4-18-05 SALARY CLASS 2-17 4YR925 6-20 G\u0026amp;T925 1-08 K925 6-21 TCH925 4-08 TCH925 4-18 TCH925 4-10 TCH925 3-17 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 49217.00 58520.00 36972.00 60020.00 41507.00 annual 12538.57 prorated 53061 .00 annual 12436.17 prorated 43818.00 annual 9356.97 prorated 10.36 per hour Personnel Changes Page3 March 24, 2005 fl \"Tl z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt; r START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL en NAME POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Dorsey, Betty Child Nutrition/ 9-11-04 3-01 9350.00 Reason: Accepted another CHILD NUTRITION 3-14-05 FSH550 position Draper, James Maintenance/ 9-8-04 40-01 19020.00 ~ ?\u0026lt; Reason: Leaving the city FACILITY SERVICES 3-18-05 MAINT \u0026gt;(\") 0 r- '--0 OS!! CZ Fairman, Carolyn Custodian/ 7-1-01 31-9 18456.00 ::oc\n, z::0 Reason: Resigned without STEPHENS 4-1-05 CUS12 ::m m\n: z\u0026gt; Notice --\u0026lt;::o \"en' Glover, Barbara Child Nutrition/ 8-25-82 2-16 17067.00 Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 5-1-05 FSMGRS Golatt, Crystal Child Nutrition/ 8-12-03 3-05 9534.00 !l' Reason: Resigned without CHILD NUTRITION 2-18-05 FSH550 C \"tl 0 Notice \u0026gt;--\u0026lt; ~ ::0 Hayman, Kimberly Nurse/ 8-13-98 52-15 41328.00 m 0 ::0 Reason: Personal WAKEFIELD/BASELINE 4-30-05  NURSES G) \u0026gt;z N Hodge, Gracie Child Nutrition/ 8-16-01 3-04 9483.00 \u0026gt;--\u0026lt; 5 Reason: Health CHILD NUTRITION 4-5-05 FSH550 z Johnson, Linda Secretary/ 2-15-90 39-20 32544.00 Reason: Retired FOREST HEIGHTS 4-4-05 CLK10 Lovelace, Corey Bus Driver/ 1-24-05 2-04 11450.00 ?\"?\u0026lt; ::o en Reason: None Given TRANSPORTATION 3-17-05 BUSDRV o\u0026lt;= ::E~ ,m c, en Lyles, Eddie Care/ 2-21-05 3-03 8.06 men -\u0026lt; en Reason: None Given CARE 4-1-05 CARE per hour mm ::o::o en :s\n\"0 (\") c, m Quick, Theresa Care/ 9-15-03 3-17 10.36 VJ en Reason: None Given CARE 3-18-05 CARE per hour Robinson, Monique Bus Driver/ 4-5-04 3-02 11450.00 Reason: Returning back to TRANSPORTATION 1-24-05 BUSDRV school !\" 0 Smith, Ruby Child Nutrition/ 11-16-98 0 3-07 9626.00 z \u0026gt; Reason: Resigned without CHILD NUTRITION 3-03-05 FSH550 --\u0026lt; 5 Notice z \"' Personnel Changes Page4 March 24, 2005 NAME Spaight, Linda Reason: Personal Williams, Jimmy Reason : Resigned without Notice Williams, Monica Reason: Personal Ammons, Sandra Andrews, Robert Black, Charlotte Deckard, David Johnson, Gregory Marion, Rose Schoggen, Michael START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE Instructional Aide/ 9-20-04 ROCKEFELLER 4-8-05 Custodian/ 8-15-02 FACILITY SERVICES 4-1-05 Instructional Aide/ 8-16-04 ROCKEFELLER 4-6-05 New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition/ 3-03-05 CHILD NUTRITION Painter/ 3-9-05 FACILITY SERVICES Secretary/ 2-28-05 FACILITY SERVICES Maintenance/ 3-9-05 FACILITY SERVICES Instructional Aide/ 3-2-05 SPECIAL EDUCATION Instructional Aide/ 4-5-05 WILLIAMS Maintenance/ 3-7-05 FACILITY SERVICES SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 33-09 16603.00 INA12 31-04 15900.00 CUS12 33-08 16109.00 INA12 3-01 6617.00 FSH4 annual 2230.04 prorated 49-07 29760.00 MAINT annual 9751 .15 prorated 42-08 24876.00 CLK12 annual 8891.85 prorated 51-07 31596.00 MAINT annual 10352.73 33-03 10934.00 INA925 annual 3605.26 prorated 33-16 10793.03 INA925 annual 2508.65 prorated 51-07 31596.00 MAINT annual 10621.63 prorated DATE: TO: FROM: April 28, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Update: Reorganization - Assignment of Responsibilities BACKGROUND: Dr. Mitchell requested a report regarding the fulfillment of duties and responsibilities for positions that have been eliminated from the district's organizational structure. As administrative and key staff positions are filled and as new assignments are made, duties and responsibilities will be assigned accordingly. I have asked Beverly Williams to present a brief overview and status report. Additional assignments of duties and responsibilities will be made as staff persons are identified to fill key positions. If you have any questions as we move through this process, please feel free to discuss with me. bjg .!\",\u0026gt;, z z\u0026gt; C\") \u0026gt; r Cl) ?\u0026gt; ?\u0026lt;\n,,a:r oC ::\n~ Im ~gi -\u0026lt; (/) mm\n,J\n,J Cl)$ ,, C\") rCn\u0026gt; (m/) !\"' C 0 z ~ 0 z V, DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 April 28, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Right of Way and Easements Geyer Springs Elementary School BACKGROUND: The City of Little Rock is in the process of acquiring the necessary rights of ways and temporary construction easements needed for the widening of Mabelvale Pike. To support this project, the City has requested a permanent right-of-way and two types of easements: a drainage easement and a temporary easement to allow construction-access along the new street and drainage system. The temporary construction easement will be filled and graded to conform to the adjacent area and returned to the Little Rock School District upon completion of the project. RATIONALE: The Little Rock School District has long supported the initiatives of the City of Little Rock in maintaining its streets and sidewalks. This right-ofway and easements are in line with the policies and practices that have prevailed in the past. FUNDING: The offer of $4,500 made to the Little Rock School District is based on a fair-market-value appraisal made by a qualified real estate appraiser and reviewed and approved by the Arkansas Highway Department. There are no expenditures expected on the part of the Little Rock School District. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board give the Administration approval to enter into this right-of-way and temporary construction easement. PREPARED BY: Douglas Eaton, Director of Facility Services Attachments .~., z \u0026gt;z C'l ~ en !\" C 0 z .\u0026gt;... 5 z en JOB NAME: Mabelvale Pike - 57th Street Job Number: 060975, TRACT I 0 CONTRACT TO SELL REAL ESTATE FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES (CONTROLLED ACCESS FACILITY) GRANTOR: Geyer Springs Elementary School Little Rock School District GRANTEE: CITY OF LITTLE ROCK 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 In CONSIDERATION of the benefits that will inure to the Grantor(s) and the public, and for the sum of $1,080. for a small portion of land and $3,420. for a Temporary Construction Easement, the undersigned does hereby give and grant City of Little Rock, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the right to purchase the following described real estate, save and except the oil and gas only therein and thereunder, situated in the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas, to wit: See attached drawing and legal description PAYMENT DUE $$4,500. appraised value offered by the County of Pulaski for real estate, including damages, if any, to the remainder\nto be paid after approval of title and execution of a deed as hereinafter provided. WITINESS my hand and seal on this __ day of ____ ,2005. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) On this ___ day of ____ , 2005, before me, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified and acting within and for said County and State, appeared in person the within named ________ to me personally well known, and stated that they were duly authorized to execute foregoing instrument, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said forgoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this _ day of ____ ,2003 Notary Public My commission expires: TRACTl.Q Geyer Springs Elementary School WARRANTY DEED ROW ONLY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Little Rock School District, Grantor(s), duly authorized, for the sum of One thousand eighty dollars ($1,080.) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the City of Little Rock Arkansas, Grantee, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to the following described lands in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas: LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHED DRAWING TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the same unto Grantee and unto its successors and assigns forever, with all appurtenances thereunto belonging. Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee that it will forever warrant and defend the title to said real property against any and all claims whatever. WITNESS our hands on this ___ day of ___ 2005. GRANTOR PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LITTLE ROCK CITY ATTORNEY f) .,, z \u0026gt;z C) ~ (J) ~ 0 0 z ~ 5z (J) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Tract 10, Geyer Springs Elementary School KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the Little Rock School District, Grantor, duly authorized to execute this deed, for the sum of Three thousand four hundred twenty dollars ($3,420.) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, and convey unto City of Little Rock, Grantee, a temporary use of following described lands in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas: See attached legal description and drawing TO HA VE AND TO HOLD the same unto Grantee and unto its successors and assigns forever, with all appurtenances thereunto belongs. Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee, subject to the above limitations, that it will forever warrant and defend the title to said real property against all claims and encumbrances done or suffered by it. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Temporary Construction Easement to be signed as of this __ day of _______ , 2005 By: By: APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LITTLE ROCK CITY ATTORNEY PARCEL 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PART OF THE SW  SW  SECTION 19, T-1-N, R-12-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: STARTING AT THE NW CORNER SW SW  SECTION 19\nTHENCE S 89.35'37\" E, 446.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE N 0019'23\" E, 175.00 FEET\nTHENCE S 89.35'37\" E, 89.00 FEET\nTHENCE N 0019'23 E, 491.06 FEET\nTHENCE S 8935'37\" E, 211 .00 FEET\nTHENCE S 0019'23\" W, 671.30 FEET\nTHENCE N s93537 W, 300.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 156,667 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. BIGHT OF WAY BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY\nTHENCE N 0019'23\" E, 25.68 FEET\nTHENCE S s935'37\" E, 64.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A 348.99 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N 85'33'05\" E, 59.07 FEET\nTHENCE ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 59.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY\nTHENCE S 89.35'37\" E, 176.82 FEET\nTHENCE S 0019'23\" W, 30.68 FEET\nTHENCE sg35'37\" W, 300.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEmNNING CONTAINING 8764.53 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. PERMANENT EASEMENT THE NORTH 15.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 40.68 FEET, CONTAINING 3419.47 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. LESS \u0026amp; EXCEPT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED RIGHT -oF WAY. DEED REFERENCE NO DEED REFERENCE FOUND. DESCRIPTION TAKEN FROM ASSESSMENT RECORDS. CITY OF UTILE ROCK GEYER SPRINGS ROAD MABEL VALE PIKE - 57th STREET AMI ENGINEERING, INc.liill ENGINEERS  PLANNERS  SURVEYORS PHOTOGRAMMETRISTS 201 MARKHAM CEN-rrR DRIVE P.O. BOX 25937 /UTTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 (501) 227-7117 FAX(501) 227-5755 s::::: )\u0026gt; tlJ rr, r \u0026lt; )\u0026gt; r rr, -u ~ f\"T1 30.66' I ~ ...,,\n. ..,. b 0 0 .0. , \"! .\".,\nll C\"l0' z I ~ NW CORNER SW SW SECTION 19, T-1-N, R-12-W 175.00' ~~ ... Zt-\nN Wz ~w 2~ a:cn W\u0026lt; 0.W I 5' 10' g c,\na, 1,,-.:..\".,.' 0, g\n.,, N00,9'23\"E -4-91.06' 671.30' ~ SCALE: 1 \"= 100' NOVO 7 2002 PARCEL 10 !\" C 0 z ~ 0 z (J) Campus Name Gey\u0026amp;l? $,w1f6 fu-d{. A Dist r ict Number Page _J__ of R__ Street Address 52.}HJ tfn,..avALE: ?u\u0026lt;E ------------ Date of Drawing _ / _ / _ ----- -- -- -- ------- - - __ __.-- - C. -- ------ ( I DATE: April 28, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement ltJGwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Booker Arts Magnet Playground equipment, Booker Arts Magnet PTA Elementary School safety surfacing, and installation, valued at $20,492.58 Central High School Equipment, valued at Robin Kratzke $405.71, for use in AP Spanish classes J. A. Fair Magnet Several pallets of Mr. Jason Roy of Altech, Inc. High School decorative rock, valued at $1,500.00, for use on and around the outdoor classroom Geyer Springs $10,000.00 to be placed BFI Waste Services, Inc. Elementary School in a trust fund account at Metropolitan Bank for ten fifth grade students (Children of Promise) for college Pulaski Heights $500.00 cash to be used The Hillcrest Residents Middle School to refurbish the Parent Association (HRA) Center Rockefeller Elementary $5,000.00 cash to Rockefeller PTA School purchase \"Climbing Wall\" equipment for the gym to enhance the physical education program To: From: Subject: Date: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Cheryl A. Carson, Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property March 16, 2005 Booker Arts Magnet School PT A has graciously donated playground equipment, safety surfacing, and installation of the equipment in the amount of $20, 492.58. I am requesting that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District Policy. Thank you for your consideration of my request. MAR 16 2005 Pp)  J~~R :~ i :. nuu-.\n,! !::.....-\nn.\n.,, .... \"' DATE: TO: FROM: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 Fax 501-447-1401 3/14/2005 SUBJECT: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR o7 ~~CUREMENT NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL-7 ltf,~ DONATIO - - - - ------------ Robin Kratzke of 14 Victoria Circle, Maumelle, AR 72113, very graciously donated equipment totaling $405.71. This equipment will be utilized in our AP Spanish classes. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. MAR 16 2005 TO: FROM: DATE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science * Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering * Medical Science Drural Paradis, Director of Procurement ~sandra Norman, Principal March 30, 2005 RE: Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Jason Roy, Altech, Inc., P. 0. Box 6398, Texarkana, Arkansas 75505, has generously donated several pallets of decorative rock with a value of $1500.00 for use on and around the J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School outdoor classroom. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED MAR 31 2005 PR 0/\\l,'lHH~~~\n~.    A School of the Little Rock School District GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Froml5/46onna Hall, Principal Date: March 24th , 2005 Subject: Donation BFI Waste Services, one of our Partners- in - Education, in conjunction with The Geyer Sprin~s Neighbor hood Association, is donating again this school year $10, 000 to ten of our 5 grade students, (Children of Promise), to be placed in a trust fund account for each of them with Metropolitan Banlc for college. We are so grateful and thanlcful for this generous donation for some of our students. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. BFI- Waste Services Mr. Dale Stevener General Mana1er 1911 West 65 Street Little Rock, AR 72209 PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Date: To: From: Subject: March 11 , 2005 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Dr. Danfe( ~tehom, Principal Donation The Hillcrest Residents Association (HRA) has generously donated $500.00 for the purpose ofrefurbishing the Pulaski Heights Middle School Parent Center. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. RECE!Vt.D MAR 14 2005 PROCURE:::~~~ . ~ 401 North Pine Street  Phone (501) 447-3200  Fax (501) 447-3201  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 f) .,, z \u0026gt;z n ~ V, ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: ~nne Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller School Re: Donation from Rockefeller PTA Date: March 1 0, 2005 Rockefeller PTA would like to donate $5000.00 to Rockefeller School to purchase \"Climbing Wall\" equipment for the enhancement of the physical education program. The equipment will be placed on the gym wall and will be an exciting new way to challenge children and create interest in physical activity. We are grateful for this generous offer and would respectfully request approval from the board to accept the monetary gift. I recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. If approved, please acknowledge acceptance and 'appreciation to: Rockefeller School PT A Mitzi Moore, President 700 East 1th Street Little Rock, AR 72206 RECEIVED MAR 14 2005 700 East 17th Street  Phone 447-6200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 April 28, 2005 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Financial Reports BACKGROUND: Financial reporting is designed to keep the Board of Directors up-to-date regarding the District's current financial condition. Financial reports are submitted monthly to the Board for review and approval. RATIONALE: March 2005 financial reports are submitted for the Board's review and approval. FUNDING: NIA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the March 2005 financial reports as submitted. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer l.lTTl.E ROCK SCHOOL. DISTRICT COMBJNt:O STATEMENT OP REVENUES. EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 AND 2005 - APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2003/04 03/31/04 COLLECTED 2004/05 03/31/05 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% 61,436,691 61,968,610 100.87% DELINQUENT TAXES 10,100,000 10,644,676 105.39% 12,135,000 7,419,980 61.15% 40% PULLBACK 29,600,000 31,250,000 4,739 0.02% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 210,000 199,031 94.78% 205,000 205,692 100.34% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 180,000 135,184 75.10% 155,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 150,000 206,062 137.37% 185,000 203,569 110.04% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 380,000 254,808 67.05% 485,000 180,059 37.13% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 200,000 155,316 77.66% 245,000 408,406 166.70% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 240,000 189,155 78.81% 215,000 184,918 86.01% TOTAL 98,607,800 87,465.729 68.42% 106,311.691 70,575,974 66.39% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 21,000 11,594 55.21% 22,000 16,103 73.20% TOTAL 21,000 11,594.1 55.21% 22.000 16,1031 73.20% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 53,226,139 39,125,356 73.51% 65,082,694 49,341,256 75.81% ALTERNATIVE LEARNING 1,927,250 1,445,437 75.00% ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 193,739 210,600 108.70% NATL SCHL LUNCH STUDENT FUNDING 6,498,240 4,865,384 74.87% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1,141,165 1,141,165 100.00% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 8,300,000 4,723,348 56.91% 8,275,000 5,550,105 67.07% VOCATIONAL 1,400,000 993,438 70.96% 1,350,000 1,589,242 117.72% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,675,000 969,461 57.88% 2,100,000 910,065 43.34% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 202,301 74.01% 5,542,510 2,593,434 46.79% TRANSPORTATION 3,875,562 2,487,683 64.19% 4,125,000 2,655,757 64.38% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,900,000 2,312,167 59.29% 4,575,000 2,824,924 61 .75% ADULT EDUCATION 920,337 548,023 59.55% 934,380 566,740 60.65% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 560,545 534,979 95.44% TAP PROGRAM 285,245 285,245 100.00% 382,903 304,941 79.64% AT RISK FUNDING 360,000 236,541 65.71% 395,000 9,400 2.38% TOTAb., _ - '  ?4.77$.187 52\n418,542 ,.70.-10% 102,522,882 74,008,450 72.19% ' REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 770,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,350,000 180,868 13.40% 1,295,000 128,214 9.90% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% 1,849,008 616,336 33.33% \" TO]M \n,. XC. ',.\n\n,, x\u0026lt;i., . 3i752,430 , 725,011 ......... J9.S2!3/o i, 3,914,008 1~,il{iQ ' 19,02% ~At!RE\\IENUES:P~Tl~ ' wft . . 1t7A\u0026amp;Z,416t 120,'620.en r~ 68\n09%,.. 212,770,581 ,, 14.5,345,0?T]\n68.31% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 24,075,790 15,366,005 63.82% 21,531,929 14,397,769 66.87% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,449,984 61.25% 4,500,000 2,509,840 55.77% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 11,600,006 27,964,934 14,845,097 53.08% ,,(@'\"~- \"''  'f~t~\nTu/'' th , l'52.7/35\\j41 it, ~415\nQ9..'f LC' ,. '\"' ,.,., ,996,863 JP' 31,752,706 ,ci!MMt  lf\u0026lt;'.itJALPRE!!YENUBili@T .,= ,, x= ~ - . - tP,W ff @',\n,:! * '229,92.2'\n$9 ~$0\n038(873\\llls ,,, l6$l26'1ft\\Nt~llilW~7\n444..I '\"IR,097478:iitm:\n1'\\66.39'% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMSINEO STATEMf:NT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BAtANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 AAD 2005 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2003/04 03/31/04 EXPENDED 2004/05 03/31/05 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,684,982 63,436,899 63.01% 117,324,912 74,825,613 63.78% BENEFITS 26,483,772 16,510,443 62.34% 36,185,811 20,985,075 57.99% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,719,297 13,466,132 68.29% 20,959,918 12,927,478 61.68% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,185,459 6,610,040 80.75% 8,725,914 6,316,699 72.39% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,575,580 805,976 51.15% 2,760,600 1,051,028 38.07% OTHER OBJECTS 8,384,567 2,991,574 35.68% 10,770,418 3,648,433 33.87% DEBT SERVICE 12.098,342 12.191,763 100.77% 12,474,809 12,038,749 96.50% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 177,131,!leS 116,012,827 65.50% 209.202,382 131,793,076 63.00% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,056,193 12,143,681 46.61% 23,853,134 13,705,298 57.46% DEDICATED M \u0026amp; 0 4,000,000 2,771,767 69.29% 5,007,809 2,864,975 57.21% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,689,351 14,261,356 57.76% 27,964,934 16,127,920 57.67% TOTAL 64,745.544 29,176,804 53.30% 56,825,877 32,698.193 57.54% TOTAL EXPENSES ., 231,877,543 145.189,631 62.6t% 266.028,259 164,491,269 61.83% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (1,954,984) 4,847,242 739,184 12,606,512 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M \u0026amp; 0 3,558,580 3,558,580 4,005,957 4,005,957 OPERATING 9,026,855 9,026,855 6,531,706 6,531,706 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL. MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M \u0026amp; 0 1,578,177 3,797,771 1,176,943 3,060,470 OPERATING 9,052,274 13,634,905 10,099,905 20,083,707 TOTAL 10,630,451 17,432,676 11,276,848 23,144.rn\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2005 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-04 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 2004-05 03-31-05 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 17,956.90 2,900.00 15,056.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE 396.12 396.12 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 95,872.04 0.00 0.00 2,900.00 0.00 92,972.04 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 11 ,586.46 80,000.00 76,900.67 14,685.79 NEW WORK PROJECTS 6,090,835.40 45,811.00 3,167,917.27 930,587.95 2,038,141.18 SECURITY PROJECTS 14,541 .25 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 7,569,593.08 409,051.00 875,811.96 106,545.28 6,996,286.84 RENOVATION PROJECTS 12,752,856.34 127,854.00 6,243,999.59 689,421.24 5,947,289.51 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 1,569,424.27 1,143,377.19 925,841 .78 559,420.01 1,227,539.67 SUBTOTAL 28,008,836.80 1,143,377.19 662,716.00 11 ,290,471.27 2,285,974.48 16,238,484.24 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 445,618.31 180,104.00 625,722.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 1,000.00 6,266.71 0.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 14,773,544.18 (662,716.00) 14,110,828.18 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 5,037,437.95 706,005.30 5,743,443.25 SUBTOTAL 21,555,688.12 887,109.30 (662,716.00) 6,266.71 0.00 21,773,814.71 GRAND TOTAL ~li fifiD Jlifilifi i aaa~11fi.~li {!Jl,g ll ~lill !i3Z 9!1 i,~11~,liZ~.~II ~!I Jg~ iZ!! 1111 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ------ -- - ---- --iwND ISSUE PROJECT HISTOR_Y__ -- -- -- ----------- ------ THiw THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31 1 2005 1------r---- --- -- -- ~- -----~--~--- -- - -- ---------- 1------f--------- - -- -- ---1 -. ---t-- - - --- -- - -- 1------------ -f------- ------ - -- ---+----- ---~---- ----- -1--- -- --- -f-- --- - --- ---t------1------ - - --- --- --- - -- -- PROJECT - --~- --+-- -- -- - --- ------ -r-- ENDING ,...._ ___ _____ ...,_A_L_L_O_C_A_T_IO_N_S EXPENSE EXPENSE ~PENSE EXPEN~ EXPEN~ ENCUMBERED ---- --~ ALLOCATION PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 03-31-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 1'Hifil 03-31-05 \"1'HRu 03-31-05 SUBTOTAL- ~ 31~ ~~- M=1~N~1s=T=AA - T~,o~N-------~7=6o~,-,,,~~:=~~-~~~~~~~ ~\n~~ ~= ,_N_E_W_WO_R_K_P_R_O_J_E_C_T_S __ -+-_3_8,_834_,223.86 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.1~~.993,062.06 ~ 167,917.27 _ 930,587.95 1 36,796,082.68 ~ ~8,141.18 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17---:,:i3,930.47 . 109,609.73 27,732.73 0.00 0.00 251 ,272.93 14,541 .25 1L--IG_H_T_I_N_G_P_R_O_J_E_C_T_S_ ___ ,_ _4_, 8_62,-5-48~.-33-+-2-,641,482.131,832,392.06 ~ 9,661.38 -- 9,012.76 - - 0.00 - --0.00 4,862,548.33 - --0.00- MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 19,331,438.50 791,385.63 ----uf8,294.40 3,455,350.67-~2,887,763.72 ~5,811.96 - 106,545.28- 12,335,151 .66 6,996,286.84 ,..R.._E_N_O_V_A_T-IO_N_PR_O_J_E_C_T_S_ --+--5-1,-1-55- ,-60-2-.8-4-1-3- 9-7-6,-1-5.-34-+-4-, 119,045.21 15,666,239.90 18,091,992.05 - 6,243,999.59 689,421 .244 5,208,313.33 5,947,289.51 TECHNOLOGYUPG~ES 12,878,988.97 575~ 4,325,201.404,500,374.61--765,594.97 - 925,841 .78  559,420.01 - 11 ,651 ,449.30 - - 1,227,539.67 1--------- ---t--- - --- ------ -- -- -- --- ------ -- -- -- --- UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 15,404,649.15 -- --- -- ------- --- -- --- - 15,404,649.15 t--- - --- ----- -------------- - 1-- ---+----- _,___ ---~-- - -----+--- ------------ TOTAL --\u0026gt;- 143,493,792.62 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30- ~ .890,054.45 - 11 ,290,4i-1:27 2,285,974.48111,850,659.24 -~ 643, 133.39 1----------- ----- - -'----'-- --+-- --- --\u0026gt;--- ---'----+---'-- ----'--\"'----,- -- - ----- --- - 1-------------+----------- -- ------ --------- --~----- -- ----- -- - 1------ -------+--- --- ------- --- -- --- ----- --- -- - -- ----- --- ---- -- - -------- --- - ----- lN3WNMnorov 'IX S\u0026gt;IM\\IW3M DNISOl:\u0026gt; x 1----------- -----------LIT-T-LE- R-OC-K- S=CHO-O-L -DIS-T-RI-CT- -,---------- - SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2005 - ------------ ------------ ~------------+-------+---------+------+-------+------- -- --------+------+-------+- 1-------F-un-d ---+---P-ur-ch-as-e -+--Ma-tu-rit-y \"---+-In-st-itu-tio-n- -- Interest Rate Principal Date Date Operating 03-30-05 TFN Bank of America 2.550% Repo 14,100,000.00 Operating 03-15-05   05-02-05 Twin CityBa_n_k_ 3.160% ---C-D'----+--4-',-69- 7-'-.-52-7-.0- 6-i ,_O-'p_e_ra_tin~g_ ______- +-_0_3_-0_1_-05_ ___0_ 4_-15_-_05 __,. _ Twin City Bank 3.120% CD 4,300,000.00 Operating 03-01-05 _ 05-16-05 Twin City Bank 3.250% CD 3!..~. 00,Q00.00_ t-o-'p-e-ra_t.i,.n.. =g--------+- --=1.-2-_16-_04 _ 04-01-05_~-~ Twin City Bank __ -~ 2.750o/\n~_r--_-_- _C D_ __- _ _2 -',_60_0~,o_o_o.o_o-i Total Activity Fund Total Bond Account Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund - Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total - Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total 29, 197,527.06 -- -------+--------+-----+------+------ 03-30-05 03-07-05 03-15-05 01-10-05 ---- 01-31-05 08-17-04 08-02-04 03-15-05 02-15-05 03-16-05 . 