{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_124","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":["2004-05","2004-06"],"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/124"],"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 CEIVED J' \\l~ 1 - 200~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUC'ifE .F TORING 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.kl2.ar.us May 28, 2004 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 Dr. Kenneth James, Director 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 BNfHOl/NOV/ NOl1V93H93S3U :l033H:l0 OOl - I tmr 03Al303H RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 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 - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Luke Gordy, Van Buren  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUM 1 - 2004 Off\\CE OF DESEGREG~TION ,10NITORIMG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 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 May 2004. Respectfully Submitted, .gJt_gdb Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 28, 2004, 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. 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION r,10NITOR!NG V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Endin_g 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, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 On April 30, 2004, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 03/04 were as follows: LRSD - $43,548,659 NLRSD - $22,970,520 PCSSD - $41,700,933 The allotments of State Equalization FundinQ calculated for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $53,226, 139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 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, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, 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 SeNices Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic _adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, totaled $10,189,336. Allotment calculated for FY 03/04 was $12,459,153 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, 2004 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, 2003 were: LRSD - $3,252,281 NLRSD - $2,817,736 PCSSD - $8,974,855 The allotments calculated for FY 03/04 at April 30, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4, 192,396 NLRSD - $3,832,804 PCSSD - $11,854,856 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, 2004 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, 2004 In January 2003, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 02/03 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. L. ADE pays districts three-equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Encfmg Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In September 2003, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $3,835,562.00 NLRSD - $742,399.62 PCSSD - $2,252,050.92 In September 2003, General Finance made the first 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 2003, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $1,243,841.33 NLRSD - $263,000.00 PCSSD - $727,406.63 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 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, 2004 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. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. N. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) 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. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD- 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, 1he ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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 Magn-et 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. 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. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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. 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, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1 . Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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, 2004 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 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. 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 , 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1 , 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. 10 V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring.(Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. 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, 2004 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, 2004 (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 an_d 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 May 31, 2004 (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, 2004 (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, 2004 (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 LASO on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to. improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 1 O, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 1 O was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 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, 2004 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 20 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, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 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, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 21 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, 2004 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 oard of Education once the process is completed. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature tor repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 com.mittee 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 tor the first time on June 11, 2001 ar9:00 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. 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, 2004 (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 distr.ic15 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, anJ regulations of the Districts. 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, 2004 (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. 26 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, 2004 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, 2004 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, 2004 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 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. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress mad~ 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 opposin~ the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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. 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 May 31, 2004 (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 StateBoard of Education reviewed and aporoved the PMT and its executive summary.tor the month of March. 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, 2004 (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 qt 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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 37 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, 2004 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 38 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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, 2004 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 prograrr,.s. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 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, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 42 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, 2004 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 blaek children. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the AD E'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 sc.\nhool that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 Eock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 Jurie 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 LASO. 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LASO 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 LASO. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 1 O, 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 tor the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership T earns.\" 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 Assessrr,ant Portfolio System Training was provided tor testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 Bl.lilding. 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 obseNation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 Ro.ck. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was condu.:ted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1, 100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 O and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 ~t 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 coukJbecome involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE reoelved from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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. oo 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known sp~aker 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 AAP. 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (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 ln-seNice workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and lnternet --.-eb sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, Natisnal Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School ln-seNice workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited SteVn Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training. On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACTAAP, including how to find information on the AS-IS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". On December 1 O - 12, 2002, the Math Workshop \"Investigations in Number, Data and Space\" was held at the Clinton Elementary Magnet School in Sherwood. Training for Kindergarten and First Grade Teachers was held on December 10, and included Making Shapes and Building Blocks, Quilts, Squares and Block Towns. Training for Second and Third Grade Teachers was held on December 11, and included Shapes, Halves, Symmetry and Turtle Paths. Training for Fourth and Fifth Grade Teachers was held on December 12. Fourth grade covered Seeing Solids and Silhouettes. Fifth Grade was about Containers and Cubes. The sessions provided quality time for teachers to discuss the curriculum, reflect on implications, provide mutual support, and co\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1782","title":"Court filings regarding Court order filed May 12, 2004 requiring glossary of acronyms and educational terms, plaintiff's response to the order, 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":["2004-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Court order filed May 12, 2004 requiring glossary of acronyms and educational terms, plaintiff's response to the order, 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/1782"],"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":["70 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing documents in response to the Court order filed May 12, 2004; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing glossary of acronyms and educational terms in response to the Court's order filed May 12, 2004; 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.    A072A (Rev.8182) ECEIVED MAY 1 -\" 2004 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT,COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAY 1 2 - LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --=-=-=-=::-:-:::-:= DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAY 1 '. 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER In preparing for the June 14 and 15 evidentiary hearing on LRSD 's Compliance Report, it is apparent that a number of matters need to be brought to the attention of counsel for LRSD and Joshua: (1) The LRSD Board, in approving the October 10, 2002 \"Compliance Plan,\" also adopted \"IL-Rl ,\" which sets forth ''the written procedures for evaluating the 2. 7 programs.\" While the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan is attached as Exhibit A to LRSD's March 14, 2003 ''Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Court's Compliance Remedy'' (docket entry #3745), \"IL-R 1\" is not attached to that document or otherwise included in the record. Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with a copy of \"IL-RI.\" (2) Exhibit A to LRSD's \"Compliance Report\" is an October 25, 2002 letter from Mr. John Fendley, one of LRSD's attorneys, to all parties, responding to certain written \"concerns\" raised by Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, regarding 864 A072A (Rev.8/82) LRSD's proposed \"Compliance Plan.\" In oroer for the Court to place Mr. Fendley's October 25, 2002 letter in context, I need the following additional documents: (a) Mr. Walker's October 10 and 24, 2002 letters to Mr. Fendley raising his \"concerns\" about the \"Compliance Plan\"; and (b) a copy of the document that Mr. Fendley repeatedly quotes Mr. Walker referring to in his October 10 and October 24, 2002 letters as ''your document.\"1 Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with copies of the foregoing documents. (3) In my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I thought I made it clear that I am a big fan of plain English and have no desire to learn the acronym-filled lexicon of the professional educator. Therefore, I am now directing counsel to comply with the following rules in all oral and written communications with the Court in this case: (a) Do not use any educational acronyms unless they are first defined. The pleadings that I have reviewed to date in preparing for the June 14 and 15 hearing are littered with references to \"SAIPs,\" \"DRAs,\" \"DIBELs,\" \"ELLA,\" \"CRT,\" \"SMART,\" \"THRIVE,\" \"ACTAAP,\" \"SREB,\" \"CREP,\" and \"SFA.\" Counsel for LRSD must immediately prepare a glossary which defines all acronyms used in all exhibits attached to LRSD's Compliance Report. A copy of this glossary is to be provided forthwith. 11 speculate that \"your document\" is probably LRSD's \"Compliance Plan,\" which I already have. If my speculation is correct, LRSD's counsel should so advise me and need not provide the Court with a copy of that document. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) (b) During the hearing on June 14 and I 5, please instruct your witnesses to testify usingplain English- not professional educatorese. Based upon the parties' previous written submissions and testimony taken in earlier hearings, I fear this may pose a significant challenge for some of the witnesses (and me). If so, I encourage these witnesses to begin now to practice speaking in plain English, so that they will be ready to testify by the June 14 and 15 hearing. ( 4) On or before June 7, 2004, counsel for Joshua and LRSD must submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under Section VII of the Court's September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. (5) On April 22, 2004, we had a telephone conference during which LRSD's Compliance Hearing was rescheduled from April 26 and 27, 2004, to June 14 and 15, 2004. During that telephone conference, I stated that I would make every effort to render my decision on LRSD's Compliance Report by June 30, 2004. Based upon my current work load, I now believe the earliest I will be able to enter my decision is thirty to sixty days after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this / ~ay of May, 2004. -3- TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Robert Pressman Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley \u0026gt; .-'/Z-v'( Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 781-862-1955 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 - TI1ere are j_ pages, including this Cover Sheet, being s~nt by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2004 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing states: 1. Attached are the following documents requested by the Court in its Order filed May 12, 2004: A. Little Rock School District Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 (Appendix 1 of which is \"IL-RI\"); B. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002; and, C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walker's references to \"your document,\" the Court is correct that Mr. Walker is referring to the Proposed Compliance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 1 of 3 3. As to the educational acronyms, Counsel has requested that the authors of the comprehensive evaluations immediately prepare a glossary of acronyms used in their respective evaluations. These will be consolidated into a single glossary for all exhibits and provided to the Court as soon as possible. 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 BY: { P,,, ~ \\-..U ._ Christopher Heller Page 2 of 3 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 May 13, 2004: 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~\\UP-..~ Christopher Heller Page 3 of 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan 2.7.1 ...  EXHIBIT I ft The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Section 2. 7 .1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan  2. 7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g. , all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance  Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent t!1ey may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. *** F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with 2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Court's Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Court's Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Court's Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan; numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Court's use of the term \"assessment\" in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesley's testimony on the difference between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation,\" see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3 It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between \"testing data,\" which . are derived from student assessments, and \"program evaluations,\" which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. See Opinion, p. 152 (''LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the \"program evaluations\" to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 ... \" (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term \"assessment\" in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Compliance Committee to determine the District Court's intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Court's findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African-American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term \"assessment\" to refer to student assessments and the term \"evaluation\" to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Given Paragraph A's reference to ''testing data,\" it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part, student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02. The administration recommended this for three reasons: (1) the loss of instructional time resulting from testing and test preparation; (2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous spring' s results; and (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall administration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD. This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26, 2002. Third, the LRSD will no longer administer the AL Ts. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the AL Ts for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks; (2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4 - testing and test administration; (3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSD's administration of the ALTs redundant; and (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26, 2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") has moved the administration of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade2 Grade4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, IL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5 Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, ~ Robby Champion, \"Map Out Evaluation Goals,\" Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached as Appendix 3. This regulation will be submitted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for review and comment before being :finalized. Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Court's concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 (\"I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters' worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSD's African-American students were actually working.\"). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\". See Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 6 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: ( a) Primary Reading/Language Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15, 2004. Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare new, comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph A's description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD \"must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 . . . \" The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of \"some of the key programs,\" as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (\"In addition to the \"Assessment Plan,\"  2. 