12-09-04 - 01-10-05 - - ~ -- - - - Bank of America 2.430% 09-05-05 - - R~!ons 2.723%- -- Repo CD --- 1,050,000.00 1,050,000.00 400,000.00 TFN Bank of America 2.300% Repo 01-10-06 Metropolitan 2.400% CD 89Q,Q0Q.0Q l-------+-----'-----+-----+------+-----'-1,000,934.31 01-29-06 Bancorp South 2.750% CD ----- - --- 08-16-05 Twin City Bank 2.610% CD 08-02-05 Twin City Bank 3.030% CD 07-08-05 Bank of the Ozarks 3.370% CD 05-17-05 - Bank of America --2.620% CD TFN Bank of America 2.410% Repo ---- --+--------+------+----'---- - - - - 06-24-05 Bank of America 2.300% Treasury Bills - -- -- . - - - 06-28-05 Bank of America 2.520% Tr~a~ury Bills 2,139,266.38 11,000,000.00 4,500,000.00 10,480,189.75 4,569,535.22 5,960,000.00 40,939,925.66 784,994.04 784,994.04 254,947.86 254,947.86\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_1413","title":"Report: ''Update of Discipline Sanctions and Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2005-03-18"],"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 innovations","Educational statistics","School discipline","School improvement programs","Dropouts","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Update of Discipline Sanctions and Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1413"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["14 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_74","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":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/74"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\n-- Arkansas \u0026gt; ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  urrr.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education March 31, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 OH='\"roF DESEGREGATI . 1 ,OHITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 March 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, () zj () --a~~~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ! II STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Ar~\n:\n~h\n- , Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer f UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,Bar # 92251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2005, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Bas_ed 9_.0 th~ informaticm ~vailable at Februa 28 2005, the A Sta~e F91,1nqation E.!m!:fing fo u 1ec o periodic adj B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 BasedonJb~ii:iform~tion avaflable at F~61..uar:y 28,_2Q.05, the AQ.E cah\nyjatecl fo EY.L0.410..?\n-~ubje~q_t..tQ..P.!lrio_gj~_gj_s~!s C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 p_ . ary 2~.=~005, distributions Qf ~tate FQL!nd_ati9n Fuoding f9r FY: 04/05 'Ii ol ow~\n_ . .,25\u0026amp;  t__ 3,56.Q 8,024134 rrtie allotmerjts of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 04/05 at Februa!)'. ~.. 20_05 suJ:\n,jecUQ.p~riodic _adjustments, were atj9Jlqws~ LRSD ._ $65,0_82,694 NL8$D~ J3~,304, 16~ EQ.~D -\n$59,7.92,~ D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 B.asea on tfil, info ation avail E calculated afl=eb uary EX QAf09J.J\u0026gt;1tbf ![iQ.9ic a E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005  - vailaJ:il~. t .calcuJated.at ebr,y2[Y. 28 2005 o ~=ic- adjus 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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LRSD on November 10, 2004. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 28., 2005 fo EY 04/05 subjept tp p~riodic adjustme~. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2005 Di~tributiol').s for FY.04/05 at February 28, 2005, totaled $8,697,573. 6)1o e t ~ated or FY 04L05 was $14,062,106 subjE!Ct to p~riodic 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 March 31, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Jhe allotmen s\"calcut~eg for EY Q4/_os ~t f eQ.tl,@_ry 28, 2Q05,_~bj~ ~ ~RSD-$3\n990,19~ NLRSD - $4,091,028 rc~_~o: i~o.999_.14 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 04/05 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 March 31 , 2005 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 In September 2004, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $4,019,063.00 NLRSD - $772,940.15 PCSSD - $2,478,863.72 In September 2004, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $1,325,043.67 NLRSD - $275,333.33 PCSSD - $845,221.22 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 March 31, 2005 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) 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. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. 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 March 31, 2005 (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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. 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 4 7 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. Actual as of March 31, 2005 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 pri9r 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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 updpted regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 execuUve summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 38 VI. REMEDIATION A Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 NGA/COE peer team visits. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 SA T-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 Conferer\nice 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 MP 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 ACT MP. 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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\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_1078","title":"'Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting,'' agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Curricula","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["'Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting,'' agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1078"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMAR 2 05 5 Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting n \u0026gt;-o f=~ ... c 0:1:: oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\na..,\n-a Cz : on r-\u0026lt; rc5 nz i!!:\"' r .,,\na g ~m mC rC: n~ Or ~ ~ ~ ill \u0026gt;. ~.,, \"C:' O\na ~i!l n:a =\u0026gt;l nm \"O\"'8z z =l \"'a z (I) !D ~ :!l z m\na (I) :c \"6 (I) I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2005 5:30 p.m. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships C. Discussion: Long-term Budgetary Considerations (Berkley) D. Discussion: Tax Increment Financing Issues (Kurrus) E. Discussion: Student Attendance at Athletic Events / Excusing Absences (Daugherty) F. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) G. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 02-24-05 Special Meeting - 63-10-05 0 \u0026gt;~ i=~ .... C: o\nic oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\n,c.., -c::\n,o.,.c o..z.. ,.. i5 oz ,~.. \"'\n::: ?' ~ ~ z m\n,c \"::c' '5 \"' Board Meeting March 24, 2005 Page2 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. Grant Application: School-Based Tobacco Use Prevention Project B. Second Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers C. Establishment of a Tri-District Charter School I Alternative Learning Academy VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. Second Reading: Revision to Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements Second Reading: Revision to Policy IAA - Professional Development B. Secondary English/ Language Arts Textbook Adoption C. Memorandum of Understanding - Audubon Arkansas VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Request from Psychological Examiners B. School Calendar, 2005-06 C. Personnel Changes IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Acceptance of Report: Organizational Audit B. Updated Travel Regulations DKC-R C. Cloverdale Elementary School D. Donations of Property E. Financial Report/ Approval of Annual Audit X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. STUDENT HEARING XII. ADJOURNMENT PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. DISCUSSION/ BUDGETARY D. DISCUSSION/TI F DATE: TO: FROM: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnership: First United Methodist Church and Chicot Elementary School PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Director p ,...\na C') \u0026gt; Chicot Elementary and First United Methodist Church, Little Rock Partnership Agreement March 2005 First United Methodist Church, Little Rock will provide:  Classroom tutoring during Literacy time  Volunteers one afternoon a week to assemble teacher materials and to assist students in checking out library books  A team responsible for providing treats for the Chicot staff on a monthly basis  Volunteers for VIPS Reading Day  Coordination with other Partners in Education Chicot Elementary will provide:  Students serving as pen pals for church members who are shut-ins  The school facility for church functions as needed DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: March 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: In the February 2005 report to the Board, the completion of the drawings for the renovation of Rightsell Elementary was to be March 1,\n1 . The architect now reports that the drawings will not be completed until the first week in May. The delay is necessary because of a change in the HVAC system that was recommended by Doug Eaton and Bill Goodman. The architect has stated that this delay will not jeopardize the completion of the renovation in time for the start of the 2006-07 school year. The bids for the classroom addition to Gibbs will be received March 24th . It appears that today's bid market favors the owner, and we are optimistic that the low bid will not exceed our budget. Meetings have taken place with the new Principal at Forest Heights, Dr. Debbie Price, regarding the school's remodeling and addition. Dr. Brooks has visited the campus, and his input has been important to the planning process. It is too early to have a firm date for construction start-up. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer !\"\" .z.... m\n:o z j!!: \u0026gt; C: 0 a\n:o ~ ..... m C') ::i: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"ti ~ m\n,, :S Cl\u0026gt; ~o z~ -4Z \u0026gt; (I) -cm \"ti\n:o r- \u0026lt; c'5 \u0026lt;'5 \u0026gt;m :0: ! \"'\nz: ~ \"i''\n::0 ~ 0 z p \"C 0 r- n -\u0026lt; m' CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I Est. completIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING/ SUMMER 2005 I I I Est. CompletIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver ___ Media Center Expansion _ _ $167,490_ Dec-05 Fair Park __ _ _ _Remodel ___ $799,000_ __ Aug-05 Gibbs Addition $705,670 Dec-05 Meadowcliff - Remodel -- -- _- _ __ $164,150 --= Aug-05 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows ___ $215,000 Aug-05 Rightsell - ,==.__~enovation -- , $2,494,000 Aug-06 Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:SL 1..,ompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker __ ___ Electrical Upgrade _________ Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade , Unknown Unknown Cloverdale Elementary- Addition I $520,750- Unknown Forest Heights Remodel ________ i $1,547,000 - Unknown Mitchell Renovation 1 _ $2,21_?,493 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring systeminstallation I Unknown Unknown Woodruff Parking addition- $193,777 Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date f--A_d_m_in_ist_ra_ti_on _____ ,A_s_bes_tos abatement ~ $380,495 ~ Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system , $55,000 Aug-03 ,_A_d_m-in- is- t-ra-ti_on _____ ,_F-ir_e_a_la-rm~----~ $32,350 Aug-03 Administration HVAC 1 $70,000 Nov-04 Administration Annex  Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning'--C_t_r. __E ne_r=gy'-e-f_ficien_t_li=ght_in__,.g'---______l_ ___ __$\n._82,,0_00 ____D_ e_c-_0 1 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement I $237,237 Jul-01 Badg~e_tt ______+ F-=-i,r-e-_a_lar_m_-,-,-,...,.---,---,-----~l~-----=-$..1..,8,'\"\"2\"=..5,...0,.. ____A_ u=g--=0-2=-1 B_a_le_ ________C lassroom addition/renovation 1 $2,244,524 Dec-02 B_a_le Energy monitoring syst_em _____ -,----,-------~M_a_r_-0_2 Bale 'Partial roof replacement _ _ __ $269,587 _ Dec-01 Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady HVAC -- - - $664,587 Aug-01 - Renovatioo - $953,520 Aug-04 Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Energy efficient lighting S170,295 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Fire alarm Addition/renovation Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement $34,501 Mar-02 $973,621 Nov-04 $80,593 _ Sep-02 $345,072 Aug-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 -- Parking lot -- --- Carver I $111,742 Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 -- - Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 Sep-04 --- -- Central Parking Student parking I $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 -- Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 -- -- -Ce-ntra-l Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 -- -Cen-tral --- Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Oct-01 Central Flre Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair-- $22,470 Aug:Q.!_ Chicot Dramage -- -- --~-- ----- -- --- $64,700 Aug-04 ~ Chicot Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 Cloverdale Elem. 1 Energy efficient light~ ---- --- $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Oct-04 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 . Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar 'Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672- - Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 -Fa-ir Par-k --- HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-01 -- Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 -- J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music , room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting I $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 -J. A-. Fair 'Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Aug-03 ---- - Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAf $48~258 Nov-03 -- - F-or-est P-ark -- Diagonal parking $111,742 ___ Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 --- ~ --- - Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 - Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation - $1.:1 ,950 - - Aug::Q.!_ Fulbright -Replace roof top HVACunits $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161,752 Jun-04 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Jul-01 Hall Maj~ renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 - - - Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 2 !TI .z.. m\n:c .~.... \u0026gt; C: 0 :::::i 0\n:c .:.n. mn :,: z .0.. .. 8 -\u0026lt; C..,: 0 ~ m ?-s G'\u0026gt;  ~o zl!,\n... z \u0026gt;en \"tlm \"tl\n:c n..... o\u0026lt; \u0026gt;m ::! rJ\u0026gt; 0\nz: CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 -- Hall Intercom I Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 ----- Henderson Lockers $43,854 Dec-04 Henderson Energy efficient lighting -- - - $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I ---- - I $500,000 Aug-01 -- Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 I $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 Jul-02 - -Jef-ferson - Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 -- Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm ~ $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot - $269,588 Jul-01 - Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Oct-04 -- ~ Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation ' $12,150 Aug~ Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement - $107,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers -I $134,793 __A ug-_Ql Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-04 Mann 1 Partial Replacement --- - $11,500,000 ~ -- Apr-04 -Ma-nn - Asphalt walks --- The total $1.8 million Dec-01 Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Dec-01 -- - Mann Boiler replacement -- used so far on the Oct-01 -- Mann - Fencing projects listed Sep~ Mann Partial demolition/portable classroom~completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 -- McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras I $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 . May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair i $235,QQQ I Aug-01 McClellan Intercom T $46,000 Feb-02 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 Jul-04 -- McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade I $7,700 Sep-04 McDermott Energy efficient lighting I $79,411 Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units ' $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm I $16,175 Jul-01 -- --- Meadowcliff !Asbestos abatement I $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 -- - - Metropolitan Replace cooling tower I $37,203 Dec-00 ---- Me!ropolitan - _ R~place shop vent system -- $20,000 May-01 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation - $17,145 Aug-_Ql Mitchell BuildingR emediation - $165,000 Jul-04 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 Aug-01 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 - Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 -- - - Otter Creek Parkinq Improvements $142,541 Aug-03 3 CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls I $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement i $273,877 Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls I $301,938 Aug-01 Parkview 1 Locker replacement I $120,000 Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Nov-04 -- -- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground - $17,000 Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Nov-04 -- - Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller I Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition -- - $111,7~ Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition --~- $3,534,675 -- Mar-03 - Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest I Addition $2,000,000 Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest !New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment I Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Dec-04 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield - Demolition/Asbestos Abatement ----- $200,000 Nov-02 -- Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 Oct-04 - -- Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington - Energy efficient lighting $165,281 ~ r -Q! Watson ~E~rgy monitoring system installation _ $8,530-- Jul-01 --- - - - -- - Watson - - - Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 -- Watson Energy efficien_!Jighting $106,868 Aug-01 - Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Oct-04 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting_ $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation - -- -- - $2,106,492 Mar-04 Williams Parking expansior:._s $183,717 Dec-03 - T - $122,719 - Williams Energy efficient lighting Jun-01 Renovation/expansion - - $1,263,876 - Wilson Feb-04 - - $110,000 - - Wilson Parking Expansion Aug-03 - Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Aug-02 4 ~... m 0 :z:c 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"\" ~ m :\u0026lt;\n,o  0  C: l]!\ni Zm ~i \"'=l m ill .?..J, i\n:o m \u0026gt; 0 z p \"t\u0026gt; 0 r- 1'i -\u0026lt; 'm- DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker :.n.. m 0 ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m ~ \"i's'\n,:, m \u0026gt; 0 z ~ 2l r- n -\u0026lt; m' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: March 24, 2005 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the sixty-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, one middle school and three elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial infonnation for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. . b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The amended Out of District Travel regulation is on the agenda to facilitate the use of Pro Cards in a limited manner for travel expenditures. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to detennine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Tuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Audit Report - March 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004) and on planning committee for 2005. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. :,, nl (\") ::,: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m ~ \"6'\n\u0026lt;) m )\u0026gt; 0 z p \"C ,0.. . n -\u0026lt; \u0026lt;... m DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  The Edline project has expanded to McClelland and Central High School this month. By March 25, teachers at both schools will be trained to send grades to Edline. Parents will be trained shortly after Spring Break.  The computer refresh program for the 2004-2005 school year started in January. By the end of June the District will have replaced approximately 1000 old Windows 95 and Windows 98 computers in fourteen schools. Since we have been notified of reimbursed E-rate funds for 2003-2004, we will continue the replacement cycle through the summer.  Five elementary schools will implement the new Compass Learning Enterprise software this month. Software will be loaded at the Technology Center to be accessed by students at 5 elementary schools. This version of the software is directly correlated to Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks. After the software has been tested within the District network, it will be opened up for students and teachers to access from home. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: :c:\na \u0026gt;0  c :1:::! z~ ~f\n(I) =l m\na (I) !l' \"5'\na ~ 0 z 0 \"C 0 r-c'i -\u0026lt; 'm- It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Grant Application: School-Based Tobacco Use Prevention Project: 2005-06 Background: Through tobacco-settlement dollars received by the state of Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Health has issued a Request for Applications to fund school-based tobacco prevention initiatives, for which local school districts are eligible to apply. Priorities to be addressed in the proposal include the development and maintenance of and compliance with comprehensive tobacco free policies for all students and employees\nimplementation of research-based tobacco prevention supplemental curricula K-12, and the reduction of the number of children and youth who initiate smoking or the use of other tobacco products. The Little Rock School District has received a tobacco prevention grant award from the Arkansas Department of Health for the last two years. This proposal is a renewal request for year three. A full-time tobacco coordinator/trainer is required to carry out the activities included in the grant. Goals \u0026amp; Objectives: 1. To reduce the initiation of tobacco use among Little Rock School District adolescents to 16% by January, 2007. 2. To reduce the suspension rate for smoking related offenses in Little Rock School District schools. 3. To implement and maintain a comprehensive tobacco prevention policy that prohibits the use of tobacco products on school grounds and in any other district facility or at any school-related event. 4. To implement research-based tobacco prevention curricula and programs, K-12, that provide students with the knowledge, skills and understanding to resist tobacco usage and maintain a healthy lifestyle. f) !I:: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z ~ ?- ?' \"5'\nc m \u0026gt; C z .p,, 0 r-c'i -\u0026lt; L.. m Rationale: The initiation of daily smoking often begins in grades five through nine. Smokers who begin at a young age find it hardest to quit. Each day, approximately 4,400 youth in the U.S. between the ages of twelve and seventeen try their first cigarette. In Arkansas, 23. 7 percent of all high school students (9-12) are current smokers and 13.5 percent have used chew tobacco or snuff at least once in the past 30 days. School-based programs can reach children and adolescents when they are most vulnerable to starting a tobacco habit or before their tobacco use has become a strong addiction. Moreover, children spend a third of their waking time in school, and much of the peer pressure kids feel regarding whether or not to use tobacco occurs in school. At the same time, school-based tobacco prevention strategies are most likely to have a strong, enduring effect when supported by strong anti-tobacco school district policies. Funding: Grant Budget: $100,000.00 - No match required. Recommendation: It is recommended that the board approve the submission of this grant application. Prepared By: Junious Babbs, Assoc. Superintendent-Administrative Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director - Pupil Services Department DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Second Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Transfers BACKGROUND: Expanded language in Arkansas State Statutes for school enrollment, birth documentation and transfers has been recommended by the State Standards Monitoring Team. RATIONALE: Arkansas Department of Education compliance. FUNDING: No funding is required. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the board adopt revised Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Transfers PREPARED BY: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services fl 31: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt;\na ?\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;:= :.,,:r \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;c n-\u0026lt; ::I.! ::c:z ~~ 3_1: cC z\n:, mc\nan (J) u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE STUDENT ENROLLMENT, ATTENDANCE, and TRANSFERS The Little Rock School District is open and free to any child five (5) through twenty-one (21) years who resides within the District and has not graduated from high school. Children who attain the age of five (5) on or before September 15th of a given year will be eligible to attend kindergarten during that school year. School attendance is required until a student's eighteenth (18th ) birthday. All students are required to maintain a level of attendance that will enable them to discharge their responsibility as learners and will enable the school to meet its obligations to the students. Parents/guardians seeking enrollment of a child in the District will provide the following:  Certified copy of birth certificate, visa/passport or military I.D. card, and /or other documentation as provided by law (A.C.A. 6-18-208)  Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, or personal property tax bill)  The child's immunization record  Social security number or request that the District assign an alternate nine-digit number  Expulsion records if applicable Any student transferring from a school accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to another school accredited by the ADE will be placed into the same grade the student would have been in had the student remained at the former school. Any student transferring from home school or a school that is not accredited by the ADE to a school that is accredited by the ADE will be evaluated by the staff of that accredited school to determine that student's proper placement in the accredited school. All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education. Students transferring from out-of-state schools or from Arkansas schools that are not accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education will be assessed by the school staff to determine appropriate grade placement and course credit. Multiple criteria, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE (continued) including the following as appropriate, will be used for decision-making in determining grade placement and credit: 1. Any performance data presented by the sending school and/or parents, such as portfolios of work, project samples, etc. 2. Indicators of achievement such as report cards, reports from participation in virtual schools, correspondence course reports, and dual-enrollment college reports. 3. Results of norm-referenced tests. 4. Results of criterion-referenced tests that are part of the sending state's NCLB accountability plan. 5. Results of assessments administered by the sending school staff, such as local criterion-referenced tests in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies\ntests available through educational software programs used by the school, etc. 6. Results of \"credit-by-examinations\" in the core subject areas administered by LRSD. 7. Information gained from oral interviews with the students or performance tasks administered by LRSD staff. Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two (2) semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (see IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Revised: Revised: May 23, 2002 Adopted: May 25, 2000 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-18-201(a), A.CA 6-18-202, A.C.A. 6-18-207(a) Cross References: Board of Education Policy and Regulations JLCB, IKF, IKED, IKED-R, IKC-R and the LRSD Student Handbook 2 f\u0026gt; ii: 0 c:: \u0026gt; c:: C c:: a:, 0 z \u0026gt; :,::, ?