7 .1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing \"evaluations\" of some of the key programs designed to improve African-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs.\" (emphasis in original)). In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations \"of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. See Opinion, p. 156 (\"[A]s of March 15, 2001 , the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court: (1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question; (2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board . .. . \" (emphasis in original)). The District Court's statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, \"All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003.\" However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 until March 15, 2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15, 2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of\"the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7.\" See Paragraph A of Compliance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph A's requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31, 2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15, 2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest time and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve African-American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph C's requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert \"to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report\" applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include \"[a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing .... \" Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the external consultant \"may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation.\" Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSD's practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows: 1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . He was asked to Fead a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (''NSF\") program officer who over-sees the LRSD's implementation of the grant-funded 8 3. 4. Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement (\"CPMSA\"). NSF trained a team ofLRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate our :findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage ( computer programmer). Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (\"ESL\") program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education administration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson ( assistant superintendent), Krista Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, technical and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending on the expertise that is required for a credible report. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed: 1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of 2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years: 1999-2000, 2000-01 , and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (\"SEDL'') to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watson's principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 11. Collaborative Action Team (\"CAT\"). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. 12. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, \"LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court ''will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications.\" It is unclear whether an \"expert from outside the LRSD\" must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, or whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with \"similar qualifications.\" The District Court's findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified ''that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations.\" Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be \"completed\" by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committee's proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Compliance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving African-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to \"complete\" an evaluation. 11 Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CL Ts during 2000-01 . A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CL T training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12 - Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this Week of September 30, Clay Fendley proposed Compliance Plan 2002 Ken James to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, Week of October 7, 2002 Attorneys suggested revisions from Ken James ODM and Joshua. Compliance Team 3. Place Compliance Plan October 10, 2002 Ken James on the agenda for Board Attorneys review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 13 - 8. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 10. Form a screening team Late October 2002 Ken James to determine Compliance Team recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 11. Select and negotiate Mid-November 2002 Bonnie Lesley consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff Mid-November 2002 Ken James to each external expert to Bonnie Lesley provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to Mid-November Bonnie Lesley ensure timely completion. 2002-February 2003 14. As each J)aper is December 2002-February Bonnie Lesley completed and ready for 2003 circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 14 - 15. As each paper is December 2002-F ebruary Ken James completed, place on the 2003 Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim March 15, 2003 Attorneys Compliance Report relating Compliance Committee to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's - Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 15 - 21. Monitor the completion May-October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and - Joshua for information. 25. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. - 16 Appendix 1 Proposed IL-Rl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Boardapproved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994 ). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows:  Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed.  Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance.  Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of cljents and other specified stakeholders.  . Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear.  Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1  Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion.  Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.  Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained.  Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted.  Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.  Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants.  Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it.  Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated  with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed.  Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed.  Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2   evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluator's allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated.           Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively.  Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3   Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for th~ production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team shall include, at a minimum, one or more specialists .in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4 as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (See Policy IL, 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must be included. (See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports 'to the Superintendent's Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua lntervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; 5 Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). \"Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches.\" Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks:  to monitor the completion of assignments;  to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data;  to pose any necessary new questions to be answered;  to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer;  to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of AfricanAmerican achievement;  to assist in final proofreading; and  to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board's agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua lntervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 6 11. The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilson's \"Compliance Remedy\"): A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See \"Joellen Killion (2002). \" Evaluate the Evaluation.\" Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7 Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions \"Academic Program\" means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. \"Significantly modify\" means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program; (b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 1 Appendix 3 Robby Champion, \"Map Out Evaluation Goals,\" Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002 78 .CHAMPION ,;Map .out evaluat:i:o.n  goals A master plan can guide yo_u down the rocky path of ~valuatio~  W . hen you launch a inajor professional dev~lop,nent evaluation, regardless of the . project's scope, you may quickly find yourself on a slippery, often rocky road, . . . . with twists and unexpected turns. . .  Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a  master plan. While itTequires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avciid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are ~aunching a major, summative program evaluation. A \"summative\" evaluation is done at major junctures in a  program's life. cy~le and emphasizes . docu~ menting impact Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue,  alter, expan.d, downsize, or eliminate it A \"formative\" evaluation, on the other hand, means  monitoring and collecting.data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Fonnative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would:  Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions;  Create a realistic tirneline and work plan that  Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting. You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbell'Canyon, Mora, NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-.mail: Robbychampion@aol.com. provides .needed momentum for the work; . :  Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions . throughout the process;  Help recruit people to assist with the project ' on.the myriad evaluation.tasks;   Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whetper your evaluation must be   completed within a few months or will extend . for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE  PROCESS  L Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. . 2. Learn moreabout program evaluation together.  3: Write a clear description of each  program to be.evaluated: 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the ,evaluation. . .5. Plan how you will keep. everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically  . with program evaluati_on, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities might push the effort aside. . Provide steering committee members with the tools to ~ucceed. Mem~ers need not be evalu- National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002. : .on:experis, but they do need informa- . . . on, support, and guidance to make infoirued decisions .. They need background material to learn about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on prof~ssional development, measurement, arid the content areas of the training programs. Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the \"New Teacher..Induction Program\" or  the \"Early Literacy Initiative\" since s6 many different initiatives are being under-  ta.ken simultaneously arciund the school or  district.  PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the  evaluation.'  2. Generate potential data sources/ . instruments to address the questions .. a  3. Using a matrix to provide a j. . Wrd's-eye .view, agree on the most important questions .and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to m~e the evaluation manageable.  5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense: quantitative vs. qualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data. collection. .7. Detennine a realistic schedule for . collecting data. . . 8. Create a system for coJiecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase II are critical. They detennine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine  and what to ignore. When you finish with ~ the design phase, your program evaluation Will be shaped to .use a quantitative or a , qualitative model - or a mixture of the two. In the design phase, you make other - jor decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to  do ~ in-depth case study, whether to t a It j .n g m e :a s :u r e ON THE WEB. See. an example of a matnx.'to help guide evaluations at:  www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ champion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of student work instead of official do_cuments such as .student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to . judge adult learners' understanding of the training .content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or student feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate , evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering cornmittee may drift  into the realm of program planning as you  encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve prograrnJeaders in your discussions . Developing or gathering insn:uments and then collecting the data:are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect,  from whom to collect it. or where to find it, and the best time to collect it Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some public records, such as student attendance, may be valuable if, for example, \"20% increase in student attendance at all grade levels\" is one of your program's indica-  tors of impact PHASE  Ill: PREPARE TO REPORT  1 .. Determine which audiences will want to .lrnow the results. 2. Consider several forums and  formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results usefuJ. to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about . the schedule for data collection, five- . JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council minute progress updates in faculty meet- . ings, bulleted statements on your.web site, a digital picture. album of the program's results in classrooms with . photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with exampl~s of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of . five pages or less to belp;readers get the essential information, PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for  the whole eve.luatiori .. 2. Create a realistic timeline. . 3. Assign work . . .4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomplish all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project. Enlist .stee~g committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented .critical friends to get' the work done.  One caution: .For formal or sumrnative evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the. program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to pe:rf orm critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality technical . expertise for the ritical technical  analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation. usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, policies, and. practices of your prof es-' . s1onal development programs - their goals, content, processes, and. contexts. In fact,revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major  changes are needed if. significant results are really expected from professional  development. People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. II 79 JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark . 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LA w 1723 BROADWAY LI'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITI'LE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net - This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSD's proposed Compliance Plan. The court's remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before today's Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementation pursuant to Section 2.7 . .. \", which are to be subjected to a \"comprehensive program evaluation . . . \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions / \"scaffolding\" -- areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wtlson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate. The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the court's remedy. - 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluat~io111ns------.. \"\" EXHIBIT t5 i mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns, which Joshua ma'y ultimately have about the court's remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the court's views on an appropriate remedy. JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record ----------- - ------------ OCT.24.2002 9:06AM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHNW. WA.LR:ER SID.WN CRILDS Mr. Christopher Heller JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L!'M'LE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: N0 . 963 P.2 Oli'COUNBEL ROBERT McBENR.Y, P.A. DONNAJ. McHENXY 821D Hzm\u0026gt;ERSON ROAD Lmu Rocx, ARKANshS 72210 P'l!ONE: (5-01) 372-3425  PAX (501) 372-8428 :E;MAn.: mchemyd@awb\u0026lt;ill.net _ 1bis letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration. l. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data In the past, LRSD bas used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the ''team\" process for preparin,g evaluations, again in the context of \"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LR.SD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the ~ntent of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory p~rf ormance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board oftbe evaluations which it .;., - . j EXHIBIT I C, 10/ 24 / 2002 THU 09: 03 [TX/ RX NO 8580 l ~ 002 -------- --- ------------- ,,. o. r,-,,T.. . 24. 2002 8: 07AM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.963 P.3  Page Two October 23, 2002 requires the staff to undertake should make clear th.at the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of A:fricnn American students for the indefinite future, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/ 2002 THU 09 : 03 [TX/RX NO 8580] la)003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAY 2 n 2004 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing states: 1. fu response to the Court's Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of - Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol g~ B~ Page 1 of 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 May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 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 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 w. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 2 of 2 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS - Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan) - Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALT's in September 2002. ANCOV A (Analysis of Covariance) ANO VA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for correct answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) -Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses student's individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areas-reading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking. CAP (Concepts about Print) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses children's knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team)-A process designed to increase stakeholders' involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories) - Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams) - A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a child's progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral r~ading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. - EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE - An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help 8th and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program ffiPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of curriculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement Test JR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science) - A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ- Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items correctly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank corresponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science education NSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31, 2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence)-A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) -A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through 3rd Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACT AAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying - formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth. (Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, community members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8th and 9th grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address . pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score :- Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesn't mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional \"raw scores.