\" DATE: TO: For consideration of a suspension of the rules. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: The Establishment of a Tri-District Charter School for the purpose of housing the Pulaski Alternative Learning Academy (PALA) and the Juvenile Justice Step One-Program BACKGROUND: The Pulaski Alternative Learning Academy (PALA) was operated through a Juvenile Justice Department Grant which was established with the Juvenile Justice Judges and the three school districts, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. The three Juvenile Judges placed students in the program as a last alternative before placing them in juvenile detention facilities. The JJC Step-One Program is currently housed in the Juvenile Justice Complex and is funded by the three school districts, OHS, and the Pulaski County Government. Representatives from the three school districts place students in the Step-One Program who have committed serious offenses and/or who have had weapons on their campuses or at school-related activities. RATIONALE: Currently, none of the school districts claim the students for ADM purposes who have been placed in the PALA program. The LRSD presently uses the Step-One Program to place students who have displayed serious behaviors in school and/or have had guns on a school campus. If the program were discontinued, the district would not have a program/or facility to place these students. FUNDING: Since this would be the first year the school would be in operation, funding would come from a $350,000.00 special improvement appropriation provided by the state leg islature, a $150,000.00 Charter School Implementation Grant provided by the ADE, $141 ,000.00 provided by OHS and approximately $170,000.00 that is currently being provided by the three school districts for the JJC Step-One Program. The Pulaski County Government plans to provide the facility and the building maintenance. NOTE: Additional funding would come from the allocation of seats to the three school districts which will be determined in future meetings. !I' ~ :t: 8,.... n ~ mz i !..I..' m ~ CD 8\n\u0026gt;: \u0026gt; 8 '.!l 0 z ~ :I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: 0 C: CD 0 z \u0026gt; \"?\u0026lt;' ~ \u0026gt;\n: :.., :i en C -\u0026lt; 3 (\") ~ :t: 2 ~ ~\n_i:cC z\n:, me \"e'n\"\" RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends that the Little Rock School District form a partnership with the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District for the purpose of establishing a Tri-District Conversion Charter School in conjunction with the Juvenile Courts. Little Rock School District would serve as the Lead Educational Agency (LEA) and would claim the students for funding purposes. PREPARED BY: Linda Watson LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Second Reading: Policy Revisions: IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements\nIAA- Professional Development BACKGROUND: The Board of Education policies IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements and IAA - Professional Development require slight revisions in order to ensure compliance with Arkansas state statutes and Arkansas Department of Education Standards for Accreditation. RATIONALE: Little Rock School District Board of Education policies will be updated to ensure all are current, clear and compliant. FUNDING: None required. RECOMMENDATION: Board adoption is recommended for policies IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements and IAA - Professional Development. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction !J:I ~ ::,: ,8- (\") ~ m z C \u0026gt;\n,o .!\".\u0026gt;, m\n,o !S z z ,m- (\") ::,: \u0026gt;z C) m Cl\u0026gt; !J:I  a:, 8\n:,\u0026lt;: \u0026gt; 8 ~ 0z !\"\u0026gt; ll: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a:, 0 z \u0026gt;\n,o ?\" :: :\u0026gt;_.\",:,' C/)c: -\u0026lt; :f n:. ::,: 2\n,.,\n:, ~~ 3_: cC: Z\n:\u0026lt; mC'\n,\n, \" Cl\u0026gt; u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of post-secondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. The District shares with the state of Arkansas the commitment to ensure all students have access to a rigorous curriculum. The District' general graduation requirements meet and exceed the State's adopted Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. Diploma-Earning Options A student may earn a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school in one of four ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required units of credit. 1. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required 24 units for tho classes of 2002 and 2003\nor the required 26 units for the class of 2004 and after. 2. Diploma from any of the -five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 27 units for tho class of 2003\nor 28 units, including at least eight PreAdvanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses, for the class of 2004 and after. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. 3. Diploma earned at the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 21 units required by the State of Arkansas. 4. Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. Even though the graduation requirements may be changed by the Board of Education during the time a student is enrolled in high school, the requirements established for a student's graduation class (assuming graduation in four years of high school) are those he/she must meet, even though he/she may require more than four years to earn the necessary number of units. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Units of credit will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I (or higher level) of foreign language may be earned in grade eight. High school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. (See policy IKEC for list of creditearning options.) Transfer Students All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (see JE for additional information). Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (see IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Senior-Year Enrollment Requirements Students participating in dual-credit courses with local colleges/universities during their senior year must be enrolled in high school courses at least half time for their senior year (four units of credit) or full-time during the fall semester in order to receive a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school. This enrollment standard is required regardless of how many credits a student may need to satisfy graduation requirements. (See IKEC-R1 for regulations governing dual-credit enrollments.) Magnet Program Seal Students who participate in the District's high school magnet programs may meet the magnet curriculum requirements through completion of the designated Career Focus courses established for each magnet. In order to receive a Magnet Seal, magnet students must complete ill! the requirements of the magnet program. Students transferring into a magnet program after the freshman year may earn a diploma from that high school, but they will not earn the Magnet Seal. ADE Seal In order to receive the ADE Seal, students must complete the state's recommended core curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.75 ( see Standards for Accreditation 14.01 and 14.02). 2 ?I ltl :,: 8 r ~ m z g :,0 p \"t, m :,0 is z z rm (\"') i'\nz Cl m en p ll:: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt; :,0 ?\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Arkansas Scholars Seal NEPN CODE: IKF Arkansas Scholars, a program of the Arkansas business \u0026amp; Education Alliance, is a partnership between the District and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce's Education Committee. Many local businesses have agreed to recognize the achievement of Arkansas Scholars status as a symbol of high quality education. A special Arkansas Scholars seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards established by the Arkansas Scholars program: 1. Earn a grade of \"C\" or above in all courses. 2. Achieve a 95 percent or better attendance record for each of the four years of high school. 3. Complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. 4. Complete successfully at least three units in science, three units in mathematics, three units of social studies, and four units in English. Honors Diploma Seal A special Honors Seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: 1. Completes the units required for the Little Rock Scholars curriculum, which includes and goes beyond the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or fouryear institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum also reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. 2. Successfully completes a minimum of eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses over a four-year period. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses offered to LRSD students in collaboration with area colleges/ universities may also be substituted for the Pre-AP or AP requirement. 3. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Students designated for valedictory or salutatory recognition must have completed the Little Rock Scholars curriculum. Recognition of Graduates Each high school may design its own traditions to commend and celebrate the achievements of the following sets of graduates: 1. The valedictorian and salutatorian\n2. Students earning an overall average of 3.5 or above\n3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 3. Students earning Magnet Program, Arkansas Scholars, Little Rock Scholars, and/or Honors Diploma Seals\n4. Members of the National Honor Society or similar honors organization\n5. Scholarship recipients\n6. Students with perfect attendance throughout high school\nand 7. Students whose other achievements are worthy of special recognition. Participation in Graduation Ceremony In order to be a participant in the graduation ceremony, the student must be within one unit of completing the graduation requirements and must have paid the tuition for the one-half or one unit to be taken in summer school (or, alternately, in another approved credit-earning program). All high school students and their parents will be informed in writing of this expectation when course lists and graduation requirements are published for the spring registration process. Principals will make a determination of potential graduates at the end of the junior year and each quarter of the students' senior year and inform students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the student is in danger of not graduating. Such students will be advised of all the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, evening high school, summer school, correspondence courses, online courses, credit-by-examination, and placement at the Accelerated Learning Center. Award of Diploma The award of the high school diploma will not be made until all graduation requirements are met. Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. Revised: Revised: January 22, 2004 Adopted: July 22, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-15-1101 , Standards of Accreditation 9.03, 14.01 , 14.02 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations IKED, JE, IKED-R, IKC-R, and IKEC-R1 , and the LRSD Student Handbook 4 ~ ::c 8 rn \"l!= m z ~ fl \"D m :x, ~ z z m rn ::c \u0026gt;z C, m Cl\u0026gt; !..\".. s a, 8\n:,,\n\u0026gt; 8 '.!l 6 z fl ll: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: 0 C: a, 0 z \u0026gt; :x, ?\" ~ \u0026gt;\" :.., :i cn C -n\u0026lt; :3. ::,: 2 ~ ~ 3_: cC Z\ni\u0026lt; me\n,:, \" Cl\u0026gt;CJ High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Reauired, Classes of 2004 and After Reauired, ACC Students English-4 units English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA (1/2 unit) Communications IA--one-half unit English Language Arts-1/2 unit One-half unit from any English, Journalism, or Communications course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is strongly recommended. Mathematics--3 units Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP) will no longer Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) substitute for Algebra II for the Class of 2007. Effective for the Class of 2007, four (4) units of mathematics are required in grades 9-12. All students must take a mathematics course in arade 11 or 12 and comolete Aloebra II. Science--3 units Science-3 units Physics I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Physical Science or Physics I\nand Biology I\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Social Studies--3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology--1 unit None One unit from any of the approved technology courses. Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units At least three units from any of the approved Career Three units from any of the approved Career Focus proqrams. Focus proqrams. 5 High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District (continued) Electives-6 units (5 units, effective for Class of Electives-3 units 2007) A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign language. Total-26 units Total-21 units Although not required to do so, students graduating in 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to complete the requirements for the Class of 2007, especially the four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. 6 f\u0026gt; \"0 m\no is z z,m.. . n $\nz Cl m u, !.D... ~ 8\n,: \u0026gt; 8 ~ 5 z f\u0026gt; !I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt;\no ?' ~  \" :., ::i u, C n-\u0026lt;: ,:i,i ::i: 2 ~~ 3_: cC z\n,: mr\nuo, (\"J Little Rock Scholars Curriculum The Board of Education recommends that students elect the challenge of a more rigorous graduation plan than the minimum requirements, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses (or University Studies courses at Hall High or approved dual-credit courses). Little Rock Scholars, Class of 2004 and After English--4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand Enolish IV (ESL, Reoular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA English Language Arts-1/2 unit Any one-half unit from Enolish, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar is stronoly encouraoed. Mathematics--4 units (in grades 9-12, class of 2007} Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in orades 9-12. Science--4 units Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Social Studies--4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand One additional unit Foreign Language-2 units Two units of any one foreion lanouaoe Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology-1 unit* One unit from any of the approved technolooy courses. Career Focus-3 units* Three units from any of the approved Career Focus proorams. Electives-3 units Total-28 units *Students graduating in 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to take four units of mathematics m grades 9-12, although they are not required to do so since their plan only specified three units of mathematics. If they do choose to take the Class of 2007 plan, they may also reduce the requirements in Technology and Career Focus and have three electives instead of one. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Board of Education is committed to providing the best possible educational opportunities for all students in the District. The Board will, therefore, commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students. The Board recognizes that the key to a quality professional development program is the establishment of an environment that facilitates and nurtures customer service, continuous learning, data-driven decisions, and continuous improvement at every level of the District. By definition a learning community member assumes responsibility for his or her own growth. The District, however, has the responsibility to encourage, facilitate, and provide a full range of learning opportunities, including job-embedded learning, study groups and seminars, workshops, informational or awareness sessions, in-depth study, access to resources and distance learning, in-classroom coaching and follow-up, tuition reimbursement for university courses, conference attendance, participation on various committees, and so forth . Required Professional Development As per State Board of Education regulations, all certified employees of the District will complete a minimum of sixty (60) required approved hours of professional development annually. The professional development calendar begins July 1 and ends June 30. Any excess professional development hours earned in a given year cannot be carried over to the next school year. An employee who misses any part of regularly scheduled professional development activities for any reason (such as sickness) must make up that time in other professional development activities so that the sixty (60) required hours are earned by each certified employee of the District prior to June 30. Approved professional development activities must relate to one or more of the following areas: content (Pre K - 12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/ leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community.  At least six (6) of the sixty (60) hours of required professional development will be in the area of educational technology. At least two (2) hours for teachers and !\"\u0026gt; \"'0 m\na lS z ,mz.. n $: z C) m fJ) !.X...' m ~ a, 8\n:,,\n\u0026gt; 8 '.!:l 6 z !\"\u0026gt; :I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt;\na ?- ~ \u0026gt;\n= :.,, :r \u0026lt;Jl c -\u0026lt; 3' c-, ), :,: 2 ~~ 3_:cC z\n, mr\na\" \u0026lt;J)CJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued) three (3) hours for administrators will be in the area of parent involvement strategies.  Approved professional development activities that occur during the instructional day or outside the employee's annual contract days may apply toward the sixty (60) hour minimum professional development requirement.  For each administrator, the sixty (60)-hour professional development requirement will include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership and fiscal management  A three-hour graduate-level, college credit course will count as twelve (12) hours of professional development. Professional development will be awarded only when the college credit is related to a teacher's current teaching assignment or is part of the requirements for the teacher to obtain additional certification in a subject matter that has been designated by the ADE as having critical shortage of teachers. No more than half of the required sixty (60) hours of professional development time may be met through college credit hours An effective professional development program which results in improved student learning includes, but is not limited to, the following characteristics:  has adequate financial resources, space, and time to facilitate effectiveness\n is designed in collaboration with potential participants\n is primarily driven by needs identified through the analysis of student performance data and needs identified in the school improvement plans\n includes performance evaluations of staff both to enhance strong performance and to address weaknesses\n is designed to reflect research-based best practice, to be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible, and to align with the professional development standards established by the National Staff Development Council\n2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued)  incorporates the requirements of the State Board of Education relative to professional development activities for certified staff\n is evaluated annually for its impact on student learning. Definitions: Advocacy/leadership means building the capacity for shared visions and system improvement in order to improve student learning. Assessment means measuring and judging student performance and achievement relative to the learning standards. Building a collaborative learning community means understanding community, sensitivity, diversity, and effective communication of high expectations. Cognitive research means research about learning and application to practice. Content (PreK-12) means increasing knowledge in a discipline or domain. Educational technology means the use of any technology to enhance instruction, learning and management. Instructional strategies mean techniques or methods for teaching students. Mentoring/coaching means increasing capacity for coaching and mentoring others to assist in growth of instructional skills and effectiveness of colleagues. Principles of learning/development stages means understanding and applying knowledge about how humans learn from birth through adulthood in order to maximize achievement. Professional development means a coordinated set of planned learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. Professional development will result in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to insure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state academic standards. Approved professional development will be linked to the local school's improvement plan, demonstrate research-based best practice, and be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible. 3 !D !!l :t: 8 r(\") ~ m z ~ ~ fl \"D m ~ ~ z z m r(\") $: z C\u0026gt; m en fl :I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0z ~\n-: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA ( continued) Standards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment means defining what students should know and be able to do at acceptable performance levels and organizing curriculum and instruction to bring about desired learning results. Supervision means gaining knowledge and skills in instructional management in order to improve the quality of staff members and staff performance. Systemic change process means understanding changes across an entire system such as culture, governance, community, roles, rules, responsibility, etc., to improve the education results and increase student achievement. Revised: Adopted: February 22, 2001 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-17-701 through A.C.A. 6-17-703 A.C .A. 6-15-1001 through A.C.A. 6-15-1006 Act 603 of 2003 Standards for Accreditation 15.04, 15.04.1, 15.04.2 Cross References: Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing Professional Development and the LRSD Strategic Plan 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Secondary English/Language Arts Textbook Adoption BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District English/Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee began the reviewing and selection process as outlined in the LRSD policy manual in December of 2004. This process was completed in February of 2005 after several days of participation in a caravan day, a study day, and several meetings of discussion. The books were available in all secondary schools for perusal by teachers and administrators as well. A set was available at the IRC for inspection also. RATIONALE: The committee, who represented all levels and schools, worked diligently and comprehensively to determine which series most closely aligned to the State Benchmarks and Frameworks, the LRSD curriculum, and the needs of LRSD students. Much consideration was given to the support provided to both teachers and students through materials and professional development opportunities. The voting members were clear in their choices of the above series as those best suited for meeting the needs of the students and teachers of the LRSD. Much time was spent looking at the reading and writing and grammar components of the different series, and the recommended books and materials were viewed to be the best for preparing our students for success in these areas. A list of the committee members will be made available upon request. As a result of the exemplary work of the committee, the following recommendations are made for purchase for the LRSD Secondary English/Language Arts program: 1. Middle School English: Prentice Hall Series for Literature and Language Arts, all levels 6-8. 2. High School English: Holt, R_inehart and Winston Series for Literature and Language Arts, regular and Pre AP 9-12. !Xl ~ ::c 8,.... ~ m z i !\"\u0026gt; \"ti m ::tJ ~ z z m re-, $\nz C) emn ?-x - na, n c: men -\",tzl m nz eenn men om ..,\no ~ c: m l en !\"\u0026gt; I: 0 C,.: C: C C: a, 0 z  ::tJ ?\" ~ ,_\n: :..,,::i enc: n-\u0026lt; :3. ::c:z ~~ 3_:c C\nz\n,: mce:: no\"\" 3. High School AP English: McGraw-Hill - Literature: Reading Fiction, Poetry, Drama (grade 12) Five Steps to a 5- AP Lit and Comp (12) Five Steps to a 5- AP Language (11) W.W. Norton - The Norton Reader :An Anthology of Nonfiction ( 11 ) Harper \u0026amp; Roe - On Writing Well (11) Wadsworth Co.-The Informed Argument (11) 4. Journalism: National Textbook Co. - Journalism Today, Level I Jostens - Radical Write, Levels II - IV 5. Speech/Communication: Glencoe - Speech FUNDING: Textbook funding is provided by the District and the State. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accepts the recommendations of the Secondary English/Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee. PREPARED BY: Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English and Foreign Languages LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding by and between LRSD and Audubon Arkansas BACKGROUND: Audubon Arkansas and the Little Rock School District are renewing a previous Memorandum of Understanding to continue educational projects that center on Audubon's planned restoration of the Fourche Creek watershed and the creation of an Audubon Center in Little Rock focused on science and technology experiences. J. A. Fair, Central, Mabelvale, and Mann have been engaged with Audubon over the past few years. J. A. Fair, which has an Environmental Science theme as part of its magnet program, has been the primary partner with Audubon. Current projects that are underway at Fair include a nature trail, greenhouse, teaching garden, and sediment basin. Audubon and J. A. Fair also have an approved partnership agreement. Audubon and the District, under this MOU, propose to collaborate on:  Designing, piloting, and disseminating materials linking the Fourche Creek Restoration Project and the proposed Audubon Center\n Developing environmental studies projects involving LRSD students and Audubon and its partners\n Developing proposals to fund project activities. RATIONALE: A Memorandum of Understanding gives credence to the value of the proposed activities and indicates the importance that Audubon and LRSD give to real world, project-based learning activities. Interdisciplinary learning that will be aligned with state standards holds the prospect of increased student achievement in science, math, and literacy. Developing a sense of stewardship of the environment is another noteworthy goal. FUNDING: No funding is requested under this MOU. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve this Memorandum of Understanding. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science !\"' ~ ::c 8 rC') ~ mz i .r.\u0026gt;, m ::0 is z z m rC') $: z C, m (I)\n,,,x ' C') a, C') C: -m.C,1-1 -\nZ \u0026gt;m zCII nCII mCII .o,.,m::o \u0026gt;~ c: m ~(I) !\"' .... i r-ill C, C: \u0026gt;.... 0 z V, ~ \u0026gt;\n: :..,:x v, C -\u0026lt;\n: C')), ::c 2 ~~\n_i:cC z\n,: me ::0\" (I)(/ MEMORADUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AUDUBON ARKANSAS This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (\"MOU'') between Little Rock Public Schools and Audubon Arkansas, the Arkansas State Program of National Audubon Society, Inc., (\"Audubon\"). The MOU is designed to foster a community and educational environmental leadership partnership between the District and Audubon. The focus of the partnership will be built around Audubon's planned restoration of the Fourche Creek watershed and the creation of an Audubon Center in Little Rock focused on science and technology experiences. 