\"  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvement TAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared. Arkansas RECEIVED J~l~ 1 - 2004 DEPARTMENT OF EDUC4ETE8fiuromNG 4 STATE CAPITOL MAil.  LfITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http:/ / arkedu.kl2.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director May 28, 2004 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 BNIHDllNDW NDllVB3HB3S30 :l033l:l:l0 +aoz - r nnr 03/\\l303H RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 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 - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Luke Gordy, Van Buren  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUH 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION faONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 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 2004. Respectfully Submitted, ,g1t ii.db Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 28, 2004, 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. 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION ;;i ONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Endin9 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_1048","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":["2004-05"],"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--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/1048"],"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.\nRECEIVED MAY 1 1' 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting CONGRATULATIONS GRADUATES May2004 :- C').., \ntl i=C ..... !I: Oz o\u0026gt;\nc\nc c-\u0026lt; m-n\nc C: -z\nc C') 0 ..... ,.... l5 r-z C')(I) \u0026gt; ~ ..,\nc g ~m mC ,.... C: C')~ o,.... ~~ =l m\nc \"' \u0026gt;. ~.,, \"'O .C.:, _X :-'I!, nx =l rr \u0026gt; C\": g8 z1!: en-c z u !l j\na :z !=' C') ..... \u0026gt; - I. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING *May 20, 2004* 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School, represented by Eleanor Cox \u0026amp; Shara Hampton McDonald's - Geyer Springs \u0026amp; Baseline Stores, represented by Kristen Nosier 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 * Rescheduled from May 27 to allow for high school graduations. C') \"0 ),,:,C . m ~c .... :1: Oz o\u0026gt; :,c:,C m0--\u0026lt;.,\na C: -z\nan o---\u0026lt; rr--cz5 C')\"' ,,\u0026gt;...... -- Proposed Agenda for May 20, 2004 Page 2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 04-22-04 Special Meeting- 05-13-04 B. Personnel Changes C. Rehire of Staff Members D. Contract Negotiations VI. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION: A. Federal Grant: Smaller Learning Communities B. Federal Grant: Community Technology Center C. State Grant: 21 st Century Community Learning Center D. State Grant: Enhancing Education Through Technology Grant E. State Grant: Arkansas Better Chance for School Success F. Adoption of Health Textbooks G. Adoption of Family \u0026amp; Consumer Science Textbooks and Industrial Technology Education Textbooks VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: A. Act 1220 - Recommendation for Compliance B. CARE Program Tuition Increase C. Student Handbook Revisions, 2004-05 VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. ADJOURNMENT (')\"ti \u0026gt;. ~m ~c .... :i::: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ om--\u0026lt;., ~c -z ~(') ,o---c\u0026lt;5 r-z C') u, \u0026gt; := PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME Ill. REPOl\u0026lt;lli/Kt:\u0026lt;.:OONIIIUN:. A. SUPT. CITATIONS 0 . t'M.l'\\lllCf\\.\nJ 111 ~uvvn 1,..., ,. D. CTA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 May 20, 2004 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education o/ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnership.~ 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. The following school and business have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnership: Baseline Elementary School and McDonald's-Geyer Springs and Baseline stores !I' ~ C: 0 m .C,,: .z.. . O:,,. ?\n!:l mc5 z I: zm... . ~ a, C: 8 .m.. .C,,: ~... m a, 0z 0., , .~.. .nm.. . C/) BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3623 Baseline Rd. Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Partnership Agreement between Baseline Elementary and McDonald's Restaurant - Geyer Springs \u0026amp; Baseline Stores McDonald's Restaurant agrees to do the following: Present an assembly with Ronald McDonald during Red Ribbon Week (2004 - October 291h or other date during the week of October 25) Furnish one or more readers for VIPS reading day (2 nd Tuesday in November) Purchase uniforms Mentor two students Provide an opportunity for one or more intermediate students to job shadow at McDonald's (sometime during the month of February) Furnish a Career Day speaker Provide an opportunity for small group field trips to McDonald's for intermediate students Furnish flyers and coupons for a Baseline family night at McDonald's Geyer Springs location 3 or 4 times a year Participate in Baseline's community service project Sponsor a family for Christmas Sponsor a child by providing uniforms and school supplies Baseline Elementary agrees to do the following: Choir and/or drill team will perform for McDonald's during the holidays or other special events as arranged Collaborate with McDonald's on a float or banner for the Southwest Christmas Parade (usually the Saturday after Thanksgiving) Furnish a calendar of school events and invite McDonald's personnel to appropriate events Provide appropriate tokens of appreciation for partnership LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Junious Babbs OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 447-2955 E-Mail: junious.babbs@lrsd.org THROUGH: SUBJECT: Dr. Morris Holmes, Superintendent Student Assignment Update DATE: May 20, 2004 Student Assignment Committee Update The first session of the Student Assignment Committee has been set to convene in the LRSD Board Room, 810 W. Markham, on Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Patty Barker's name has been added to the committee. Appropriate information has been provided. Periodic updates will be given to keep you up on where things are. Mr. Daugherty, Co-Chair, may address additional updates and/or response to questions. Brown 50th Anniversary May 17, 2004 marked the 50th Anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. (A ruling by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court that outlawed school segregation in the United States). This ruling is of significant importance and has had lasting implications in Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. LRSD presently detects strength, taking pride in our diversity and embracing a broad range of opportunity. As we acknowledge this anniversary and enter the '04-05 school year, we will take time to reflect on historical and present issues that result from this event. Additional information may be accessed via the LRSD website ( w\\\\'\\\\. lrsd.org). Pre-K 4 Year-Old Program Expansion Application is being made to the Arkansas Department of Education for Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS). The district is seeking funding for approximately sixty-six (66) PreK classrooms for 4-year-olds. We await notification in early-mid summer to initiate 2004-05 student application and assignment. :..n.. m C') :z:c 0 8 -\u0026lt; :,\n, m i3 :: r\u0026gt; a, C 8 .m... C.. , .~... m ~ a, C oc z: O\u0026lt; ..,: :,\n,of C... m, C..'.). . en : r' )\u0026gt; C: !: C \"Cl \"\"\"t C \" ,,,. \\J, '~c. I -::::..,: j . , \\ ~1/ '.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: May 20, 2004 Board of Directors Donald M. Stewk\ninancial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Bill Goodman ~~ May 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects Please note the number of projects that are under construction. All are scheduled for completion by the start of the 2004-05 school year. The only exceptions are the interior renovation of Central High School and the renovation/addition to Dunbar Middle School. The Central project will be completed before the start of the 2005-06 school year. The Dunbar project is scheduled for completion late this fall. The contract for partial asbestos abatement and the microbial remediation at Mitchell has been awarded. The contractor has sixty (60) days to complete this work. Once completed, the remodeling work for Mitchell will begin. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us S01-124-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 :.n.. p:: :,:: z 0,. . 8 -\u0026lt; ::0 m ~ ~ ~ ::0 m :,:: ~ .0. , ~,..., .., !T )\u0026gt; C !: C\n, Cl\n, \"\"t C\n, Facility Name Baseline Booker Brady Central Dunbar J. A. Fair Geyer Springs Henderson McClellan Mitchell Parkview Pulaski Hgts. Elem Pulaski Hgts. MS Southwest CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY20, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I Project Description Cost I t::st. completron Date Renovation $953,520 Jul-04 Roof $48,525 Aug-04 Addition/renovation $973,621 Aug-04 . Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Aug-05 Renovation/addition I $6,149,023 Dec-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music I room addition I $3,155,640 May-04 Roof Repair $161 ,752 Aug-Qi Lockers $80,876 Aug-04 1 Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 I Building Remediation $165,000 I Jul-04 Addition $2,121,226 . Jun-04 Renovation I $1,193,259 Aug-04 Renovation $3,755,041 Aug-04 I Addition I $2,000,000 Aug-04 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 I Jul-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SUMMER2004 Facility Name I Project Description Cost I Est. completJon Date Booker ADA Rest rooms I TBD Au!tQi Central I Reflecting Pond $50,000 Aug-04 Central IHVAC Renovation - Band Area I $225,ooo I Au!tQi Chicot 1Drainage $64,700 Aug-04 Chicot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm $53,919 Aug-04 Mitchell !Renovation $2,212,493 Aug-05 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $15,~ Auq-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Proiect Description Cost I Est. Completion Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown I Unknown Carver I Media Center Expansion I Unknown , Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade I Unknown ! Unknown Cloverdale Elementary Addition Unknown Unknown Dodd 1Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Fair Park Addition Unknown Unknown Forest Heights Remodel $1,400,000 Unknown Garland Remodel Unknown Unknown Gibbs Addition Unknown Unknown Mablevale Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD , Unknown Meadowcliff Remodel I -- --- - - -U-nknown Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS ~gy monitoring system installation . Unknown Unknown Rightsell -- - Renovation -- $2,494,000 ~ ug-06 Washington - Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC -- . $640,0~ -- - Western Hills ~ g-05 ------ -- ----- Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown - Parkinq addition-- ---- - $193,777 - Woodruff Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY20, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I t::st. 