1. Audubon and the District intend to pursue the following areas of cooperation ( collectively, the \"Projects\"), subject to the execution by the parties of a written agreement for each such project setting forth the specific terms thereof prior to beginning work thereon: A. Collaboration with Little Rock Public School District schools to design, pilot, and disseminate materials linking Fourche Creek Restoration Project and the proposed Audubon center. These materials would include teacher resource packets, teacher training workshops, and student project opportunities. The materials would focus on an understanding of local environmental systems--watershed science and stewardship, native plants and animals, and human impact on those systems. The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation provides support for Common Ground, Audubon's educational initiative. Support for the Fourche Creek Education and Restoration Project is provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. B. Development of environmental studies projects involving LR public school students and Audubon's Fourche Creek Restoration Project and its governmental and educational partners. Federal, state, and city agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, Arkansas Soil and Water, Department of Environmental Quality, Arkansas Forestry Commission, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock Public Works, and Little Rock City Parks. Educational partnerships include the University of Arkansas Extension and Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST) initiative. C. Collaboration in proposal development for funding and sponsorship of the Projects is expected with the understanding that the MOU does not obligate either party to financially support or fundraise for the benefit of this MOU. Additional funding of equipment, travel, and restoration expenses could be developed via grants, partnerships, and donations. 2. The Projects will be developed under the direction of Roy Brooks, Superintendent of Little Rock Public Schools and Ken Smith, Executive Director of Audubon Arkansas, who hereby designate the following individuals to work closely with each other to ensure the success of the Projects: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Cassandra Norman, Principal, J. A. Fair Magnet High School, LRPSD Ann Blaylock, Principal, Mablevale Magnet Middle School, LRPSD Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science, LRPSD Mary M. Smith, Director of Education, Audubon Arkansas Kevin Pierson, Director, Fourche Creek Restoration, Audubon Arkansas 3. The parties affirm that, absent an agreement to the contrary signed by each party, this MOU shall not result in i) the transfer of ownership or control of any intellectual property between the parties\nii) a requirement that either party share information that the party considers to be proprietary, confidential or beyond the scope of the MOU\nor iii) an obligation by either party to financially support or fundraise for the benefit of this MOU. The District further agrees that it will not use Audubon's name or trademarks, including but not limited to AUDUBON, in any written manner accessible to the public without Audubon's prior written approval. Similarly, Audubon agrees that it will not use the District's name or trademarks in any written manner accessible to the public without the District's prior written approval. 4. This Agreement shall be in effect for two years, at which time it shall be reviewed for possible extension. Either party may terminate the agreement by providing written notice of termination to the other. Superintendent of Little Rock School District Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Executive Director, Audubon Arkansas Kenneth L. Smith, Vice President National Audubon Society Monique Quinn, ChiefFinancial Officer !I' lll ::i: 8,- (\") ~ zm ~ .r,\u0026gt;, m\n:o ~ z z m,- (\") $\nz C) m en\n,,,x \u0026gt;  C\"la, nc:: men ~z \u0026gt;zemn nen men om ..,\n:o \u0026gt;~ C:m ~en !I' --\u0026lt; ~ ~,- ~ C) C: \u0026gt; --\u0026lt; \u0026lt;zS en DATE: TO: March 24, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Psychological Examiners to form a collective bargaining group with LRTCA BACKGROUND: On March 13, 2001 , a memo was submitted to the LRSD Board of Education through Dr. Les Carnine by Dr. Richard Hurley regarding the Psychological Examiners. As a group they asked permission to withdraw from the Little Rock Classroom Teachers' Association {LRCTA). Their reason was the extra schooling / training required for their position justified being placed on a higher paying salary schedule than the teachers, ala the Occupational and Physical Therapists. The Administration made a neutral recommendation regarding their request. (The memo is attached for your information.) At the regular Board meeting on March 22, 2001 , the board voted 5-1 to allow them to withdraw from the Association. This is reflected in the attached minutes under VIII. Action Agenda Item F. Psychological Examiners. One of the conditions to this withdraw is that it would not occur until the current contract was exhausted. Therefore, with the negotiations last spring for the 2003-05 school years, the examiners were removed from the Association. Working with the Chief Financial Officer, the Human Resources Director placed the examiners on the pay 06-60 schedule which is a similar placement for OTs and PTs. This was the request of the examiners in their petition to the board in 2001 . The attached petition is a request from the Psychological Examiners to form a collective bargaining group with LRCTA. It contains the signatures of fourteen (14) of the sixteen (16) examiners. Two examiners did not sign the petition. All signatures have been verified by the Human Resources Department. Also attached is board policy NEPN Code HD regarding Negotiation Practices and Process and the Recognition of Bargaining Practices and Initial Recognition. !I\u0026gt; ~ :c 8,... n ~ m z ~ .r.\u0026gt;, m\na z~ z ,m... n ~ z Cl rn\n,,,x   n a, n c: mu, ~z \u0026gt;m zU\u0026gt; nu, mu, om ..,\na \u0026gt;~ \u0026lt;=m ~u, RATIONALE: See attached petition FUNDING: Any negotiations for salary and benefits will be funded by District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is making a neutral recommendation regarding their request to for a collective bargaining group with LRCT A. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williamrirector of Human Resources '.\n-4.n I ndividuai A pproach ro a World of Knowieage\" March 13, 2001 To: From: Through: Sub}ect: BoardO!E~ Dr. Richa'?~ (r ey, /ector - Human Resources Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent of Schoois Psychological Examiners The Psychological Examiners in the Little Rock School District have requested that they, as a group, be oermitted to withdraw from the Little Rock Classroom Teacners' Association (LRCTA). Their reasoning is the extra schooling/training required for their position justifies being placed on a higher paying salary schedule than the teachers, ala the Occupational and Physical Therapists. DiSCl..!SS io n The Psychological Examiners are specifically mentioned in the Recognition clause (Article 1, Section D) of the P. N. agreement. The Occupational and Physical Therapists were not. When the Occupational and Physical Therapists requested being allowed to leave the LRCTA bargaining unit, their logic was that 1) they were not specifically covered in the recognition clause\n2) they are required by law to be licensed in their profession\n3) the profession is in great demand and therefore can command a higher salary in order to compete for licensed staff\n4) the cost difference to outsource the position instead of hiring internally was so great as to justify placing them on a different saiary schedule\n5) the schooi distric: :::or.metes with the medical profession (ie: hosoi,ais and ciinics) for their senti:::es. :.onve\nse!:~_' . :ns =:tsy:::7oiagicai =xaminsr~ =r= s2rtfiso :J~ th~ 3ta::s c.: -!,_t\n~2.ns2~ ~u:\n:~2 sar::~ 2s ~ss:\ne:~ ~~c :-1\ni~- eJ~:31::~~\ns:i:s:::a!js:\n.. 2:7: -\n-:3\n:- 35:--1.':::s~    r 'J', ~,._, \\ .... '  ----:._. 1  =- _- ,... __ _ ,..._r,_- !D !!l :,: 8,... (\") i!!: mz ~\n,\n:, f.,), m\n,\n:, lS z z ,m... (\") $\nz Cl m en\n,,,x \u0026gt;' Oc:, nc ,m,e_n __.z \u0026gt;m z en o en men om ..,\n,\n:, \u0026gt;~ Cm l en !D --\u0026lt; i,...\n,\n:, ~ C r\n: --\u0026lt; 0z en While the ?sychologicai Examiners make a compelling argument about their salary !eve!, it is believed that our curient difficulty in hiring speciaiized teachers (ie: foreign languages. science, and special education) would justify much the same salary request. Lastly, the LRCTA has officially rejected the Psychological Examiners' request to be dropped from the bargaining union. The Union's position was that to do so might cause considerable damage io the solidarity of the bargaining unit. Conclusion/Recommendation While this is truly a justifiable request on the part of the Psychological Examiners' to get higher salaries, the Administration makes a neutral recommendation regarding their request. To grant their request obviously would be of greater cost to the District and potentially would cause other specialist groups to request separate treatment from the LRCT A. This could certainly raise the issue of Union-busting on the part of the LRCTA and may not be in the iong-term best interest of the District while we are in the first year of a multi-year agreement with the Union. Cc: fvlr. 3rady Gadbeny, Associate Suoerintendent - Operations LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Littie Rock School District held its regularly scheduied meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administranon Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Balcer Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Balcer Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: I. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder oflV'Jinutes CALL TO ORDER Vice President Balcer Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of me Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell was absent. In addition, ex-officio representatives to the'Board were also present: Tonya Johnson. teacher at Forest Heights ::vfiddle Schoo:. and :vfichael Gutien-ez. stuci.ent at Parkview Magner High Schooi ~vi:rn.:t=~ ::.-c-i:-~: !'. ..= : e\n1..1i:.:-r:.:-=e::::~ o:\"?e::112.:-:.- :.:::.. : .. ,~'- anL :. 3pe::12.  :.:-i~er~:g 0::. l'-.1 2.:-::\n:\n.:.. 20CJ:. v.e:-:: nrese::1ec. fo: appro'-2.l. -:\n:-:ne ,mnme~ we,:: ur.ammo ,sj.- a:3oro,,ej OL I,,,. 1n o:1ar.i. :\n: ~,\n.:-. 3e:~~e~ .. se~on:J.e:. ~: ~.\\'.!.S. ~\\.ic..p e~:. ~ ::c 8 ,- (\") ~ mz ~ fl ~\n:c is z z m,- (\") z~ C) m \"'\n,i.,., .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; (\") CD (\") C: m.,, ::!lz ,..m nz\"\"'' m\u0026lt;h om ..,\n:c c\u0026gt;: ~m ~\"' REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page6 F. Psychoiogical Examiners The District's Psychological Examiners petitioned the Board requesting that they be permitted to withdraw from the L. R. Classroom Teachers' Association. The District's administration took a neutrai position on the request and asked the Board to make a determination based on the information from the Examiners, talcing into consideration the LRCTA's opposition to the request. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the request from the Psychological Examiners to be removed from representation by the L. R. Classroom Teachers Association. Mrs. Magness seconded the motion. :Mr. Rose questioned the legality of taking such action while a valid contract is in force, and :tvlr. Kurrus recommended that additional discussion take place prior to making the final decision. Ms. Magness suggested that the original motion be amended to make cenain that this action would not have any effect on the current contract. Although there was no formal amendment to the motion. it was agreed by consensus that there was no iment to change the current contract by approval of the Examiner's request. The monon nassed. 5-1. with Mr. K.urrus casting the \"no\" vote. G. Short Term Debt for Bus Purchase Mr. Gadberry presented a proposal for the purchase of seven to eleven diesel buses to replace several older buses that need to be retired from the special needs transportation fleet. The administration plans to review and inspect several used buses that are available and if they are of good quaiity, we would be able to purchase eleven used buses for the same price as seven new ones. The administration requested Board approval to expend approximately $390,000 for the purchase of school buses. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the purchase. W1r. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. H. Te~hnoiogy: Dr. Stewan reviewed the information provided for consideration of a District Technology Ceme:. In aci.dinon rn a cemraiizec: technoiog: facility. :he Boan:: was asked to consider :he ::unciing p\noposai for ne~wori: sysrems integration and caiJiing for non-E-rate schools. ~aci: o: tnese projec1s w2.s suomine::: as pa::.: o::he wrn: te:::lmoiog: pi2.i., which w2.s compie,e::: ::i:  ::c1e ~ ec~: '.:,000 ,vori: group. ~::. ~te\\.\\at .. dis::.:::se::. pu::h2.sin\ne:::::~ng p!Jpe:-::y t:) i1ous\n: ~i1: ~ e:~1 =~nte-:-- :cn-r1pare:_ LC :ie c,:,s: c: 0u11Q.::1f:: ne\\.': ~2.::1r::\\_ _..:i ._r__ e::t~ns1ve repor:: ,\na5: p::-ovicied. as par: o:\" ti1~\nrimec. 2.genciL _-_::\n2.:-: o:\"thE rel)0:-:. :v.c:. :.C2.\nac.is. Director o::.Crocure::nen:. provicied mio:u:an01: or. me ?\n.eques: io: :?roposa1: io: the van.ous se::-v1ces v.rncc. w:l: oe conrrz..:Le~ U1i-OU:~-- Ollls1c:- ,enci.orE:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD NEGOTIATION PRACTICES AND PROCESS The Little Rock School District Board of Education wishes to establish a working relationship with all employees which will result in a working environment which will be as productive, efficient, and creative as possible. The Board of Education is willing to allow groups of employees to establish the type of relationship they would like to have with the Board of Education, including the communication process between the Board and the employees.  Staff members will have the opportunity to work with their supervisors to determine their working conditions, to use the process of \"Meet and Confer,\" or to select the process of negotiations. RECOGNITION OF NEGOTIATING PRACTICES While there is no legal obligation on the part of the Board of Education to negotiate with employee groups, the Little Rock School District Board of Education will voluntarily enter into negotiated agreements with certain classifications of non-management employees. It is the desire of the Board to extend negotiating rights on economic conditions of employment, e.g., -safaries and fringe benefits, to these classifications of employees, as long as this arrangement is beneficial to the employees and to the District as determined by the Board of Education. Recognition of the right to negotiate will be granted under the following condi_tions: A. That such recognition of the rights to negotiate be deemed by the Board of Education to be in the best interest of the employees and the District. 8. That such negotiating practice will be a voluntary practice of the individual groups of employees. C. That the Board of Education will recognize the official representatives of those individual groups. D. That in the opinion of the Board of Education , the employees to be represented have a community of interests, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Similarity of duties, skills, interests, and working conditions of employees. 2. Similar placement in the Little Rock School District organizational structure . For the purpose of this policy, the Board identifies the following !I' ~ ::,: 8 rn '{!: zm C ~ .f.l, m\n:a ~ z z m rn ~ z Cl m Cl\u0026gt;\ni,,x :,.  n a, n c: .m.,e_,, ... z :,.m zCI\u0026gt; c-,CI\u0026gt; me,, om ..,:::a \u0026gt;~ c: m ~Cl\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) groups to have differing community of interests: security officers\nbus drivers\nmaintenance workers\ncustodians\nfood service workers\nclerical personnel\nparaprofessionals\nnurses\nand teachers. If it can be shown that a different community of interest does exist, the Board of Education will be willing to combine those groups into a community for the purpose of negotiations, and reserves the right to do so. (Upon the decision of the Board of Education to alter the defined groups, this policy will be edited to reflect the change.) 3. The following positions will be excluded from the above groups because of their direct relationship with management: executive assistants and the staff assistant in the superintendent's office. Any employee who has access to information subject to use by the Board of Education in the negotiations or meet and confer process also will be excluded from the groups. E. While the Board is willing to negotiate with employee groups under the above conditions, it also recognizes the necessity-to reserve for the Boan:l and the administration, certain management rights, including, b~t not limited to establishment of policy\nto determine qualifications, hire, direct, assign, suspend, demote, promote all employees\nand to establish the work year. In this vein, the Board directs that an acceptable management rights clause be part of every negotiated agreement. PERSONNEL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS F. Any employee organization will not cause or permit its members to cause, nor will any member of the organization take part in any curtailment of work or restriction of services or interference with the operations of the District in any manner in those areas affecting work responsibility. The organization will not support the action of any employee taken in violation of this article nor will it directly or indirectly take reprisals of any kind against an employee who ' continues the full, faithful, and proper performance of his/her contractual duties, obligations, or refuses to participate in any strike or curtailment of work or restriction of services activity. Violation of this policy or Arkansas law by an organization will cause the Board of Education to remove recognition of the organization and terminate 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) any contract. Violation of this policy or Arkansas law by any employee will cause the Board of Education to terminate the employee. The Board agrees that as long as recognition is granted, and a valid contract remains in force, the Board will not participate in a lockout. PROCESS A. Initial Recognition For a group to be initially recognized, or to challenge the recognition of the present representative, the following procedure shall be followed: A valid petition calling for a representative election will be presented to the Board of Education. For a petition to be valid it must (1) contain at least a majority of the signatures of the employee group, e9be accompanied with a statement from a -certified public accountant, mutually agreed to, that a majority of the employees of the group are bona fide dues paymg members of an organization representing the group, and (2) be presented to the Board prior to December 1 of the school year. Petitions may be circulated only in the month of November. The Board may ask the Human Resources Office to verify the signatures of the employees. If the petition is valid, the Board will schedule an election to select or decertify an official representative. B. Continued Recognition Once an organization has been recognized as the official representative of an employee group, the following procedures will be followed: The organization must present certified verification that it represents at least a majority of the employees of the employee group. To determine whether or not an organization represents a majority of the employees in the group, the Human Resources Office will provide the organization a list of all of the persons employed in the group on December 1. The organization will present a statement from a cenified public accountant, mutually agreed to, verifying that a majority of the employees on the list were bona fide dues paying members of the organization on December 1. Such verification will be presented to the Board by January 15. 3 f) .., m ::0 is zz m rn z~ C) Cl\n,,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;  n a, n c: .m.,\"_' \u0026gt;... mz nz\"\"'' men o..,:m:o \u0026gt;~ \u0026lt;=m l\"' !ll r. (' re \u0026lt; IT\nt c:: ,)\u0026gt;IT ,IT-IT ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) If the organization fails to provide such verification by January 15, the Board will withdraw its recognition of the group. The Board will schedule an election to determine the desire of the employees concerning representation. C. Elections 1 . The ballot used for representation elections will be approved by the Board and will include an option to the issue being considered. 2. The election will be conducted by the Human Resources Office and will be by secret ballot. 3. In order for an employee representative to be recognized\nit must receive in the election at least a majority of the votes of the total number of employees in the employee group. 4. Campaigning on District property will not be allowed. 5. The cost of the petition and the cost of the election will be paid by the organization petitioning the Board. D. Harassment Harassment or coercion of employees concerning joining or not joining or voting or not voting for an employee group will not be allowed. Such conduct is grounds for invalidating the results of an election or withdrawing continued recognition of a representative. E. Non-compliance Non-compliance with any of these regulations will be grounds for the Board to revoke the recognition or the privilege to negotiate with the Board. Continued recognition of any employee group bargaining representative will be contingeht upon both of the following: 1. Continued belief on the part of the Board of Education that such recognition is in the best imerest of the employees and the District\nand 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD ( continued) 2. Continued desire on the part of the employees of that particular group that continued recognition is desirable. Adopted: April 22, 1999 5 ~ ::,: 8 rC') ~ m z ~ r, \"ti m\n,c is z z m rC') $\nz C'l m \"'\ni,,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; C'la:, C') C: m v, ::!lz \u0026gt;m z\"' C')\"' m v, om ..,\n,c \u0026gt;~ c: m ~\"' DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: School Calendar 2005-06 BACKGROUND: In order to plan for the upcoming school year, the proposal of the 2005-06 school calendar is presented for Board approval. RATIONALE: None FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is recommending the Board's approval of the attached school calendar for the 2005-06 school year. PREPARED BY Beverly WiWams~ctor of Human Resources !\"\u0026gt; \"D m\nn !S z z mr C') s\nz Cl m Cl) 8 z g z Cl)\n,,,x \u0026gt;' C') a, C') C: men ::!lz z\u0026gt;emn nen men om ..,\nn \u0026gt;~ c: m ~Cl) !%' --\u0026lt; ~ \u0026lt; m r ~ Cl C: ~ 0 z en ,. ,r-c ,\u0026lt;,. ::t C: ,,),\u0026gt;. ,,. ,,,. 31: MONTH M T JULY AUGUST 1 2 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 3 4 NOVEMBER 1 DECEMBER SD JANUARY '06 2 3 FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL 3 4 MAY I 2 JUNE Legend * I J WV sv PC ST DAY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 2005-2006 w TH F M T w TH F M T 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 SD SD 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 H 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 SD SD 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 [85] R H ~ 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 n 16 17 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 SD 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 (178( R I 2 5 6 I 1 JU 9 12 13 1st Day Students H Holiday End Quarter SD Staff Development w TH 13 14 SD WD 17 18 14 15 [42] 19 20 16 17 14 15 18 19 15 16 15 16 19 20 17 18 14 15 Winter Vacation R Record Days (one-half day) F 15 * 19 16 SD 21 18 16 20 17 17 21 19 16 Spring Vacation TCD Total Contract Days (9.25 teachers) Parent Conference WD Non-student Work Day Student Days # Last Day Students M 18 22 19 24 21 WV 19 23 PC 20 20 24 22 19 T w 19 20 23 24 20 21 25 26 R 22 23 WV WV 20 21 24 25 SD 21 22 21 22 25 26 23 24 20 21 FOR BOARD AP 3/10/05 WV WD ST sv PC TH F M T w TH F DAY H R SD TCD 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 29 30 31 9 0 1 3 13 PC SD 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 19 1 1 1 21 27 28 31 20 0 0 1 21 H H 24 25 28 29 30 17 3 0 2 19 WV WV H WV WV WV H 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 12 10 0 0 12 26 27 30 31 19 1 0.5 1 20.5 23 24 27 28 18 0 1 1 20 [132] sv sv SV sv SV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 18 5 0 0 18 27 28 19 0 0 1 20 H 25 26 29 30 31 22 I 0 0 22 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 5 0 0.5 5.5 TOTALS 178 21 4 10 192 I STUDENTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THE DAYS SHADED ABOVE 1st Quarter = 42 student days 2nd Quarter = 46 student days 3rd Quarter = 4 7 student days 4th Quarter = 46 student days TOTAL = 178 STUDENT DAYS DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY, Beverly Williamrirector of Human Resources ~ g z g z \"' ?-s. \u0026gt;  na, n c: mu, .\".0.. z- \u0026gt;m z\"' n\"' mu, o..,m\nc \u0026gt;~ C:m l\"' !Jl .... ~\u0026lt; m r\nc m C) C: .r.\n.\n.: 0z u, r: r r C ,\u0026lt;,. ::t C )\u0026gt; ,,r,, .. ,r, . 3: Personnel Changes Page 2 March 24, 2005 NAME Howard, Dianne Reason: None Given Johnston, Margaret Reason: Personal Banks, Cal Bernard, David Crader, Jason DeBow, Bradley Holloman, Berlinda Humphrey, Vernita Martinez, Diana START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Counselor/ 8-16-93 OTTER CREEK 3-1-05 Kindergarten/ 8-7-03 MEADOWCLIFF 2-7-05 New Certified Employees Social Studies/ 2-14-05 MABELVALE MIDDLE Physical Education/ 2-10-05 ALC Tutor/ 2-14-05 BALE Band/ 2-7-05 PARKVIEW Elementary I/ 2-15-05 BOOKER ISSP/ 2-11 -05 ALC Tutor/ 2-7-05 BASELINE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 4-12 46128.00 CNL925 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 annual 12913.77 prorated 4-04 36885.00 TCH925 annual 13063.44 prorated 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 annual 11577.92 prorated 4-05 38041 .00 TCH925 annual 15652.29 prorated 1-09 38127.00 TCH925 annual 14496.20 prorated 4-09 42662.00 TCH725 annual 16664.84 prorated 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 annual 12360.21 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 March 24, 2005 START DATE/ NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Pinkard, Tawanna Math/ 1-31-05 HENDERSON Relford, Melvia Special Education/ 1-18-05 CENTRAL Richardson, Joyce Special Education/ 2-22-05 HALL Signaigo, Katherine Tutor/ 2-10-05 BALE Whitby, Jennie Kindergarten/ 10-19-04 BRADY Certified Promotion NONE Certified Transfer NONE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-01 15020.00 TCH925 annual 6571.25 prorated 1-05 33506.00 SPE925 annual 16229.47 prorated 1-16 46215.00 SPE925 annual 16367.81 prorated 1-01 30040.00 TCH925  annual 11890.83 prorated 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 annual 24692.24 prorated !=' 0 0 z )\u0026gt; 6 z en ~?\u0026lt; -en,\u0026lt;\"r\u0026gt; c:0 c!!! mz zc\n, -,\n,:, :cm m\n:: )\u0026gt; )\u0026gt; e'!!\n,:, Z,\u0026lt; c\n, en\n,,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; )\u0026gt; . n a, nc: men ~z \u0026gt;m zen nen men om ...,\n,:, )\u0026gt; ~ c:m ~en !\" -, I r ~ G\"\u0026gt; C: s\n: -, 0z en C: C: re ,\u0026lt;,. ::c C )\u0026gt; ,,r,,.. ,r,. !I: Personnel Changes Page4 March 24, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Baird, Sharon Reason: Deceased Bryant, Caroline Reason: Personal Crawford, John Reason: Personal Edwards, Norma Reason: Accepted another position House, Evans Reason: Retired Mason, Shanika Reason: Never reported to work Moore, Tamalyn Reason: Job Abandonment Pondexter, Brack Reason: Accepted another position White, Anthony Reason: Retired Albritton , Salvin Instructional Aide/ WILLIAMS Care/ CARE Maintenance/ FACILITY SERVICES Child Nutrition/ BRADY Bus Monitor/ TRANSPORTATION Care/ CARE Care/ CARE Instructional Aide/ GARLAND ALE GED Examiner/ ADULT EDUCATION New Non-Certified Employees Instructional Aide/ ALC 8-23-93 3-24-05 10-28-04 3-24-05 7-28-04 2-14-05 8-26-91 2-11-05 9-13-99 3-17-05 1-31-05 2-25-05 1-24-05 2-14-05 8-13-03 1-13-05 5-02-88 4-28-05 2-14-05 33-13 14735.00 INA185 3-17 10.36 CARE per hour 49-07 29760.00 MAINT 7-14 11739.00 FSH650 1-06 11509.00 BUSMON 2-03 7.85 CARE per hour 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 33-09 13070.00 INA925 43-20 36672.00 AN10 33-07 12307.00 INA925 annual 4789.75 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 March 24, 2005 !=' 8 START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL z \u0026gt; CLASS SALARY .... NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE i5 z U\u0026gt; Bunting, Devona Custodian/ 2-15-05 31-01 5689.50 FULBRIGHT CUS925 annual 2257.25 prorated Carter, John Care/ 2-28-05 3-17 10.36 ~?'