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 Annex Energy monitoring system installation I I 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 I 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 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 Energy efficient lighting $80,593 . Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 I Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 I May-01 Carver 1 Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 I Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley I Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central I Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 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 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting I $189,743 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1,393,822 I Nov-02 Dodd Energy efficient lighting I $90,665 Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile I $156,299 I Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 I Aug-02 Facilities Service I Interior renovation i $84,672  Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm I $12,000 l Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm I $315,956 I Apr-02 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting I $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park - Asbestos abatement-ceiling ! $59,310 __ Aug-01 J. A. Fair - --- Energy efficient lighting I $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box _,___ - $10,784 Nov-00 - - -- - - J. -A. F-air- - - Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 - --\nc\n:thletic Field Improvement - $38,000 - J-. A-. F-air --- ---- Jul-03 J-. A. Fair - Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 Roofrepa~ --- J. A. Fair $391 ,871 I - __ ~ug-03 -Forest Pa-rk -- -- Replace window units w/central HVAC I $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking --$111 ,742 Aug-03 -- Forest Park - -- Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 'Energy efficient lighting - Fulbright__ _ $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright --Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,950 - - Aug-01 Fulbright ___ - . Replace roof top HVAC units -- -- $107,835 Aug-0~ Fulbright -- - Parking lot ---- $140,000 - ~-02 FulbriQht Roof repairs $200,000 Oct-02 2 :..\".. ~ :zc 0  -\u0026lt;\n,:, m c3 .\n,.:.,. !l \"t \"\n, (/ C :, \"rn r :, G ' f)\n,:, m :c ~ .0. , ..~..,, !T :,, C: !: C\n, (/\n, \"\"t C ::' CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY20, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Franklin . Renovation $2,511 ,736 Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation ~ $11,770 Jul-01 Hall Major 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 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 I Aug-01 Hall Intercom Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 Henderson Energy efficient lighting I $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC 1 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 --J-ul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm I $1 ,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units i $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,QQQ I Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 Aug-01 Mabelvale MS Renovation I $6,851,621 Mar-04 Mann , Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Apr-04 Mann !Asphalt walks\nThe 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-01 Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 I Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras I $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan Energy efficient lighting I $303,614 I May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom $46,000 Feb-02 McDermott I Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Feb-01 McDermott I Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm I -- $16,175 . Jul-01 -Me-adowcliff Asbestos abatement - $253,412 ~g-02 -Me-adowcliff . Eng~gy efficient lighting $88,297 - Dec-02 Metropolitan __ - - Replace cooling tower - $37,203 - --De-c-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system - $20,000 - ~y-01 Metro~olitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 - Aug-01 Mitchell - - -- ~rgy efficient lighting $103,642 - - ~r-01 Mitchell ___ Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 --- - - Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 -- -- -- ----- --- --- Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 ALJ_g-01 Otter Creek --- -- -energy monitoring system installation ~695 May-01 Otter Creek Energy~fficient lighting - - - $81,828 . Apr-01 - Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 - -- --- -- - - -Ott-er Creek -- Parking lot - - $138,029 - ~g-02 Otter Cree-k - 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 - - --- - Otter Creek Parkinq Improvements $142,541 Auq-03 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 20, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement ' $273,877 Sep-01 Parkview 'Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls I $301,938 Aug-01 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 I Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground $17,000 I Dec-02 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 I Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 SecurityfTransportation , Bus cameras I $22,500 I Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof I $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage I street widening $250,000  Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 I Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 I Dec-01 Technology Upgrade . Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terrv Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 I Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington 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 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 I Jul-01 Williams Renovation i $2,106,492 - Mar-04 Williams Parking expansions\n- $183,717 -De-c-03 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 ~ Feb-04 -- - - Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff - Renovation ' $246,419 Aug-02 4 =\" -\u0026lt; Ill :z:c 0 r 8 -\u0026lt;\n,c m ~ ~ 9..,' n\ni (/ C :, :, ,n. ~ a G ' !\"\u0026gt;\n,c m ::c ~ 0.. , en \u0026gt;..,.,, !T )\u0026gt; C !: C\ni (/\ni .n., C ~ Date: May 20, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From: ~andy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - May This is the fifty-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. 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 Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. f) :,0 m % ~ 0.. , ~ .)...\u0026gt;,, Audit Report - May 2004 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial 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. 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: May 20, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  On May 3 professional development sessions were held at all schools to provide training to staff in the integration of technology into the curriculum. Teacher trainers at each school provided the training after coming to the IRC for training from Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Comments from principals and teachers have been very positive with requests to provide similar sessions in the future.  Since the last Board meeting we have received notification on our E-rate applications for this year: o Our 2003-2004 applications for WAN lease, telephone service, electronics and cabling were all not funded. The reason given is that our documentation did not prove that price was the primary factor in selecting the vendor. We will appeal this decision. Some of these same applications have been funded in the past. o The E-rate web site this week posted a commitment to fund media retrieval systems in the amount of $1.3 million for 8 LRSD schools. Those schools are Brady, Fair Park, Franklin, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Wakefield, and Watson.  Henderson Middle School has been approved to get an EAST lab next year. This brings the LRSD total of EAST labs up to 10. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical April 22 - May 20, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. ?' ,: n\nI'. \"C :a :a n,. C' ~ G ' p\n,o m ::c ~ 0.. , ~..,,,, DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 20, 2004 Board of Education Beverly Williams,~ector, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. !ll n 0 ii: .if.,.: ~ ::i:: n .mz. . m\no ~ C) !l $! lri .z..Z... C: ~ n h Personnel Changes Page 2 May 20, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified Employees Woods-Cobbs, Sha Rhonda Elem I 8-7-03 Reason: Personal FRANKLIN 4-28-04 Moore, Kenneth Reason: Tennination Means, Barbara NONE NONE Asst. Principal HALL 7-22-96 4-8-04 New Certified Employees Title I SOUTHWEST 3-29-04 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer 2-02 TCH925 66-15 ADC105 6-18 TCHl 1 ANNUAL SALARY 29199.00 57060.00 51099.00 annual 15436.16 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 May 20, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Emplovees Blount, Sandra 0cc. Therapist 2-14-00 60-12 Reason: None Given SPECIAL ED. 3-29-04 AN925 Bunton, Deborah Child utrition 8-12-03 3-01 Reason: None Given HENDERSON 3-2-04 FSH550 Cobbs, Larry Bus Driver 8-17-87 3-11 Reason: Retired TRANS. 2-12-04 BUSDRV Davis, Reshaunda Custodian 9-26-95 1-01 Reason: Health HALL 4-12-04 CUS925 Enlow, Robert Child Nutrition 4-11-03 3-01 Reason: Accepted Another BRADY 4-19-04 FSH550 Position Folsom, Barbara Instr. Aide 9-18-95 1-03 Reason: Retired GEYER SPRINGS 8-7-03 INA925 Henry, Carl Security Officer 4-20-01 30-19 Reason: Accepted Another MCCLELLAN 4-23-04 ANl0 Position Hill, Richard Custodian 1-9-01 3-05 Reason: None Given HENDERSON 4-22-04 CUS12 Houchins, Aliscia Secretary 8-1-00 42-07 Reason: Personal FACILITY SERV. 5-14-04 CLK!2 ANNUAL SALARY 43608.00 8364.00 14954.00 10626.00 8364.00 11970.00 21948.00 18909.00 21948.00 !I' n 0 I: .ii.