\u0026lt; u,n -\u0026lt; r- CARE CARE per hour cO mo!!z! !:i Cl Dulaney, Stephanie Instructional Aide/ 3-21-05 33-08 12682.00 :c\n:o mm \u0026gt;~ CHICOT INA925 annual ::!!\n:o Z\n\u0026gt;: 3290.46 Cl tn prorated Givens, Vera Care/ 2-21-05 3-15 10.05 CARE CARE per hour Hardman, Melissa Instructional Aide/ 2-7-05 33-16 16109.00 ,\n,.,.,\u0026gt;. \u0026lt; (') a, FOREST HEIGHTS INA925 annual nc mu, 6704.83 .-..,. :z,- \u0026gt;m prorated zU\u0026gt; nU\u0026gt; mu, o.,,\nm:o Hawkins, Clifford Instructional Aide/ 1-18-05 33-16 16109.00 \u0026gt;~ c: m HENDERSON INA925 annual ~ U\u0026gt; 7923.89 prorated Johnson, Tonya Instructional Aide/ 2-14-05 33-16 16109.00 WILLIAMS INA925 annual 6269.45 !l:l prorated .... ~ \u0026lt;m r- Lyles, Eddie Care/ 2-21-05 3-03 8.06\n:o m Cl CARE CARE per hour C: !\n-\u0026lt; i5 McClure, Jesse Custodian/ 1-31-05 31-01 14532.00 z en CLOVERDALE CUS12 annual ELEMENTARY 6369.34 prorated c-: Pulliam, Shareka Care/ 3-7-05 2-03 7.85 c-: r- CARE CARE per hour C ,\u0026lt;,. :,\nC: )\u0026gt; ,,r,,-.. ,r,-. 31: Personnel Changes Page 6 March 24, 2005 NAME Shumate, Emma Steverson, Patrick Thomas, Crystal Thomas, Tamiko Tyler, David Williams, Shirley Woods, Anne Woodus, Sherri Yelder, Robert START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Child Nutrition/ 2-15-05 BRADY Custodian/ 1-31-05 METROPOLITAN Instructional Aide/ 1-31-05 FULBRIGHT Instructional Aide/ 2-21-05 WILSON Technician/ 2-21-05 CHILD NUTRITION Instructional Aide/ 2-14-05 STEPHENS Instructional Aide/ 2-16-05 ROCKEFELLER Instructional Aide/ 2-15-05 FULBRIGHT Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 FOREST HEIGHTS SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 3669.62 prorated 31-01 11379.00 CUS928 annual 5194.76 prorated 33-16 8054.50 INA925 annual 3570.10 prorated 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 4075.41 prorated 42-04 22080.00 AN12 annual 8362.21 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 6269.45 prorated 33-16 20463.00 INA12 annual 8011 .05 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 6182.37 prorated 33-09 13070.00 INA925 annual 7135.51 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 March 24, 2005 NAME START DATE/ SALARY POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS Non-Certified Promotion Montgomery, Timothy - Promoted from Bus Aide to Bus Driver White, Donna - Promoted from Bus Aide to Bus Driver ANNUAL SALARY\n,,-5\u0026lt;  - 0 a, 0 C: me,, ~z \u0026gt;m z\"' moc\"n' .o., m\n., \u0026gt;~ c: m !!l\"' !D ..... i ..... ~ C) C: !j\n: ..... 0z V, ,. CrC ,\u0026lt;,.\n:c C ,,).,\u0026gt;... ,,.,... ,,. ~ DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Organizational Audit Report BACKGROUND Upon acceptance of the position of Superintendent of Schools, I shared my vision and defined some guidelines for strategic thinking for the Little Rock School District. The Superintendent's Entry Plan, The First 100 Days included a two-part approach for taking action and the steps that would be required to turn the vision into reality. First, the numerous school visits, interviews, and community forums provided an opportunity for me to meet with a cross-section of the LRSD school community including students, teachers, administrators, parents, and business people for the purpose of sharing the vision and expectations. It also provided an opportunity for me to listen carefully and take note of concerns, challenges, and hopes. The investment of time was significant\nhowever, the results were invaluable. The second essential element of the Entry Plan was the formation of a district transitional assistance team to work closely with the outside consultants in providing an objective audit of the district's organizational structure and staffing. In doing so, the consultants would provide the leadership necessary to compare the most effective school practices with those in the Little Rock School District and detail our areas of strength and identify specific areas for improvement. On September 23, 2004, the Board of Education approved a recommendation to offer a contract to these consultants and the work commenced immediately. The services and deliverables included:  Independent interviews conducted with key district and community leaders, staff, selected student leadership, and Board of Education members in gaining strategic, technical and political insights. !=' 8 z .\u0026gt;... 0 z en ~ \u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C\no z\n:: m z :--\u0026lt; !D .... i ,- ~ C\u0026gt; C \u0026gt;.... 0z en C\": ,. r C \u0026lt; IT :,: C )\u0026gt; r IT IT r IT !C Page 2  Consolidation and analysis of all gathered data.  Continuous review and refinement of work with the transitional assistance team.  Face to face debriefing with the Superintendent and Board President and other leaders as determined by the Superintendent.  Scheduled presentations to the Board of Education for the purpose of project updates.  Preparation of written executive report and supporting exhibits. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve / accept the organizational audit report as submitted and direct the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Updated Travel Regulations DKC-R BACKGROUND: The current travel regulation has been modified to include the instructions for utilization of the ProCard for certain portions of travel. RATIONALE: Utilization of the District ProCards will allow for less expensive travel cost and empower staff to more efficiently make travel arrangements. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: Submitted for review by Board. PREPARED BY: Mark Milhollen Darral Paradis Sandy Becker 8 z .\u0026gt;... iz5 U\u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt; 0 \u0026lt;... 0 C\no z\ni: m z :--\u0026lt; ,. (\"' E ,\u0026lt;,. A C: )\u0026gt; ,,r,, .. ,r, . 3: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (Updates the Previous DKC-R - Out-OfDistrict Travel Regulations) TRAVEL EXPENSE AUTHORIZATION/REIMBURSEMENT Travel will be for necessary school business purposes. Prior approval for all travel, including prepaid expenses, will be obtained before any expenses are incurred. Economical and reasonable modes of transportation, lodging, and other expenditures in accordance with the purpose of the travel must be used . A copy of the full agenda for the conference or training will be provided with the request for travel and request for professional leave. To insure that maximum impact can be achieved, the following regulations apply to all out-of-district travel. Out-of-district travel will be defined as being outside Pulaski County, AR. Travel Day The travel day will begin at 6:00 a.m., include breakfast, lunch, dinner and one night's lodging, and will end the following morning at 6:00 a.m. Request for reimbursement of expenses incurred in less than full travel days must reflect a reasonable allocation based on the expense limits directed herein for a full travel day. Meal costs will be prorated by one half for that travel day if travel begins after 2:00 p.m. and for a return time prior to 2:00 p.m. Meals and Incidental Costs Meals costs will be determined by the last accepted federal per diem schedule. Partial days meal cost will be determined by the departure and return time as indicated in the above section. Meals included in the cost of registration will be deducted from the per diem amount as follows: breakfast (20%), lunch (30%), and dinner (50%). No deductions will be made for continental breakfasts. Lodging Expenses The District will reimburse actual lodging expense incurred in travel for the District. Lodging will be reimbursed only for the days of the conference attended plus night(s) required based on the conference schedule. Economical and reasonable lodging in accordance with the purpose of the travel must be used . Reimbursement for lodging LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R ( continued) expenses will require lodging receipts that indicate the employee has paid for the lodging. Receipts from personal credit cards will not be accepted unless accompanied by the receipt from the lodging establishment. If the rate for lodging exceeds the federal maximum for lodging, a justification must be provided (i.e. no local travel costs between hotel and conference hotel\nlegitimate safety concerns\nor room sharing to reduce cost). Travelers are encouraged to use cost saving initiatives such as appropriate sharing of rooms, car pooling and like arrangements. Using District Pro Card for Travel AFTER THE TRAVEL FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED, Go to your principal/ director and request to use the site's main ProCard (usually the principal/director's) to do the following: a. Secure a hotel reservation\nb. Purchase airline tickets on-line (use website of your choosing, or online service, etc). DO NOT USE ANY ON-LINE SERVICE THAT REQUIRES YOU TO ENTER YOUR CARD NUMBER TO FIND A RATE)\nc. Book airfare or obtain the estimated cost of airfare using a local travel agency\nhowever, employees are encouraged to book tickets using available on-line services. d. Pay for registration fees\ne. Purchase transportation tickets for multiple persons from same location traveling to same destination. If amount is expected to exceed $1,000 contact Procurement. Employees CANNOT USE THE ProCard to PAY for the following: a. Hotel room\nb. Meals\nc. Auto rental\nd. Incidental Expenses. You will receive an expense check to pay for these items that have been approved on your travel form. Travel to Destination The District will reimburse travel expenses to the maximum limit for point-to-point costs for coach fare on common carriers. Receipts or ticket stubs are required for reimbursement of common carrier costs. If an employee chooses to use a personal automobile, reimbursement will not exceed the current per mile rate approved by the 2 8 z \u0026gt; g z en ~ )\u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C\n,:, z ~ m z :--\u0026lt; f' (,.\".' C ,\u0026lt;,.\n,:: C: ,,),.\u0026gt;.. ,,,... ,,. 3: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) District or point-to-point coach fare, whichever is less. When more than one employee travels to the same location in a personal automobile, mileage will be reimbursed only to the employee whose personal automobile is used. When automobiles are used for transportation to a destination, car pooling for multiple attendees is recommended. Mileage requests may be denied when the best interest of the District is not met after taking into account the circumstances of the request. Local Travel at Destination Actual reasonable expenses of local travel by common carriers at the destination will be reimbursed. Mass transit or taxi fare does not require receipts if all local travel claimed for the trip is less than thirty dollars. Receipts are required if the claim is over thirty dollars. Automobile Rentals - At Destination Automobiles will not be rented at District expense without prior approval of the superintendent or his/her designee and in no case without documentation, in advance, that automobile rental will be less expensive to the District than the cost of public transportation to meeting, conferences, etc. Reimbursement is conditioned upon advance authority as well as receipts from the leasing agency. Automobile Rentals - Travel to Destination If an employee chooses to rent a vehicle to travel to an approved destination, the employee will only be reimbursed the lesser of common carrier coach rates or round trip map mileage to and from the destination. If a vehicle is rented for multiple attendees, the limit for reimbursement will be the lesser of common carrier coach rates for two employees or round trip map mileage to and from the destination for two employees. The approval or disapproval level will be at least at the equivalency level of an assistant superintendent for this type of arrangement. Reasonableness must be documented. Advance Request for Travel The first two forms listed below must be submitted at least thirty days prior to travel if an advance is requested. If there is no District expense for this trip or no advance required 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) the deadline will be two weeks prior to the trip. The third form should be filled out only when multiple attendees from the same location or area are attending the same event. If an employee has not sent in documentation for the advanced funds within sixty days, payroll deduction will be made for the non-documented advance that has not been reimbursed.  Request for Absence for Professional Meetings - to be completed and submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form.  Request for Out-of-District Travel - to be submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form (attached). Non-travel items will not be included on advances or reimbursed with travel. Registrations and common carrier expenses (to and from the destination) should be paid by separate check to the vendor unless you used your district ProCard.  Travel Summary for School - When multiple attendees from the same area or school are going to the same educational event. A travel summary will be prepared by the administrator of that school or area and sent with the other documents. No employee will be reimbursed for out-of-district travel unless the required forms are submitted and approved in advance by the area supervisor, funding source manager (if required) and financial services. These forms must cover the entire cost of travel, the total days absence requested, be accompanied by the full agenda of the conference or event to be attended, and be delivered together for approval. Requests for travel will be completed in a timely manner to avoid registration penalties, and to obtain good rates for hotels, airlines, registration, etc. No travel will be paid from any source for which the required forms have not been completed and approved. Date: March 24, 2005 4 8 z g z \"' ~ \u0026gt; 0 c.... 0 C\n,:, z ~ m z :-\u0026lt; r. DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2004 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Cloverdale Elementary School BACKGROUND: The Board has been provided frequent reports on the status of structural problems at Cloverdale Elementary School. These structural instabilities will require relocation of the students beginning with the 2005-06 school year. RATIONALE: A full report, The Big Picture - Cloverdale Elementary School, contains a detailed analysis and further recommendations. This document will be provided under separate cover. FUNDING: Funding issues will be determined by the Board's final decision on which option will provide the best educational environment for the students at that school. PREPARED BY: Sadie Mitchell Mark Milhollen bjg DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Cloverdale Elementary School Structural Concerns BACKGROUND: Cloverdale Elementary School has been identified as having structural damage that requires correction in the near future. The attached report details the concerns and options for resolving the problems. RATIONALE: To inform the Board there are structural problems with the Cloverdale Elementary building that require the District to relocate the students. FUNDING: Capital Projects Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve Option 3 which will relocate the Cloverdale Elementary students to Mabelvale Elementary beginning with the 2005-06 school year using a combination of available classrooms and portable buildings. This option also includes the demolition of the defective areas of the Cloverdale Elementary site. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent School Services 8 ~ z \"' ~ \u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C \"z '\n:: zm :-' The Big Picture District Operation of Schools with Major Structural Concerns CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL March 2005 INTRODUCTION This paper is intended to provide an overview of the structural problems at Cloverdale Elementary School and options to resolve the problems. Information regarding this situation has been included in the January 14 and January 28, 2005 Snapshots. A brief history and discussion of the problem, conclusions, possible options, and the administration's recommendation are presented to assist the Board in taking appropriate and timely action so that the administration can effectively plan for the 2005-06 school year. OVERVIEW Cloverdale Elementary School, constructed in 1959, was transferred by Court Order from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Little Rock School District in the 1987- 88 school year. It is located in southwest Little Rock at 6500 Hinkson Road. Additions to the facility were constructed in 1961, 1971, 1975, and 1978. The campus consists of a three-wing facility housing the administrative area and classrooms and a separate building attached to the north wing that houses the media center (See ATTACHMENT l). The school is a covered open-corridor type which provides partial protection from the weather for students moving from one area to another. Cloverdale Elementary School has the capacity for 448 students\nthe October 1, 2004 student enrollment was 360. While not at full operational capacity, the school is considered a viable entity in southwest Little Rock. The Cloverdale attendance zone is bordered on the northwest by the attendance zones of Watson and Mabelvale Elementary Schools, on the northeast by the Geyer Springs Elementary School zone, and on the east by the Baseline Elementary School zone. The school generally serves a population that resides south of Interstate 30, west of Geyer Springs Road, and east of Mabelvale Pike. Any future planning consideration for zone changes in the southwest part of the city might impact the enrollment, capacity and design for this location. FACILITY PROBLEM/ HISTORY Cloverdale Elementary School, a single-story building elevated approximately three feet off the ground, was built on farmland with soil that would be considered poor for construction, poorly graded and consisting of expansive clay and areas of largely organic matter. The school is built on bar joists supported by grade beams on drill piers. The Cloverdale Elementary School March 2005 Page 2 metal structural members on which the floor slab is resting have become seriously eroded over the 45 years that the school has been in existence. This erosion can be attributed to a lack of adequate preparation to protect these members from ground moisture and poor drainage around the school. As a result, these structural members have been identified as being problematic and are most assuredly going to fail in the future. In 1995, the building was surveyed as part of the 3D/I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan. Of the District's 35 elementary schools, 3D/l's survey ranked Cloverdale Elementary as 25th in general overall condition and suitability for retention as an elementary school. At that time, the survey did not include an in-depth structural analysis of the facility. In 2001 the LRSD Facility Services staff, in conjunction with structural engineers, conducted inspections of Cloverdale Elementary School. The problems were identified, and portions of the building have been braced, or \"shored up,\" as a precautionary and temporary measure. However, it is a problem that we have been monitoring, inspecting periodically, and assessing for appropriate and timely corrective action. A structural study of Cloverdale Elementary was commissioned in the spring of 2004 when water began pooling on the exterior walkways and running back toward the building. The construction of the facility, if it were standing as it was originally constructed, would not allow this to happen. This evidence shows that portions of the building are subsiding, or slowly sinking, due to structural failure. The study, completed in May 2004, verified that the metal structural members, or bar joists, supporting the school are seriously deteriorating and several have already failed. The structural analysis concluded that eventual structural failure is probable. These structural failures are evident by cracks in the floors, floors have begun to shift or move, and cracks are in the walls. It should be noted that structural failure and continued deterioration of the steel members is imminent, but the rate of deterioration is varied throughout the building. The deterioration will continue to be slow but will eventually reach a point where failure will occur. SEE PHOTOS FROM THE 2004 STRUCTURAL STUDY AT ATTACHMENT 2. CONCLUSION The District is at the point where a plan must be formed and necessary action determined. Large portions of Cloverdale Elementary School will need to be demolished. The structural engineer's report shows that consideration was given to replacing the bar joists under the building\nhowever, this is not a feasible option because of space limitations and massive engineering problems. Without doing an in-depth cost analysis, it would be extremely expensive and very risky to undertake this type of repair. The probability of success would be extremely low, and we would continue to have the moisture problem and differential settlement even if these joists were replaced. For these reasons, the best alternative is to demolish the defective sections of the building. ~ \u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C:\n,::, z\n:: zm :-\u0026lt; Cloverdale Elementary School March 2005 Page 3 The deterioration under the Pre-K section (Area 4 on Attachment 1) is extremely limited, and it is possible this portion of the building could remain intact by drying and treating the soil under the building. The two remaining wings (Areas 1 and 3 on Attachment 1) will require demolition. The media center (Area 2 on Attachment 1) was not evaluated in the 2004 study due to lack of crawl space accessibility\nhowever, there is no evidence of distress on the exterior. Further evaluation is needed to determine the actual condition of the media center structure. RECOMMENDATION A committee of administrative staff has developed options for resolving the problems that exist at Cloverdale Elementary School and continuing the education of the Cloverdale Elementary students for the Board's consideration: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Place portable buildings between Cloverdale Elementary and Middle School campuses, continue school at that location and demolish the defective areas of the elementary site (similar to the method used at Mann Middle School). Place portable buildings between Cloverdale Elementary and Middle School campuses, utilize available classrooms at Cloverdale Middle School and demolish the defective areas of the elementary site. Place portable buildings on the Mabelvale Elementary School campus and use eight (8) available classrooms to conduct school separately from the Mabelvale program and demolish the defective areas of the Cloverdale Elementary site. Place portables at Watson Elementary School, divide the Cloverdale students between Watson and Mabelvale Elementary School and demolish the defective areas of the Cloverdale Elementary site (similar to the initial Mitchell School plan whereby some students attended Stephens and others attended Washington). SEE ATTACHMENT 3 FOR THE COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH OPTION. The committee recommends Option 3, the relocation of Cloverdale Elementary students to the Mabel vale Elementary campus. Availability of classroom space at Mabel vale, supplemented by placement of portable buildings, leads the committee to believe this option would be the least disruptive to the overall operation of Cloverdale Elementary School. Option 3 will require no additional buses to transport the students. With Board approval, relocation would take place over the summer of 2005. t N !I 1 Administrative Offices \u0026amp; 1/ Classrooms 2 Media Center 3 Classrooms 4 Pre-K / K Classrooms WHILIUh CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  1N3WNMnorov 'IIX ONIM\\f3H 1N30n1S 'IX S\u0026gt;4MlfW3M ONISOl:\u0026gt; x SNotlVNOO 'O )\u0026gt; -I -I )\u0026gt; (\") :c s: m z -I ...... ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 3 (') '+- 0 N (I) 0) ro D.. X. CLOSING REMARKS XII. ADJOURNMENT. D. DONATIONS XI. STUDENT HEARING I, ~ q. ,1, _] ,,. .... .!. Page 3 of 3 T ) \"- Cloverdale Elementary Cost Estimate - Cost item Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Portables I $638,000_ $638,000 _ $112,000 --- -- Covered Walks $67,770 $67,770 $26,0QQ__ Fencinq $11,4QQ.._ $11,400 $8,000 Steps I $18,000 $18,000 $11,450 Liqhts I $4,500 $4,500 $3,150 Intercom I $11,000 $11,000 $7,000 Data I $4,200 $4,200 $1,960 Walks/Steps I $1,185 $1,185 $1,580 Telephones I $9,000 $9,000 $4,200 Fire Alarm ___$7 ,500 _ $7,500 $3,500 Securit I $5,250 $5,250 _ $2,450 i I Relocation $2,500 $2,500 $6,000 Demolition I $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Misc Cost I $3,700 $3,700 $3,700 I TOTAL I $984,005 $984,005 $390,990 ATTACHMENT 3 Option_!_ $112,000 $26,000 $8,000 $11,450 $3,150 $7,000 $1,960 $380 $4,200 $3,500 $2,450 $8,000 $200,000 $3,700 $391,790 ~ )\u0026gt; a '- 0 C\nc z s:: zm :--\u0026lt; DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: -~' Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement . \\- Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager ~ \u0026gt; 0 c.... 0 C: ::c z\n: m z :-- DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Central High School Equipment, valued Roy \u0026amp; Louise Gutierrez at $589.00, to LR Central Quiz Bowl Team Central High School $250.00 cash Gregg Heming to LR Central Girls' Cheerleading Squad Metropolitan Career Assorted supplies and Billy-Jack's Body Shop, Inc. \u0026amp; Technical Center materials, valued at $1 ,500.00, to the Paint \u0026amp; Body program Romine Elementary $500.00 cash to be Hunter United Methodist School used for student Church Incentives Williams Magnet Trees and 6 hours Clayton Johnson and Elementary School labor valued at Trent Roberts of the $550.00 Merriweather Park Neighborhood Association in conjunction withe City of LR Urban Forestry Commission LRSD ASAP Program $1 ,700.00 check to Landers Auto Sales purchase Project THRIVE t-shirts LRSD CARE Program Assorted toys valued Mrs. Cheryl Stanley at $200.00 Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 2/15/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PR_QCUREMENT FROM: A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL J K/LilJdi{UA_,/ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Roy \u0026amp; Louise Gutierrez of 32 Fontenay Circle, Little Rock, AR  72223, very graciously contributed equipment valued at $589.00 to our Quiz Bowl team. It is my recommendation that this contribution be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. ~ )\u0026gt; a '- 0 C\n,:, z 3:: zm :-\u0026lt; DATE: TO: FROM: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-44 7-1400 Fax 501-44 7-1401 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL 7U::_t,~ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Gregg Herning, in behalf of the Peabody Hotel at #3 Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock, AR 72201, graciously donated $250.00 to our girl's cheerleading squad. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. To: From: Date: RE: Darral Paradis, Dir of Procurement Michael Peterso~rincipal Metropolitan Career ff echnical February 8, 2005 DONATION Billy-Jack's Body Shop, Inc has donated the following items to the Paint and Body program at Metropolitan, valued at $1 ,500.00. 1 - LX 90 A Turbine paint sprayer 2 - AirHose 1 - Paint Gun 4 - HD Jack Stands 1 - 21/2 Ton Floor Jack 2 - Snap on Roll around seats 1 - Paint Shaker 8 - Cans/plastic Body Mat. 1 - Dirt Rag Can 1 - Sanding Board 1 - 3/8 Air Rachet cp 1 -  Air Rachet cp 1 - Drill 1 - Welding Helmet 1 - Paint Mixing System w/ various paint mixing colors 1 - Computer mixing scales Books It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Li ttle Rock, Arkansas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201 ~ )\u0026gt; 0 c.... 0 C :,:, z 3: m z :-\u0026lt; ROMINE INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills February 21 , 2005 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: 1s. Li!lie Scull, Principal RE: Donation Hunter United Methodist Church has generously donated $500.00 to our school. The money will be ust\u0026gt;d for student incentives. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District Sponsor: Hunter United Methodist Church 3301 Romine Road Little Rock, AR 72204 '... .... - ,. .... - ,. .. t WILLIAMS RADITIONAL r\\/iAGr IET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE Date: Re: Dottatiotts The Cifii of littk Rock Vrbatt Forestr\\i Commissiott has bottateb $\n0.00 from the .. ,-,act Grattt for Tree PlatttittS.. to the Memweather Park Nd5hborhoob Associatiott for the purchase of trees. Mr. da\\itOtt Johttsott 1203 M Street littk Rock. Ar. 72207 attb Mr. T rmt Roberts 7304 vu5rem Street littk Rock. Ar. 72207 bottateb the trees attb 6 hours of thdr time itt platttitt5 the trees at WiTiiams Masttct School. lt is recommettbeb that this bottatiott be accepteb itt accorbattee with the policies attb procebures of the little Rock School District. Thattk \\.10U for \\iOUr cottsiberatiott. ~ )\u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C\no z\n: m z :-\u0026lt; DATE: TO: Accelerated Student Achievement Program LRSD Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Program 3001 S. PULASKI STREET March 3, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FROM: f Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation Landers Auto Sales will donate a check in the amount of $1,700.00 to the Little Rock School District for Project THRIVE t-shirts. The donor's mailing address is: Landers Auto Sales, Attention: Rodney Plack, 7800 Alcoa Road, Benton, AR 72015. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance\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_697","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":["2005-03-01/2005-12-01"],"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/697"],"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 (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2005 March 1, 2005 OFFICE OF desegregates MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS 1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy\nA. B. C. 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. 9 D. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work E. 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 African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. F. . . . 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. G. 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 9? December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1...' H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15,2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 19Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. 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 discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for the three LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in January with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of Year- Round Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session. Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE. each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dom and Gail Weems, both of UALRs College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 19PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher represent- tatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJamette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning\nMs. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive\n)r. Williams, Year-Round Education\nand Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June 1. 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. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and 1) 2) 3) their grade levels and positions\ndata in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes\nbases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1,2005. Page 4 of 19Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Learning (CL) Smart/Thrive (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 19 oReading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: School Booker______ Carver_______ Chicot_______ Dodd________ Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs_______ Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Rightsell Wakefield Watson______ Williams Wilson ___ Number of Reading Recovery Teachers 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 I I 2 1 2 1 Number of Teachers 55 43 44 27 35 23 30 24 22 31 25 29 34 36 27 Number of Students 496 496 536 261 387 299 310 349 156 511 262 451 456 461 285 Percent African- American Students 53 52 73 54 96 88 53 78 96 60 100 78 96 52 89 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 63 53 86 69 94 81 44 85 92 56 88 92 93 34 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), administered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 19Posttests\n2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. ^^PPlemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be 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 17 sites. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are discontinued or not discontinued? RR teachers will be asked to complete Achievement Profiles (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 19Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _______Evaluation Question Primary Question______ I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement?  All grades 1-3 students at 17 RR schools and other elementary schools  RR student participants within above samples  DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? All RR teachers All teachers at RR schools 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups by school?____________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on programspecific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____ 5. What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All RR schools All RR teachers All RR teachers All RR school teachers Parents of RR students Page 8 of 19  RR Teacher Phone Interview  RR School Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  RR Achievement Profiles  One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools)  School records/archival data RR Achievement Profile RR Teacher Interview RR School Teacher Survey (disaggregated by r' grade V5. other grades) RR Parent SurveyCompass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Schools Bale Elementary Booker Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Elementary Chicot Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forrest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary______ McDermott Elementary Mitchell Elementary________ Otter Creek Elementary Rightsell Elementary_______ Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary_______ Wakefield Elementary______ Williams Elementary_______ Cloverdale Middle School Henderson Middle School Accelerated Learning Center Number of Teachers 27 55 28 43 44 19 25 35 38 23 30 25 26 22 31 25 35 39 29 36 59 60 14 Number of Students 319 605 318 496 536 187 361 387 554 299 310 257 406 156 511 262 453 499 451 461 682 630 178 Percent African- American Students 82 53 78 52 73 75 20 96 26 88 53 80 62 96 60 100 67 95 78 52 82 82 92 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 88 63 80 53 86 73 14 94 17 81 44 88 88 92 56 88 66 91 92 34 66 70 15 Page 9 of 19CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school {n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary ( = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)\nArkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL, whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible conelates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of 10 school Technology Specialists (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of 10 schools (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group ( = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 19Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 19Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question ______Evaluation Question Primary Question I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of AA students?  Students at 23 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools  Whole grade-level means at the CL high school.  ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9  Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3-8)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (grades 1-9 posttests)  2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as posttest)  2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Step 2 Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 21 schools implementing the program in 2004-05?  All CL school teachers  10 Technology Specialists (1 high school, 2 middle schools, and 7 randomly selected elementary schools)  District CL Program Coordinator  5 student focus groups (1 high school, 1 middle school, 3 elementary schools) 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned?________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All CL schools  All CL school teachers  10 Technology Specialists Parents of CL students Page 12 of 19  CL Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Technology Specialist Phone Interview  District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview  Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (10 schools: 1 high school, 2 middle schools, 7 randomly selected elementary schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the 10 observation schools  School records/archival data  CL Teacher Survey  Technology Specialist Interview  CL Parent SurveySmart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (S/T) program was designed as an intervention for 8*- and 9*-grade African- American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African- American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Middle Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mablevale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Number of Teachers 59 58 59 60 57 64 57 55 Number of Students 682 747 688 630 634 873 708 493 Percent African- American Students 82 61 77 82 81 52 57 94 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 86 57 62 70 75 37 47 87 S/T Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students?  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra 1 students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs  Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6* and 8* grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 19 Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests\nAlgebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra 1 teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of S/T? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3-5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An S/T parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 19 oSummary of S/T Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants I Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on AA student achievement? Supplemental Questions 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All 8'' and 9\" grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests\nAlgebra I EoC  All program participants S/T teachers and students All S/T Tutors  All Algebra 1 teachers  Program participants Parents of S/T students Page 15 of 19 School records/archival data  Qbservations of tutoring sessions  S/T Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire  S/T Student Questionnaire  Focus Groups  S/T Parent QuestionnaireYear-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSDs 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 means 45 days in a quarter, then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Elementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunches 89 88 92 90 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 19 o'Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 19 'o'Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of YRE participation on achievement of AA students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of Year Round Education teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year Round Education intersession student participants within above samples. All YRE teachers Selected teachers and students All YRE schools All YRE teachers YRE students grades 4 and 5 Parents of YRE students Page 18 of 19 Benchmark and ITBS Teacher phone interview Classroom observations School records/archival data YRE teacher interview and survey YRE student survey YRE parent surveyRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. S/T YRE Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR interview RR. teachers, teacher interviews. Begin observations, phone interview of program coordinator\nselect tech, specialist \u0026amp; school samples\nphone interview of tech, specialist. Planning, refining, Observe Thrive and consulting with PRE and S/T experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. sessions. Planning, refining. Develop instruments and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. with PRE review. May-June Profile RR achievement\nanalyze records/archival data analyses. Survey CL Teachers (at Analyze faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations\ncomplete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Page 19 of 19 July-September October Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. November PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. records/archival data analyses. Complete focus groups and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. Complete focus groups and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS /I Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 V Jil A. il fi An Individual Approach to a World opKnoivledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your ( receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 21 Century Community Learning CentersJ iiiniutveirie-osLtso uuos.. rAtXfLtecri udiissLcuussssiinngg IiTt wwiitmh uDrr.. RKoossss aanndd ootthheerrss., we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 21 Century Community Learning Centers will end within I I iw J v/viiiiuujuiy i-zcdriung Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the program s support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, 1 ? I  ) KKaarreenn DeJame^, Ph.D. Director, PRE Ph.D. L.  I ill ,1 xc: Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark k 810 W Markham OU Little Rod: l-22e-2(iir Ancansar 7\ni Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 n^Fil'^OCKSCHOOLDIS^^ PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS K athf.rine knight, ET al., INTERVENORS_ Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its ~ ' ______ 1 -,.1 ________________fko nictnnt This is t - -1----- . . . Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted m accordance with the District Courts'2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy\nA. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive^pro^mn assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum c. D. and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. hire one or more outside consultants to prepare lour loniwi 4 PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations, (2) wor closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . . VUlloUlUvllltO Willi 4*1*^ UllU ----------------------- XX E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who recommended program changes necessary for improved academic contributed data, recommended program changes necessary lor uiipiuvcu atauviuv achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change F. 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. G 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... H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to October 1, 2006. the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of June 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this third quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. Through program evaluation teams, stakeholders (any people who are variously responsible for and/or vitally interested) participate in the LRSDs comprehensive program assessment process. These four teams (one for each step 2 evaluation) formed when the PRE Department and outside consultants commenced designing the step-2 evaluations. The teams met on February 24, March 4 and 18, and May 6 and 20 for dialog on evaluation designs, issues, and progress. A Joshua representative attended May 6, while ODM officials attended February 24, May 6, and May 20. A table of members of the four teams and their affiliations appear in Appendix B of this third quarterly written update. General composition of those attending is in the following table: Meetings of Program Evaluation Teams FebruaryMay 2005 Dates February 24 March 4 March 18 May 6 May 20 Places Stephens Elem. IRC Fulbright Elem. IRC Stephens Elem. Teachers 4 1 3 4 1 Admin 6 3 3 8 4 Parents 1 1 1 2 0 Others 2 2 0 4 1 C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of outside evaluators Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. They agreed to undertake step 2 evaluations of four LRSD programs during 2004-2005, and D below describes their progress. For step 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named below. (Please see Appendix C for his letter stating this.) Page 3Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered as an after-school program. PLATO Learning is a computer-based program at the Accelerated Learning Center. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Dr. Catterall will evaluate A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, PLATO Learning, and PreK literacy. Their supporting letters are in Appendix C. Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). I I Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data. Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Perctitr \"i SiuJmis -IfricuH- 'inieiican PerreHt of Srudeiirs Lti)\niblefrr b'rtV.Neduced l.tinch Woodruff* I 21 A+ I 235 I Ml I Hh KnowledgePoil ints Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* * Watson^ 27 28 44 29 34 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 86 81) 86 92 93 ACC PLATO I 17 I 136~~T X I iS These schools are on the School Improvement list. Page 4II LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King ,* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens Terry * Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* No. of Teachers 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 No. of Aides 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Max. Students 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 Enroll- No. of . \u0026lt;111 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 11 I'i, 1 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 84.2 82.1 7.3.0 N 7 78.0 80.0 61.1 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 8! ' hl.3 5\u0026lt;\u0026gt;.4 .30.0 IPi.U 61.5 -u 5 9 2..3 51, 74.4 X9..\n94.' 54.1 88.9 88.9 No. of Hispanic 2 1 0 NA 11 6 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 0 ('er evDl lliSDHII.. '.3 0.(1 \\ \\ 18.6 15. 8.3 fi.\" 0.(1 0.0 \u0026gt; c 5.0 II. C 5.0 5.0\n3.1 (1.0 0.0 5.1 .4.8 (1.0 2.9 28.2 2.7 2.8 0.0 0.(1 No. of Per will White 3 5 10 NA 1 2 12 7 36 4 30 1 3^ 13 1 9 3 16 12 0 13 0 6 16 0 9 1 0 1 4 Whii.- 12.8 \u0026gt; .P .4 5.0 33.3 tS,9 90.(1 ' .3 85.0 31..5 5..3 22.5 7.5 41.0 00,0 0.0 3.\u0026lt;.3 :.o 0.0 12.0 2.8 0.0 Pl I \u0026lt; 1 t AA is African American. NA is not available\". * These schools are on the School Improvement List of Arkansas Public Schools.  In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity. Page 5D. 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 Dr. Steven Ross and his team at the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), University of Memphis, and with Dr. James Catterall of UCLA. Dr. Ross team is conducting three step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs, reported March 1, 2004 Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T)\nwhile Dr. Catterall completed data collection instruments and instructions for his step 2 evaluation of Year-Round Education (YRE). In this section of this third quarterly written update, PRE reports progress for all four step 2 evaluations. Appendix D exhibits data collection instruments and instructions. Progress on the three evaluations conducted by Dr Ross: CompassLeaming (CL) CL evaluation activities for this quarter included the following\n CL Teacher Technology Questionnaire went to all 20 CL Elementary schools on March 9. As of April 27, 17 schools returned them.  All seven CL school observations were completed by Drs. Gail Weems and Dan Strahl.  All four Student Focus Group Interviews have been completed by Dr. Gail Weems after permission letters were distributed to parents and five to seven fifth-grade students were randomly chosen from the returned permissions.  Parent surveys have been returned from all five (randomly selected) schools. Parent participation appears to have been very good.  Drs. Deborah Lowther, Gail Weems, and Dan Strahl completed interviews of all lab attendants, technology specialists, district CL Coordinator, and designated principals.  Data analysis began after data collection ended in May. Reading Recovery (RR) Dr. Anna Grehan led RR data collection: o o o o o 16 RR teachers were observed by Drs. Melissa Schulz of Ohio State University and Cliff Johnson of Georgia State University in March and April, respectively, in 10 schools. 22 RR teachers returned the Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) in 14 schools. 141 non-RR teachers returned the Classroom Teachers Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 86 Parent Survey (RRPS) in English language came from 15 elementary schools, and 9 Parent Survey (RRPS) in Spanish language from 4 elementary schools were collected. Page 6SMART/THRIVE (S/T) The S/T evaluators, coordinated by Dr. Lyle Davis, completed collection of qualitative and survey data in April:  They observed six tutoring sessions (2 per day on February 19, March 5, and March 19).  They distributed 190 student surveys on March 5 and received 144 completed ones.  Two student focus groups met on March 5, and another met on March 19. Their results have been summarized but not yet analyzed.  Of 24 S/T teacher surveys, distributed on March 5, 18 were completed and returned.  45 algebra I teacher surveys were distributed March 5 to both S/T and non-S/T algebra I teachers during the school week. Approximately 45 have been returned in roughly equal numbers from non-S/T and S/T teachers.  190 parent surveys went to their homes on March 5, and more were collected during the carnival on April 23. In total, 37 were completed.  Dr. Davis group conducted a mentor focus group on April 25 and collected data from it. Progress on the evaluation conducted by Dr. Catterall: Year-Round Education (YRE) YRE evaluation included the following:  Review of all existing LRSD reports on YRE.  Detailed review of the longitudinal YRE student test-score database, provided by LRSD, and construction of trial models for analysis of longitudinal scores accommodating 2005 scores.  Alternative data cells and alternative data formats have been specified for 2005 student longitudinal achievement assessment.  Review of 2003 and 2004 student survey data and presentations from participating YRE schools.  Planning for 2005 student surveys.  Development of the 2005 parent interview protocol and discussion and exploration of work agreements with professional personnel who may conduct parent interviews. PRE sent Dr. Catterall a list of all 4***- and 5'^-grade teachers at YRE schools and a list of parents and students in both YRE and traditional year schools. 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. j The evaluations will address these requirements when prepared for PREs review later this year. Page 7F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process were delivered before they were due last year and reported in the first written quarterly update. This third written quarterly update names the four LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations during 2005-2006. (Please see C above.) PRE has now notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the comprehensive program assessment process per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65). G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. Per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004 and its second on March 1, 2005. PRE submits this third written quarterly update before June 1, 2005, to date meeting due dates of this remedy. S' (J i r Page 8Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Appendices B. Program Evaluation Teams C. Letters of Outside Evaluators D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 B. Program Evaluation Teams Members Names and Affiliations CompassLeaming (CL) Reading Recovery (RR) SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE)Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 Program Evaluation Teams Team Role Team Leader Program Specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent \u0026amp; teacher Teacher Principal Program Evaluation Name Karen DeJamette, PhD Travis Taylor________ Jim Wohlleb Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Dan Strahl, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Ed Williams, PhD Amy Thompson______ Thelma Watson Deborah Mitchell Team: CompassLeaming Position or Title Director of PRE Dept.____________ Instructional Technology Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Elementary teacher IV Elementary teacher IV___________ Principal Location PRE Info Technology PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE PRE Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem team Role Team leader Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent Teacher Program Evaluation Team: Reading Recovery Name Jim Wohlleb Pat Busbea Linda Dom, PhD Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Anna Grehan, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Michelle Bonds-Hall Michelle Dorsey Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Reading Coordinator Professor Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst________ Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE Early Child. Ed. UALR PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE Chicot ElemQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Program Evaluation Teams (continued) _____Team Role Team leader______ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician_______ Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent___________ Teacher ____ Program Evaluation Team\nSMART / THRIVE Name Maurecia M Robinson Vanessa Cleaver______ Marcelline Carr_______ Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD  Lyle Davis, PhD______ Aaron McDonald_____ Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb Rose Cook___________ Tonjuna Iverson Program _____Team Role______ Team leader_________ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer_________ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer_______ PRE reviewer_______ Parent_____________ Teacher ______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Math - API Math - API Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE IRC Math. IRC Math PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Parkview Evaluation Team: Year-Round Education Name Ed Williams, PhD Janice Wilson Sophia Parchman Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage_________ Catterall \u0026amp; Associates Lyle Davis, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb________ Diana Layne-Jordan Judy Harbour_______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Principal Assistant Principal__________ Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Evaluatorr Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist PTA President Grade 5 Location PRE Woodruff Mann Magnet PRE Info services UCLA CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Stephens StephensQuarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 C. Letters Dr. Steven M. Ross Approval of four 2005-2006 step 2 evaluations Commitment to perform three of them Dr. James Catterall Commitment to perform step 2 evaluation of Ad-THE UNIVERSITY OF Center for Research in Educational Policy MEMPHIS A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free\n866.670.6147 Fax\n901.678.4257 www.memphls.edu/crep May 17, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I have reviewed the four programs selected for Step 2 evaluations in the 2005- 2006 school year: (a) Knowledge Points, (b) PLATO Learning, (c) Pre-K Literacy Program, and (d) A+. These programs presently or potentially serve large numbers of African American students, but have not yet been evaluated with regard to implementation or student achievement. I believe that these are appropriate choices for the Step 2 evaluations. 