=. nm ::,: n zm ..... m\no f\u0026gt; ~ C, !l ~i\ni .z...Z.... C:\no -\u0026lt; ,n-n !\"\u0026gt;\no m ::,::\nii m 0.. , .C.l.) ..)..\u0026gt;,, Personnel Changes Page 4 May 20, 2004 NAME Lopez, Juan Reason: Leaving City Lynch, Christine Reason: Accepted Another Position Lynch, James Reason: Retired Lyons, Peggy Reason: Accepted Another Position Parker, Raushanah Reason: None Given Sistrunk, Daphne Reason: None Given Smith, Marika Reason: Personal Smith, Tresa Reason: one Given Alexander, Keith POSITION SCHOOL Custodian SOUTHWEST Custodian BRADY Maintenance FACILITY SERV. Instr. Aide FAIR.PARK Child Nutrition GEYER SPRINGS Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Instr. Aide STEPHENS Adult Ed. ADULT ED. START DATE END DATE 8-11-03 4-2-04 5-5-03 4-22-04 7-30-90 6-1-04 1-20-04 4-16-04 11-3-03 4-5-04 11-10-03 4-5-04 8-25-03 4-28-04 2-19-90 4-8-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS12 1-01 CUS925 49-19 MAINT. 1-10 INA925 3-01 FSH4 3-01 FSH550 1-10 INA925 31-20 A 925 New Non-Certified Emplovees Instr. Aide 4-1-04 1-10 SOUTHWEST INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 13784.00 10626.00 38700.00 14472.00 5917.00 8364.00 14472.00 23304.00 14472.00 annual 3129.08 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 May 20, 2004 NAME Bailey, Ada Boyd, Misty Carter, Charles Floyd, Robert Forte, James Henderson, Keily Iglesias, ZOraida POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide FAIR.PARK Care CARE Labor/Driver FACILITY SERV. Bus Driver TRANS. Instr. Aide SOUTHWEST Care CARE Instr. Aide WASHINGTO START DATE END DATE 5-4-04 4-19-04 4-9-04 4-2-04 4-9-04 4-19-04 4-20-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-02 CARE 40-03 MAINT. 3-04 BUSDRV 1-10 INA925 1-02 CARE 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 10881.00 annual 1117.51 prorated 6.48 per hr. 18343.00 annual 4294.21 prorated 11621.00 annual 2480.89 prorated 14472.00 annual 2659.72 prorated 6.48 per hr. 14472.00 am1ual 2112.13 prorated !II 0 0 :I: .!.I.C. m 0 :c 0 .mz.. . m\n,o ~ ~ C) !l z~Z~ ........ C\n,o -\u0026lt; 0,.. .. 0 ~\n,o m :c\n.\nm .0. , \"...'. ..\u0026gt;..,, Personnel Changes Page 6 May 20, 2004 NAME Johnson, Lott Lanum, Robert McClelland, Bernard Meek, Kimberly Menhart, Gloria Palmer, Jerry POSITION SCHOOL Security Officer FAIR Custodian MCDERMOTT Custodian WOODRUFF Instr. Aide FULBRIGHT Instr. Aide FULBRIGHT Custodian SOUTHWEST START DATE END DATE 4-12-04 4-12-04 3-24-04 4-21-04 4-12-04 4-5-04 SALARY CLASS 36-10 SOFR9 1-01 CUS928 1-01 CUS12 1-01 INA925 1-07 INA925 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 14050.00 annual 2470.33 prorated 10626.00 annual 1963.50 prorated 13784.00 annual 3929.91 prorated 9466.47 annual 1330.42 prorated 7150.76 annual 1004.97 prorated 14849.00 annual 9605.00 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 May 20, 2004 NAME Saler, Maria Scarver, Rachel Williams, Denita NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition HALL Custodian FAIR Security Officer METRO START DATE END DATE 4-6-04 4-12-04 4-22-04 Non-Certified Promotion Non-Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 3-09 FSH550 1-01 CUS925 36-11 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 8686.00 annual 1756.19 prorated 5313 .00 annual 981.75 prorated 14473.00 annual 1908.53 prorated !Jl n 0 E .~... nm ::z: n .mz.. . m \"' r\u0026gt; ~ C\u0026gt; !l ~/\nl .z...Z.... C: \"-\u0026lt;' n,... . n r\u0026gt; \"m' ::z: ~ 0.. , ~....,, '54.n Individual Approach to a World efKno1v/edge\" DATE: May 20, 2004 TO: FROM: Board of Education ~ Ms. Beverly Williams, Director-Human Resources THROUGH: Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Re: Rehire of staff members It is recommended that all certified teachers, except those in intern positions, or those funded with grant funds which end prior to June 30, 2005, be rehired effective May 20, 2004, for the 2004-05 school year. It is recommended that all other Little Rock School District employees be rehired effective May 20, 2004 for the 2004-05 school year, except those in positions funded with grant funds which end prior to June 30, 2005. Any employee who is recommended by the Superintendent for non-renewal or termination pursuant to the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act or the Arkansas Fair Hearing Act is not recommended for rehire for the 2004-05 school year, unless through the grievance process and/or their board hearing the non-renewal or termination recommendation is not upheld. 810 \\Y/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-44 7-1000  fax: 501-44 7-1001\ns \u0026gt;n  C: \",-'\noo gg ~E ZI: -\u0026lt; po z ~ !II n 0 I: ~ -\u0026lt; Ill ::z: n zm -m\u0026lt;\no '~n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" May 20, 2004 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From:  .~orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Prepared by:('f-severly Williams, Director of Human Resources Re: Contract egotiations It is recommended that the following contract revisions be approved as were negotiated with the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. These changes are for the 2004-05 school year and are addendums to the previously negotiated agreements. Transportation- Bus Drivers, Aides, and Monitors Security Officer 810 \\X'. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !ZI 0 0 :I: .~.. p:: ::z: 0 m .z. . m ,ID != n n !Tl \u0026gt; a, 0 V, V, C) ~..... LRSD Board of Directors and the LRCTA Bus Drivers, Aides, and Monitors Negotiated Agreement for the 2004-05 School year 1) Salary: a. 10% for the 2004-05 school year b. There is no guarantee in this package that additional funds allocated to LRSD because of Act 59 and/or changes in the Lakeview Court Settlement will be added to the teacher salary schedule. c. The two top out stipends mentioned on page 46 of the 2000-2003 agreement will be applied for the term of this agreement. 2) Article 21 Employee Benefits (Insurance): 1. Up to $260 for the 2004-05 school year. 2. Employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu of health insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. 3) The language offered by the board proposals on April 16, 2004, relative to Articles 9, 12, 13,14, 19 and pay codes must be agreed to with the following changes: Article 9, Section J (9) or failure Article 9, Section J, Note: Drivers who are convicted of a DWI or who have three moving violations on their driving records are no longer eligible to drive a LRSD School Bus. Such drivers will be reassigned to a LRSD vacant position for which they are qualified and will be compensated at the corresponding grade/step for the new position. If there are no vacant positions or no vacant positions for which they are qualified, then they will be terminated from the Little Rock School District. If a driver commits a third at-fault accident and that at-fault charge is subsequently overturned within three (3) months of the infraction, the driver will be restored to his/her original position. Drivers who have an at-fault accident overturned, within three (3) months and submit proof of this to the District, will have the at-fault status for the accident removed from their personnel file. A1ticle 13, new Section G on LRCTA proposal April 19, 2004 Article 14, Section A, Change future summer employment to summer employment for the next two years 4) Article 14 E (3), Change On or around to By October 1 of each year, (Unless an emergency prevents the Administration from compiling the necessary information.) all routes will be open for bidding. Article 19 E, add the following to the last sentence, except attendance incentive pay. Pay code Changes: 113 to $7.00 400 to $6.00 401 A to $3.50 INS 1 to $10.00 per hour Superintendent Cabinet will be $40.00 5) Current Contract Language will be in effect for articles 1, 2, 8, and 11 !I' n 0 IC .~.. m n % n .zm. . m \"' ~ n n !'\" c\u0026gt;c n \"\"'' C) .z~.. For Board Approval April 16, 2004 Board Proposal #2 ARTICLE 9. DISCIPLINE/nJST CAUSE A. No employee shall be disciplined (including warnings, reprimands, suspensions, reductions in rank, discharge, lay-off, terminations or other actions that would adversely affect the employee) without just and sufficient cause. B. The specific grounds forming the basis for disciplinary action will be made available to the employee and the Association upon request. C. An employee shall be entitled to have present a representative of the Association during any disciplinary action except oral warnings. When a request for such representation is made, no action shall be taken with respect to the employee until such representative of the Association is present provided that the Association representative must be available within twenty-four (24) hours of notice of the impending action. Further, in the event that a disciplinary action is proposed, the employee shall be advised of the right to representation under this provision of the Agreement prior to the action being taken. In the event an employee voluntarily waives their right to representation he/she shall be asked to sign a form stating such intent. D. The employer agrees to follow a policy of progressive discipline which normally includes one (I) written warning, one (I) written reprimand, suspension without pay, and discharge with exception of certain offenses stated in Section J which are grounds for immediate termination or provide for a specified penalty. Any disciplinary action taken against an employee shall be appropriate to the behavior which precipitates said action. Suspension without pay will normally be for 3 to I 0 working days. E. Employees who are terminated shall be given all accrued wages no later than the next payday. F. Employees who have not completed the initial probationary period of six (6) months may be discharged for any cause that is not arbitrary or capricious. 19 G. H. Employees who have not completed the initial probationary period of six (6) months shall not have access to the Grievance Procedure for disciplinary action or discharge. All employees are expected to conform to reasonable standards of performance and conduct. I. There are occasions when persons, because of the nature of their misconduct, may be suspended and recommended for immediate termination. J. Following are examples of serious offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate termination. These offenses may include, but are not limited to: I. Conviction, at a trial court level, of any felony or misdemeanor which is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation or reputation of the school or department. 2. Fighting, threatening or attempting to do bodily injury to an employee or student. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition. 3. 