1 look forward to working with you and PRE personally on the first three studies (a-c). Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action UntversKyUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY  DAVIS  IRVINE  LOSANCEl.ES  RIVERSIDE  SANDIECO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 May 10, 2005 Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 Dear Dr. DeJarnette: The A+ Program, along with certain other arts-academics programs, has shown effects on motivation and learning of elementary students who read below grade level and are otherwise at-risk of school failure. The A+ program now operating in the Little Rock School District may be making contributions to the Districts interest in improving achievement of its African-American students. 1 have extensive experience with evaluating curricula that serves to integrate the arts and academic learning. 1 have some familiarity with the A+ program particularly - its history and previous efforts to assess effects of its large scale projects, 1 will be pleased to join you in designing and implementing an formal evaluation of this program during the 2005-2006 school year. Sincerely, dProff les S Catterall, Ph.D. 'rofessor, Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies (310)825-5572/455-078.5 Fax:(310)455-0795 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu I-J Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 CompassLeaming (CL) District Coordinator Interview Protocol Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Parent/Guardian Consent Form Encuesta para los padres de fam ilia Parent Survey Survey of Computer Use Student Focus Group Protocol Teacher QuestionnaireLittle Rock School District (LRSD) CompassLearning-. District Coordinator Interview Protocol District Coordinator Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning?  How were you chosen as the district coordinator for the CompassLearning program? Level of Implementation  How long has CompassLearning been implemented in LRSD?  Why is the use of CompassLearning determined by each school rather than by the district?  What guidance was given to schools as to which students should use CompassLearning, when they should use it, and how they should use it? In what document(s) would these guidelines be found?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities? How do you obtain this type of information?  To what degree do school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? How do you obtain this type of information?  To what degree do district administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? Evaluation of the Software  How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Nature and Quality of Implementation  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in the district?  What are the best aspects of how the district and its schools have implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum?  What are the Districts goals with regard to the CompassLearning program? When and how are those goals evaluated?  How does CompassLearning fit in with other LRSD initiatives being implemented?  How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Support  What types of CompassLearning training and support have been requested from and/or provided by the district? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD?  To what degree do you think use of CompassLearning has increased (or decreased) student learning?  Do you think your district should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Past Use of CompassLeaming  How many years did your school use the CompassLeaming program?  What was your overall impression of the program?  How was the program implemented?  Where did students most frequently use the program?  Which students used the program?  How frequently did they use it?  How were teachers involved?  Why did your school quit using CompassLeaming? Current Program  Is your school currently using an integrated learning system? If no, why not? If yes, o o o o Which one? What are your overall impressions of the new program? In what ways is the new program better than Compass? In what ways is the new program worse?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLeaming?  How were you chosen for your position?  Who, besides you, provides technical support for the schools? How do their responsibilities differ from yours? Evaluation of the Software  How would you evaluate the CompassLeaming software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLeaming product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation  How long has CompassLeaming been used at your school?  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLeaming has been implemented in your school?  What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLeaming program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLeaming integrated into the curriculum?  At your school, which students use the CompassLeaming system? When do they use it? How do they use it?  What aspects of the CompassLeaming program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLeaming resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities?  To what degree do school administrators use CompassLeaming reports as the basis for school improvement efforts?  How is equitable student access to CompassLeaming ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLeaming activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support  Where is CompassLeaming used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center?  How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLeaming program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers.  What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLeaming? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved?  What types of CompassLeaming training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program?  To what degree do you think that CompassLeaming has increased or decreased student learning?  Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning?  How were you chosen for your position?  Who, besides you. provides technical support for the schools? Evaluation of the Softvyare  How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation  How long has CompassLearning been used at your school?  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in your school?  What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum?  At your school, which students use the CompassLearning system? When do they use it? How do they use it?  What aspects of the CompassLearning program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities?  To what degree do your school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts?  How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support  Where is CompassLearning used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center?  How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLearning program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers.  What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLearning? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved?  What types of CompassLearning training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program?  To what degree do you think that CompassLearning has increased student learning?  Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Parent/Guardian Consent Form 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 CompassLeaming (computer lab) program. The questions are designed to help us find out how well the CompassLeaming program is helping to improve student learning. The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the computer lab or CompassLeaming program that your child participates in. The focus group will be conducted during a computer lab session. 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. 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 school. If you have questions you may contact Dan Strahl, Project Manager, The Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, toll free at 866-670-6147. I give my permission for my child, group as described above. (Childs Name) , to participate in a focus Signed Date (Parent or Guardian)Distrito escolar de Little Rock: Encuesta para los padres de familia sobre CompassLearning Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos conocer que op ma acerca de que sufs) hijo(s) utilice(n) e! programa CompassLearning (e! programa que sufs) hijofs) utiHzafn) en e! laboratorio de computadoras). Strvase tomar unos minutos para completar la siguiente encuesta. Solo complete 1 funa) encuesta si tiene mas de un hijofa) en e! distnto escolar. Instrucciones:  Encierre su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco.  No coloque su nombre en la encuesta.  Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Informacion acerca de su(s) hijo(s) Encierre en circulo los niveles de su(s) hijo(s): K 1 23456789 10 11 12 Encierre en circulo la etnia de su(s) hijo(s): Caucasico(s) Afroamericano(s) Hispano(s) Asiatico(s) Mestizo(s) Programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) iConoce usted acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) en la escuela de su(s) hijo(s)? I Si No S\nla respuesta es si, sirvase responder las preguntas restantes. Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacerque su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). tComo se entero de las actividades del laboratorio de computadoras? Escuela Profesor(a) Mis hijos Otros padres de familia / amigos iQue entusiasmo muestra(n) su(s) hijo(s) con el laboratorio de computadoras? Mucha___________Poca__________Ninguna_______No esta seguro__________________________________________ tCree usted que el tiempo en el laboratorio de computadoras es una parte importante de la educacion de su(s) hijo(s)? Si Ligeramente No No esta seguro cCree usted que el uso del laboratorio de computadoras ha mejorado en su hijo(a)\nel interes en la escuela? aorovechamiento en la lecture y matematicas? Si Si Ligeramente Ligeramente No No No esta seguro No esta seguro Sus comentarios acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning): j Responda en el espacio en bianco y utilice el reverso de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. ____ cQue es Io mejor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? cQue es io peor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? iQue cambios quisiera ver en el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? J Tennessee Bonn! of Regain hissilufion pn t I M IJ 4 a Etfua! Opporiunin  Affirmiitivc Action UniversityLittle Rock School District: CompassLeaming Parent Survey DIRECTIONS use NO t pewa. ON.T DARk MARKS EX O =\u0026gt;\u0026lt;=  == ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE  2005 f (\\nier lor Hescan h in Educaiional Policy. All Righls lie-ien eil. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLeaming program (the program your child or children work on in the computer lab). Please take a few minutes to complete the H ^11 IC piu^iaill JUUl VIIIIU VI VIIIIUIVII vvs^iix wn m iiiw wa-/11 j-/wvwi ........................................................................- - r Bl following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey even if you have more than one child in the school district. Directions: - Indicate your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. - Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Indicate the grade levels of your child/children. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children. Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming) Do you knotw about the computer lab (CompassLeaming) program at your child's/children's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No. please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. I = How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? A lot Some Not at all Not sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the computer lab has improved your child's/children's: interest in school? achievement in reading and math? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Yes Somewhat No Not sure Your comments about the Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming)  Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. \" What is the BESTthing about your child/children using the computer lab program?________ H__________________________________________________________________________________________  What is the WORST thing about your child/children using the computer lab program? r . I - I \" What CHANGES would you like to see in the computer lab program? k ACL ArytllC '* Tennessee Board of Regents tnsrttnlion M t M r n ! An EqimI Oppormnin  Affirinaiire Action Unnersin Page 1 of 2Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning 2-HOUR DATA SUMMARY FORM DIRECTIONS use no JOeNtXONLV DARK MARKS IB School 2005c ('enterfar Research tn Educational Policy. ______________All Rights Resetved.______________ Observer Name ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Observer Date Indicate all grade(s) observed. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2-Hour Begin Time End Total number of classes observed during the 2-hours: [ ] Total number of students using CompassLearning (by ethnicity): Total number of teachers present: African American Non-African American Classroom Teacher(s) Lab Attendant(s) Technology Specialist(s) I Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for CompassLearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for CompassLearning? Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively Most of the computers used for CompassLearning were: Up-to-date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, what percentage of the African American students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) During the observation, what percentage of the Caucasian students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) CompassLearning Activities u u il VI s u Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.____________________ Subject Areas of observed CompassLearning Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of Questions Students Asked Whiie Using CompassLearning Content area (e g. howto solve a problem, the meaning of a word). Software use (e g. how to log in\nhow to move to the next section\nhow to take a test) Computer use (e.g. how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) Non-CompassLearning questions (e g. Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) o z I i S' s u 'R c X UJ Continue to the next page. MEMPHIS. A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution .-In Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2 bSurvey of Computer Use for CompassLeaming continued CompassLeaming Activities V u V! (3 C Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.___________________ Types of Instruction Given to Students at the Start of the Lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom Behavior Rules No instruction given Types of Teacher Activities Teachers continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers remained at one location (e.g. desk) rather than moving among the students. HIGH Level of Student Attention and Academic Focus HIGH level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of academically focused class time V n ai c t c 3 u c w ui Tennessee Board of Regents Institution MCMl 111,4w Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using CompassLearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using CompassLearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. 3. 4. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using CompassLearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? What kinds of problems have you experienced when using it? What types of changes would you like to see in the CompassLearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. 6. 7. 8. Do you think CompassLearning helps you to do better in school? a. Why? Do you think CompassLearning ever makes you do worse in school? a. Why? What do you think are some of the disadvantages to using CompassLearning? What have your parents said about CompassLearning? 9. What have your friends said about using CompassLearning? 10. Which types of students do you think are benefiting the most from using CompassLearning? 11. Which types of students are benefiting the least? Enjoyment of CompassLearning 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Do you like or dislike using CompassLearning? How much? Whats your favorite thing about using Compass? What's your least favorite thing? Would you like to keep on using it or would you like to stop using it? Why? What else can you tell me about using CompassLearning that we havent discussed?Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire DIRECTIONS USE NO ZKNOL ONLY ] 2OI\u0026gt;3r Center for Reseanh m Kdiicaiional I'olicy. All Righix Reserved. MAKE DARK MARKS EX \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; cs-o  \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE School Name: r 1 Your Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Other (Describe) Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If YES. please describe your understanding of the CompassLeaming Program in your school, then please answer the remaining survey questions. If NO, please stop here and return the survey when they are collected. Your Gender Male Female Il\u0026gt; s O) O) c o OT in 0) S O) 2 3 o z \u0026lt;*) o  O) (0 OT b  o\u0026gt; TO \u0026lt;2 b \"ct c o th 1. Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. 2.1 can readily obtain answers to questions about CompassLeaming. 3. The use of CompassLeaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. 5. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. 6.1 routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8.1 have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use CompassLeaming resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. 11.1 routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. 13.1 routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of CompassLeaming. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. 15.1 routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. 16. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. 1 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1. How many years of experience do you have with CompassLeaming? 2. Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use CompassLeaming: Years 8 6 7 4 5 2 3 K 1 3. How are the subject areas and performance levels of CompassLeaming activities selected for each of your students? V J r- It DU IC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M C MI II lO Jn Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire continued c 0) CT P E o 2 \u0026lt;D Vi fM \u0026lt;u o z 4. How frequently do you use the followingCompassLearning reports ? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other _____________________________ 5. a. If you use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? b. If you do NOT use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? 6. What are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 7. What are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 8. Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why? Yes No 1 iPk jryiJIC Tennessee Board of Regents Instrniiion M t M r n 10 tn F.gal Opporltinin - Af/irmaltve Action L'ntrersity Page 2 of 2 n i L I I iQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation Assessment Instrument Teacher Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Demographic Information Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) Parent Survey Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familialittle rock public schools program evaluation READING RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT School Observer Reading Recovery Teacher # Date Student Gender Student Ethnicity Time In Time Out I. Please check: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the folloz/ing scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable\n2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed\n3 = Above average in comparison to other programs\n4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. O N DNA Quality o  O \"S z \" o z (O a O \u0026lt; Q Reading Recovery Program Components o o Q. o 2 O 0) 5 O) o S  3 o \u0026lt; w \"s 5 = S w (A Reading familiar stories___________________________________________________ Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates running record ______________________________________________________ Working with letters and /or words using magnetic letters___________________ Writing a story__________________________________________________________ Assembling a cut-up story__________________________________________________ Introducing and reading a new book Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworksI. Pleasecheck: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of teacher instructional strategies by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable\n2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed\n3 = Above average in comparison to other programs\n4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. o OBSERVED N NOT OBSERVED Reading Recovery Program Strategies POOR Quality BELOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE MEETS STANDARDS During tutoring lesson________________________________________________ Appropriate pacing of lesson components___________________________________ Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson___________________ Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve______ ChiId is engaged in constructive problem solving________ Echo of focus throughout the lesson ____________________________________ Procedures are adjusted according to childs needs _____________________ Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving____________________ Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson__________ After tutoring lesson: observer questions and examination of student records Accurate up-to-date records______ Articulates childs strengths and needs______________________________________ Has high expectations for the child__________________________________________ Overall Rating\n_________________________________________________Please provide any comments related to the extent or quality of implementation of any of the above components that would elucidate your overall rating. Observer perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation. 1. Do they Reading Recovery materials (books, magnetic letters, writing, book, etc.) appear to be well organized for each child? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do Reading Recovery teachers appear to be fully supportive of the program? 3. Do administrators appear to be fully supportive of the program? i Does the program receive an adequate allocation of time, material, and other resources? Summary of findings:School Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire 2005T- Cenierfor Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. DlRECTfONS 2PCNCL0M.* make DARK MARRS EX o ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. _________ u QO \u0026lt; qo B O s U) \u0026lt; es is B z u u (Q V) 2 P3 (O 5 qc B  (Zi 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 have a thorough understanding of the school's Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the lime for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and O 0 o  O H Literacy Small Group interventions.  9. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of B this school. H 10. This school has a plan for evaluating all elements of our Reading Recovery program. 11. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. H supponivc oi uic nwumg H 12. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. _ 13. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the program.  14. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. H 15. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early  literacy intervention.  16. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan H instruction and review student progress.  17. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. H 18. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading H Recovery program are readily available.  19. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. 20. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. Please provide one rating for each of the following items. B 1. To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? I 2. To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. 10 wnai uegree uoes inc uibuivi suppun juui viivno  iwuwu j I 4. To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring? ntJ IC Tennessee Board of Begems Instiimion M t MI n I b /In gua\nOppominily - Affirmalree Action University Page 1 of 2 G  G G G 0  G G Q G  o o o  o o       O O O O G O O O o Q o G G   o o o o o o G G   O G O G G o o o o G G G G G G o o o o o O G o O G G o o o o O O o o o 4) K B u s G G G O O G o G G eS | E o (/} \u0026lt;s o o  O o o o O O a o Z o o o OReading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years What is the highest level of education you have completed? O Bachelor's O Master's O Master's plus 20 hrs O Education Specialist's O Doctoral What best describes your cuitural background? O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial / Other What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 I Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes ONo JNiVESSnViV LinkjniJlC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t MI fl I O' An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) DIRECTIONS USCMO JPEJ*a.QM.Y Dark Marks' ] School 2005Z Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. . ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Grade Level Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? What is the grade level of the majority of children you work with? O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O O o o K 1 2 3 I i What is the highest level of education you have completed? What best describes your cultural background? O Bachelors O Master's O Masters plus 20 hrs O Education Specialists O Doctoral I I O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial! Other T4rOF L i C k 4 D LJ1C Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r 11 li- Equal Opportunity - AJftrmative Action University Page 1 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) (Continued) \u0026lt; 'Sb Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently | reflected in your school. \u0026lt; s 3 z Of) S o K bO cn Q 5) c o 55 tn I 1.1 have a thorough understanding of this school's Reading Recovery program. H 2. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement.  3. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. H 4- Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. 5. Our school has sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement our Reading Recovery program. H . sunicieni lacuiiy ano siaii lo luiiy iinpicniciu uui jvcauiug rcwvwj pugiwu. B 6. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions.  O  o     o   o o    o       o o O 7. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school^  8. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program.  9.1 routinely modify my classroom reading instructional practices on the basis of student performance in  Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Groups.  10. Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the B Reading Recovery program.  11. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs.  12. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan  instruction and review student progress.  13. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the I end of third grade. o o   o o   o   o    O   o o   o 0 o o o o o o     o o  o Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes No r-\" kJCkiDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t M r n IJ Eifual Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2 1Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey 2005V Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child's Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Directions:  Circle your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. ~ Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. DIRECTIONS use NO SPENCLONLY : DARK MARKS------------- m' \\ ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Ethnicity of your Child: Information about your child:  Caucasian O African-American  Hispanic  Asian  Other Grade OK  1  2  3 Age  5  6  7  8 (Describe Reading Recovery Program Do you know about your child's involvement in the Reading Recovery tutoring program at their school?  Yes If YES, please answer the remaining questions. If NO, please have your child return this survey to his/her teacher.  No Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your child's school. ' A Tennessee Board of Regents institution I- An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University MEMPHIS. Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey (Continued) Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. If you cannot answer an item, please mark \"Don't Know.\"________________________________________ o o \u0026amp; \u0026lt; 'oa c o CZ3 V s 00 2 1 Z co (A s (N (U OJO co (A 5 ob c o is c/o o 12 \"c o O o 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reading Recovery tutoring has improved my child's reading skills. Learning to read is the highest priority at my child's school. My child enjoys and looks forward to their daily tutoring sessions. I have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about my child's progress. Because of Reading Recovery tutoring, I believe my child will be successful 03 03 03 CD CD 03 CD CD CD CD CD CD O 03 CD CD CD 03 03 03 CD CD  03 in school. 6. My child reads books at home daily. CD 03 Q CD CD CD CD  Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is What is the BEST thing about your child's involvement with Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? kJCkjtDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r n 10 An Equal Opportunity - Afftrmatne /(ction University Page 2 of 2 CD CD 03 03Distrito escolar de Little kock Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos saber cual es su opinion sobre las sesiones guiadas de recuperacion de lectura de su hijo(a). Sirvase tomar unos minutos para completar el siguiente cuestionario. Instrucciones: -- Enciene su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco.  No coloque su nombre en la encuesta. -- Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Etnia de su hijo(a) Informacion acerca de su hijo(a) Caucasico(a) Afroamericano(a) Hispano(a)______ Asiatico(a)______ Otra___________ Grado Edad K 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 Programa de recuperacion de lectura ^Conoce usted sobre la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en su escuela? Si No Si la respuesta es si, si'rvase responder las preguntas restantes y luego haga que su hijo(a) entregue el cuestionario a su profesor(a). Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacer que su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). Si'rvase describir su comprension del programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en la escuela de su hijo(a). THE UNIVERSITY OF   . /rS'll IC Temtessee Bwil of Httgenis Insiiimiott. M t M r H IO- An Equal Oppornmiiy  Affirmative At tion University. Pagina 1 de 2 feDistrito escolar de Little Rock Encuesta sobre recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia (Continuacion) Indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes opciones tai como se reflejan actualmente en la escuela. Si no puede responder una opcion, si'rvase marcaria como No sabe.___________________________ \u0026lt;u o (U c E S o o 3 O K3 o 3 3 (U Q I 3 3 O I o V 3 u 3 (/) o c u I CM c c \u0026lt;u E o  I o u 3 Vi o X) 3 CZ) O Z I o u. I 1. La clase guiada de recuperacion de lectura ha mejorado las destrezas de lectura de mi hijo(a).___________________ 2. Aprender a leer es la mayor prioridad en la escuela de mi hijo(a).________________________________________ 3. Mi hijo(a) goza y espera con ansias sus sesiones guiadas diarias._______ 4. Tengo muchas oportunidades de hablar con el(la) profesor(a) acerca del avance de mi hijo(a).____________________ 5. A causa de las clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura, creo que mi hijo(a) tendra exito en la escuela__________ 6. Mi hijo(a) lee los libros en casa a diario. Sus comentarios: Si'rvase responder en el espacio en bianco. Use el reverse de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. iQue es lo MEJOR de la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? ____________________________________________________________________ /,Que CAMBIOS quisiera ver en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? TetUKssee Board Regenis Jnsiiiuiimi. M t MI II Io. All Equal Opportuniry  Affirmalive Acliou University. Pagina 2 de 2 kQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Rubric for Observation of Select NCTM Standards in Teaching Mathematics School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary Teacher Questionnaire Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Parent Questionnaire Student Questionnaire Mentor Focus Group ProtocolRUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS* School Name___ Observation Date, Observer Name____ Extension of SOM # Directions\n NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections The teacher\no o o o o Demonstrates a sound knowledge of mathematical concepts and procedures\nRepresents mathematics as a network of interconnected concepts and procedures\nEmphasizes connections between mathematics and other disciplines and connections to daily living\n. , Engages students in tasks that promote the understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections\nEngages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections. Emphasizes conceptual understanding over rote learning Demonstrates connections between math and daily living, (or authenticates math in real life).  NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication o The teacher\n. , Models and emphasizes aspects of problem solving, including formulating and posing problems, solving problems using different strategies, verifying and interpreting results, and generalizing o o o o solutions\nDemonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning\nModels and emphasizes mathematical communication using written, oral, and visual forms\nEngages students in tasks that involve problem solving, reasoning, and communication. Engages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of problem solving and their capacity to reason and communicate mathematically. Engages students in problem solving activities. Demonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning (from yours) NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition The teacher\na o o o Models a disposition to do mathematics\nDemonstrates the value of mathematics as a way of thinking and its application in other disciplines and in society\n, Promotes students confidence, flexibility, perseverance, curiosity, and inventiveness in doing mathematics through the use of appropriate tasks and by engaging students in mathematical discourse. , , This one is toucih fora LB Specialist (me)....needs a real math person...in a sentence, how does one develop a math disposition? If I can learn this, years of frustration will melt away (insert smile here). I gathered that we could communicate it in a similar vein to thinking in a foreign language, but I am having a tough time adeguatelv putting it into words. a NCTM Standard: Learning Environments The teacher\n. . Conveys the notion that mathematics is a subject to be explored and crated both individually o o o and in collaboration with others\nRespects students and their ideas and encourages curiosity and spontaneity\nEncourages students to draw and validate their own conclusions. 1o o o o Selects tasks that allow students to construct new meaning by building on and extending their prior knowledge\nMakes appropriate use of available resources\nRespects and responds to students diverse interests and linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds in designing mathematical tasks\nAffirms and encourages full participation and continued study of mathematics by all students. Integrates themes of diversity into mathematical experiences. (????Yuck) Promotes appreciation for math within diverse learning environments (???Yuck yuck).RUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS NOTES PAGE NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition NCTM Standard: Learning Environments Source: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards forteaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.DiRECnONS km M/ \u0026lt;. PLEASE 1)0 NOT FOLD OR Sl AlLK THIS FORM.  MB .MAM: DARK MARKS fcX EHASF COMM STl l Y TO CHANCiF School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary S.M. Hosa, L.J. Smith i: M J. Aibcri\nCenter for fteivarrh n Educctinnal Piiltcy. The Vnitrrstiy nfMemphi.3 Ail Rights Re^rted.   School Name Observer Name:   n Date of Observation: SOM # Obser\\'er Role/Afilliation\nNumber of classroom observations comprising this SOM. D\\nectxon'. tioe your class-opecifie nofe# to reflect upon the extent to which each of the following its present in the ochttol: Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/coUaborative learning -------------------------- - Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer^^ \\ Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers ''t ((7? n uping t (toT individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher level instructional feedback (v^ten or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of .subject areas (interdisciplinarv/themalic units) Project-based learning ) Use of higher-level questioning strategies * Teacher acting as a coach/facilrtator Parenl/community involvement in learning activi^s \u0026lt; ! : Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instructioti assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained wriling/composition (seH\nelect^ or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading \\ - Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g. Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assf.ys/npn/ Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Rubric for SOM Scoring (0) Not Observed: (1) Rarely: (2) Occasionally: (3) FrxKiuently: (4) Extensively: I I  Q Q  'Mil- 0 o  0  0 0 0 0  0 Oy O 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 C 0 ' 0 t 0 K S ,l I  2. 2 J'- 2  2~ 1   2 2 2- 1 2 2 2  2  2 2  2   2  2 i s J 3 _ 3 7  3 4  3 - 3 3 3  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J Strategy was never observed. \u0026lt;)l).sen-ed in nnh- one or two dassc.s. Receives isolated use and/or little time in classes Clearly not a prevalent/cniphasized component of teaching and learning acros.s cla.s.ses. Observed in some classes. Receives minimal or modest time or emphasis in clas,se8 Not a prevalent/cmphaaized comiionent of teaching and learning across classes. Obsened in many but not all classes. Receives substantive time or emphasis in classes A prevalent component of teaching and learning across classes. Observed in must or all classes Receives substantive lime and/or emphasis in classes. A highly prevalent component of teaching and learning across cla.sses. I ,, I O'^ FORM NO F-17021-UM e JU**)** -xw*u*o* WAKI WF3 3102-532-54 3 2 1What are perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts  Tell me about Thrive. How would you describe it to a student who asked how you were spending Saturday morning.  Why do you think they have the Thrive program?  How does Thrive work? Tell me about what you do during your Saturday mornings here.  Do you like Thrive? Why or why not.  Would you recommend Thrive to other students? Why? Why not?  Has what you have learned in Thrive changed how you approach math problems?  Have you learned any new ways to study math. Could you tell me about them? What are the effects of participation in the Thrive program?  How is Thrive helping you in algebra? o o o PROBE: What makes using a calculator special? PROBE: How do the games help\ndo they help? PROBE: How do you use what you learn here in your weekly Algebra classes?  How do you think you will do on your Benchmark tests (????does this raise anxiety?)...do you think your performance has anything to do with Thrive?  Do you like algebra? Math in general? Have you always felt this way?  What do you think algebra would be like without Thrive?SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire DiRFcnoisrs ~ jia n I EX \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; csc=\u0026gt; * o j SSL6SEC.OM?5Jm.TTDai\u0026lt;^\u0026gt;^' Dear SMART/THRIVE Teachers: Please take a moment to answer these questions about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Please do NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help , us assess this program.__________________________________________________________________ SMART THRIVE Cj C C3 DIRECTIONS: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the tollowing items. If you cid not serve as a SMART instructor last summer (summer 200^), then only respond using the Thrive column. If you have no basis to respond, indicate (Don't Know). I Irava received adequate protessxxial devetopmenl to imoiemant -.. thss program, 'r, G IJJ CD I have a thorough undefBtarxSng cf the objectives of sh.a prcgrarr _ Q tf J G2 j) CD The students enjoy the planned acdvttles. \u0026lt; O J CD G3 CD  The (ad ity a! which the classes are held is adeq^le. f.h CJ I, L. 3 (Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed tor this program are  read ly available. C Zi CD CD GC Tne da ly bnefmg and deCneftng ses\u0026amp;^rts are va. uable. CC c G Cj c:^ - The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators\n~r. L\n_ dunng math Instruction. \u0026gt; f  C-J The program has Imo roved my students' abflity to use groph ng ( ) (1) catoulatom In their math lessons. 1 (J t?0 3 CD I t') l.-'J -D t.D  .1 The program is aligned with state arsd district madi standards. j  1 r 1 ( i CJ C3 The co-leacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) aporoachas are Pectve instrucbonal .methods (or teaching and reinlox-ng Algebra concapa. fl CJ DEMOGRAPHICS How many total years of teachlrig experience do you have? \u0026lt;1 -5 years C 6- lOyears \u0026lt; 11 -15 years 2 16-20 yea'S 20 or mo'S years Hovr many years have you worked in the THRIVE PfOflram? i 1 year G 2 years \u0026gt; I 3 yea'S ~i 4 years  J 5 or more years If you have worked with the SMART program, for how many years?   1 year G 2 years T T 3 years  I 4 years  5 or more years What is your eltnicfty? ' Caucas'an A'rican-American : I Hispanic . 2 Asan j Muti-E-Jnic C? Other J J Continue to page 2. MuMi nD  A/Rn\u0026gt;wa:7r Araos Page 1 of 2 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire Continued What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use In your classroom? 1 ! What are the most/toast beneficial aspects ol the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE. i t L  Ara there any additional comments that you would like to make about the THRIVE Program? 1 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, ere there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program?__________________________________________________________________ Thank you (or your input! rhi.s'-'EJjITf MEMPHIS A TrrotcUcr hutOMliiM Page 2 of 2* DTBEC71O5 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire _   A .A f\"..) . _ TAB . J Ql. B *A tJC o e=-sa  =\u0026gt; Dear Algebra I Teacher Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Thank you for your time and attention. - Please do NOT pul your name on the questionnaire. - Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please enclose your completed questionnaire in the attached pre-paid envelope and mail by March 18. 2005. Piease briefly descnbe your undefstanding of :hG SMART Program Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE Program: SMART THRIVE l i73 G' Z~J DIRECTIONS\nPlease indicate the extent to which you agree with the following flems related to the Smart and Thr.ve Programs. If you do na have a basis to respond, please bubble in 'Doni Krxjw.' The program has..._________________________ Positvely impacted student ach evemen: in math He oed dose tne achievement gap between African G3 American and Caucasian stuoerts ____________ He ped students become more confdem of meir ab' it-es G-i in Algebra________________ __________ ___________ _ Effectively enab ed studerTiS to use technology to solve Algebra problems__________________________ Fadliiated students' meaningful unoerstandirg of aisetei'c gpncepa------------------------ ----------------- GD Gj Ej \"~i Gj CJ L-j GJ Ci Z O X'! ftiftUi ^faiwWMMXts^ hjiiry. r \u0026lt; I Q  I t 1 j , Ohered me strateg es that I use in my own classroom  O Continue to page 2. k jQk 4 r^ssn^aee bfjcrd MtMl nl^ I'lU^rna) Page 1 or 2 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Continued DEMOGRAPHICS What is your gender? What is your ethnicity? How many years of teaching I Have you worked for ths SMART\n:T: Male CT Fema'e LJ Caucasian O African-American I ' Hispanic G Asian MuKl-Eihnic experience do you have? F\" 1-5 years 3 6-10 years i 11 -15 years 2? 16-20 years (2i more than 20 years Of TTiRIVE programs at the past? | i Yes O No I What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE Programs? What do you see as the least effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Thank you for your inputl \"\nLHV?FTfCr MEMPHIS A RfftKV [n2ri:^ien An Eqaai Opp\u0026gt;^Janin  AcJtvn bMvtntt. Page 2 or 2SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire tHRCT!C^5' .VI ' Dear ParenVGuardian\nYour child has participated in either the SMART and/or THRIVE program and we would like your impressions of the programs. Please take a moment to answer these questions about the programs. Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please give the completed form to your child to return lo the next THRIVE class. What is the gender of your child? f ,i Mate O Female P ease tel' us yt/ur i'lipression of .he THRIVE p'ojrain What do yo.. see as\nak ng olaoe dt.iirg ihc sess arc? What is the ethnicity of your child? G Caucas an i ' A'rican-Amercar G' Hispanic i._ Asian ~ Mjlti-Elnnic O Other Please indicate your agreement with the following items related lo tlie THRIVE Progiam. _______ H 1, The teachers in this program ma^e my Ofld tees that ha/sho can succeed. Because of this program, my cniid is more mofvated to compieie a-^ebra homework. 1 i 3. Thia program has hsfped improve my chiJds attrtude about math. a 4.1 am comlonab e having my crTd aitand classes on Saturdays. H 5. Because of tfiis orogram. I have seen an improvement In my child's Algebra I grades. I 6. Overall. I th-hk this is a good program._______________________________________  T. How dd you find out about THRIVE?_____________________ __________________  , ( i C, ( J \u0026lt;  C .z~!. T3 . I 1 i. J  8. What oo you tike about the THRIVE program? I 9. What, if Miythkig. woukt you change about the THRIVE program? f------ ------ -  10. Was transportation a problem? Please explain. If your child attended SMART last summer, please respond to the following Hems. If your child has NOT attended SMART, please stop here and send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. 1 I SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire Continued P ease Id us your i''i[jcssio'i cl IIic SMART pro\njra-n. 'I d.3 yyj S2e as tak nc\nolact- (lir ng (lie s\nSIOIIS? 1 I i I J Please indicate youi agreement SMART Program. ilh tlie loitowing items relaleti to Ilie 1, Became c\u0026lt; tf^TXDgwn, my cniW fen WWshe oouid sucxeed In Math. 2. The summer classes *ere easy tor my child to atterd. 3. This program helped improve my chfitfa arttode abosA Main, 4. I am comforlab  havng my cnild anerxJ c-asses during the summer. 5. TWs program \u0026lt;gd a pood job of fxaparihg jny child (or begmning Atgetxa Hn the faB. 8. Hoim dM you find out a\u0026amp;oot SMART?___________________________________ L 7. Wa did you like ifecwt 8MAHT? 8. What, if an\niTiiiu?. !, wotrfd you chffixy about SMART? 9. Was tranaponation a prooletn? Plaaae expialn. ! I, 0^.0 -. O ' X ! I t ( 3 o : g Thank you (or your input! Please send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. p.T LH.flSrV MEMPHIS A rfKKfUrt bfiarit of As /.pr-* Artioii L'-Kj^mity Page 2 of 2SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire DiHKrnoxjT WAXC UAjtXt 2005^ Ceobtr^^ UtitNffvh rt CdasiXiiWii P-sitf)- aS Dear Student: Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about THRIVE. Thank you lor your time and attention. - Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. -- Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. What Is your age? j What is your gender? O Male O Fema'e What is your ethnicity? f ' Cairasian r.. Afca'^Araccin Hsqarw LJ Asiar? J J MuR\u0026gt;-Eirr: 1 O O(fiaf .9 Ploabc inuicaie tiie exicnl to Lvhicti you agiee will: the {ollov.'irig items related to tlic THRIVE Program. 1.  2.  3.  4. I 5. H 6.  7.  8.  9.  to. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will Cto well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because ol THRIVE. tn THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking quesbons In THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. What do you like about THRIVE?__________ ________________________ fU L*r (Z) 3 P' I J '3 CD pl O rj \u0026lt;_L\u0026gt; I I f::) co I - r- C\nC' L- ' L-- I. ' L.  3 n r I 11. 'What woutd you change about theTTifflVE progratnT 12. 13. If THRIVE has helped you, describe HOW H helped you How is THRIVE different from your regular Algebra I class? ! If you DID NOT attend the SMART Program last summer, STOP HERE. rr you DID attend SMART last summer, go to the next page. SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire Continued Complete (his seclicn CJNLY il you weio enrolled in SMART ou'iiiy the summer of 2G04. 1. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. C'i 1 2. SMART made algebra more fun. 3. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. c'-5 L 4. I was motivated to go to my SMART class Airing ths summer. 5. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. n GJ (?) 6. What do you like about SMART? 7. What would you change about the SMART program? 8. It SMART helped you, describe HOW. Thank you for your input! MEMPHIS Aa UntvffMr, ) 03 G CO KI G I \nI V} t ' l I Page 2 of 2 SMART Mentor Focus Group Protocol Due to the small number of mentors, all mentors will be invited to attend the focus group. The focus group sessions will be tape-recorded only, no video-taping, and mentors will be asked not to give their names. What are perceptions and perceived impacts of participating mentors regarding SMART impacts?  Tell me about SMART. How would you describe it to a student who asked you what it was?  How does the mentoring work? Tell me about what you do for SMART.  Do you think SMART is helping students? If so, how? o o Prompt: Do you think it is improving their math skills? Prompt Do you think it is improving their attitude toward math?:  Would you recommend SMART to other students? Why? Why not?  What have you learned through working with SMART?Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Year-Round Education (YRE) Teacher Survey Student Survey Parent SurveyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree 1. I have been more interested in my education this year. a o 2. I like having a number of short vacation periods. o J 3. 1 think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did in the regular 9-month calendar. o 4. The extended-year-educational program should be offered to all Little Rock School District students. a 5. My teachers have been more patient and helpful. 6. I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. 7. I look forward to coming to school. J 8. I have liked the intersessions. 9. My parents like the extended-year program. o 10. I want my school to continue with this program. 11. Intersession has helped me be a better student. o (Answer #11, only if you have attended at least one intersession) School Cloverdale Mabelvale _\u0026gt; Mitchell _ Stephens Woodruff Grade r 3rd 7 4th 3 Sth Gender Male Female Ethnicity Black White OtherLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT SURVEY FOR EXTENDED-YEAR SCHOOL -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple A. Number of Children in Extended-Year I r B. Grade School 1 2 3 4 or more K 1 2 3 4 5 Please indicate the grade level(s) of each of your children. C. Other Children Please indicate if you have other children attending school on a regular August to May school calendar. O Elementary O Middle School Senior High D. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff O o o o o o a O O 1 r E. Race F. Gender O Black O White C, other O Male O Female I No Opinion I Disagree Agree 1. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. [ O 2. My children like having a number of short vacation periods. O 3. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. 4. My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9- month school. O 5. Our personal family life activities such as church, ...__X AHorfon o I./UI uciownw ----- .er X J scouts, clubs, etc., have not been effected. 6. My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. O 7. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. I 8. I want my children to continue in this program.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Teacher Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I  1 1. 2. 3. I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree My students show a greater interest in their educational program. My students like having a number of short vacation periods. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. 4. My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. 5. Parents are more involved in their children's education on the extended-year schedule. 6. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. 7. 8. 9. 7) O O a 3 I want my school to continue with this program. My students benefit from their intersession more than they have in their past regular summer school experiences. The extended-year-educational schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. 10. The extended-year-educational schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. 11. The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. 12. Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Gender Male Female o o I j Ethnicity Black White Other ilRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. S/T Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and S/T experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. YRE Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and interview RR teachers. Select technical specialist \u0026amp; school samples, observe classes, interview program coordinator \u0026amp; tech, specialist by phone. Observe Thrive sessions. Develop instruments with PRE review. March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR teacher interviews. Survey CL Teachers (at faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations\ncomplete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Develop instruments with PRE review \u0026amp; review archival data. May-June Profile RR achievement\nanalyze records/archival data analyses. Analyze records/archival data analyses. July-September Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Complete focus groups Analyze achievement and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. October Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Administer teacher, tutor, student questionnaires, lead focus groups, \u0026amp; observe classes. Analyze achievement, survey, \u0026amp; interview data. Draft reports for review. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 received AUG 2 9 2005 BESEQREGMWHSjMIflW# LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the fourth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. B. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 99 c. D. 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 E. consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . 99 F. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-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. 99 G. H. 1. J. K. 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 due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of September 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues its activities, as stated in this fourth quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The comprehensive program assessment process, devised by the PRE Department and approved by LRSD Board of Directors December 16, 2004, includes school portfolios among a spectr\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":25,"next_page":26,"prev_page":24,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":288,"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}}]}}