4. Carrying weapons. A weapon is any object that could cause injury to another person or is not required to be in the possession of that employee in the normal course of his/her job. Stealing or misappropriation of property of the School District or the employees of the Little Rock School District. 5. Malicious mischief, the abuse, misuse or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools or equipment of the Little Rock School District or other employees of the LRSD. 6. Altering, tampering or falsification of time cards, \"sign-in out\" rosters or other reporting documents relative to attendance, promptness or departure. 7. Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job or during the duty day\nor the possession of, or introduction of, any alcoholic beverages on LRSD prope1iy at any time. This also includes reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol. 8. Use of non-presc1ibed narcotics, and/or the use, possession, or transmitting on LRSD vehicles or premises of drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. 20 !I' n 0 I: .~.. Ill :c n .mz. . m ::0 ~ IT IT !'\" \u0026gt; \"n' \"\"'' C) z~ ..... 9. Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. 10. Disorderly, disruptive or immoral conduct on LRSD vehicles or premises. 11. The making of or publishing of false, vicious or malicious statements concerning a supervisor or other employee of the Little Rock School District. 12. Falsification of personnel or other official school or insurance records, or making false statements when applying for employment. 13. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning accidents involving school vehicles and/or incidents which are being investigated. 14. Failure to observe or purposefully disregard school district and department policy or procedure. 15. Use of District facilities, personnel, or equipment for non-District purposes. ote: Drivers who are convicted of a DWI or who have three moving violations on their driving record are no longer eligible to drive a Little Rock School District school bus. Additionally, drivers charged with three at fault accidents are no longer eligible to drive a Little Rock School District school bus. Such drivers will be considered for reassignment to other LRSD vacant positions for which they are qualified and will be appropriately compensated at the corresponding grade/step for the new position. However, drivers in this circumstance may request a position as a bus monitor if there are available positions. The decision to allow the driver this option rests 1,1,rith the Director of Transportation aHd will be based OH the driver's seHiority, overall job performaHce, and atteHdaHce. 21 For Board Approval Date: April 13, 2004 Board Proposal #2 ARTICLE 12. EMPLOYEE EVALUATION A. Each employee, upon employment or at the beginning of the school year, whichever is later, shall be apprised in specific terms of his/her responsibilities, which shall be consistent with the District adopted job description. Employees will be informed of the specific criterion upon which they will be evaluated and who is responsible to evaluate the employee. Each employee shall be given a copy of the evaluation form. The evaluator shall distribute this material, including an explanation. Evaluators shall be administrative personnel of the District. Employees shall be evaluated by their immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor will be identified at the time of bidding or when permanent assignments are made. Other observations shall be made in writing at the time of observation. Evaluation criteria shall be based upon the specific skills outlined in District approved job descriptions. Evaluation criteria shall not require the employee to give unreasonable service or loyalty to any individual or to tolerate or endure abusive behavior or dangerous or threatening circumstances. (The evaluatiofl iHstrumeHt shall deHote Good, Fair, Needs Improvemeflt, Needs RetrainiHg for each criteriofl and o,rerall performance and shall have appropriate space for explaHatory commeHts.) B. It shall be the District's responsibility to assist employees in becoming oriented to the District and to improve their work performance through direct observation of the employee. The appropriate supervisor/administrator shall provide written summaries of these observations, together with any recommendations the administrator may have for the employee. All employees shall be evaluated at least once a year with 20 day probation for performance. C. Any employee who disagrees with an observation or recommendation may submit a written answer which shall be attached to the file copy of the observation in question. Any overall unsatisfactory rating, observation or recommendation which adversely affects the employee's standing may be grieved through the grievance procedure. D. All administrators/supervisors involved in performance evaluation shall be fully and properly trained in the techniques and criteria to be used in the evaluation process. Administrators/supervisors involved in evaluation shall be knowledgeable of the job 24 !D (\") 0\ni: !I: Pl ::,: (\") .mz.. . m\no rn \u0026gt; a, (\") u, u, C) ~ .z.. . area of the employee. No evaluation shall unduly interfere with the employee's carrying through his/her job assignment. E. In the event termination or non-renewal of the employee's contract is recommended, the employee and the Association shall be furnished a copy of such recommendation by certified mail or receipted hand-delivery with a statement of the reasons on which it is based. F. If an employee who has completed the required probationary period receives a notice pursuant to Section E above and Act 631 of 1991 desires a hearing, that employee is entitled to appeal the action under the Grievance Procedure (Article V). In such cases, the employee shall initiate the grievance at Level Two. 25 For Board Approval Date: April 13, 2004 Board Proposal #2 ARTICLE 13. EMPLOYMENTPROCEDURES A. Employees in the bargaining unit will serve in one of the following job classifications: B. 1. Full-Time Substitute Special Education Driver. A driver who has been selected to Substitute for any driver, monitor or aide position which is either unassigned or temporarily vacant due to employee absence. Must possess a Commercial Driver's License. When two or more persons who bid for a Full-Time Substitute Special Education Driver position are relatively equal in qualifications as determined in accordance with written, job-related, selection criteria (performance and attendance), seniority will govern. 2. 3. 4. Special Education Driver. A driver who has been selected to operate a special education vehicle in support of students with special needs. Must possess a Commercial Driver's License. When two or more persons who bid for a Special Education Driver position are relatively equal in qualifications as determined in accordance with written, job-related, selection criteria (performance and attendance), seniority will govern. Special Education Driver's Aide. An employee who has been selected, based upon demonstrated ability and/or the recommendation of dispatch and supervisory personnel, to assist the Special Education Driver in maintaining equipment, discipline, control, and comfort for students assigned to special education vehicles. The aide must possess the same driver's certification as school bus drivers and must maintain driving proficiency to allow for assignment as a driver when required. Slniority is not thl primary consicilration in Slllction for this position. (This position is bling phasld out through attrition. to bl rnplacld by Splcial Education Bus Monitors). Special Education Bus Monitor. An employee selected to provide assistance to students loading, unloading, and riding on special education buses. Employee must meet qualifications listed in the approved job description. 5. The District will no longer hire bus monitors, however, all bus monitors presently employed for the 2003-04 school year will be grand fathered into that position. The position will then be eliminated as the positions are vacated. Seniority shall be defined as the length of service within the District as a member of the bargaining unit. Accumulation of seniority shall begin on the employee's first working day. A holiday shall be counted as the first working day in applicable situations. In the 26 !JI (\") 0 I: .i.i.:. ~ ::c n m .z.. . m\n,o !'Tl \u0026gt; a, enn u, C) z~ ..... event that more than one individual employee has the same starting date of work, position on seniority list shall be determined by drawing lots. C. Probationary employees shall have no seniority until completion of the probationary period at which time their seniority shall revert to their first day of work. D. The employer shall prepare, maintain and post the seniority list. The initial seniority list shall be prepared and posted conspicuously in the Drivers' lounge with revisions and updates prepared and posted thereafter. A copy of the seniority list and subsequent revisions shall be furnished to the Association. E. Seniority shall be lost by an employee upon termination, resignation, retirement or transfer to a non-bargaining unit position unless they return to the District within three (3) years. Seniority shall not be lost by an employee who is returning to a bargaining position from a supervisory position. If an employee is on unpaid leave for more than 30 consecutive days then seniority will be deducted beginning on the first day of the leave. F. An employee who is resigning shall give two weeks notice. G. Each employee will be made available a copy of his/her job description upon hire. If the employee is transferred or the job description changed, the employee will be made available a copy of the appropriate description at that time. In case of a change, the incumbent employee will be provided orientation and training in the new responsibilities. The Board will provide CTA a copy of all job descriptions in the unit and will provide updated descriptions when revisions are made. The Board will provide a listing of all employees in the unit by job title. If LRSD requests the Director of Transportation to temporarily employ drivers to work outside their normal round of duties, said drivers shall be employed on the basis of seniority and qualifications. H. All employees must obtain a TB skin test or large chest X-ray consistent with Health Department regulations. I. A withholding tax form shall be executed at the time of employment. J. The Board will not subcontract work customarily performed by its employees: (I) unless adequate existing equipment and/or facilities are not available to perform the work when it is needed, or (2) unless the Board does not have employees covered by this contract in sufficient number and/or skill to perform such work, or (3) unless it is deemed necessary to transfer or subcontract such work because of other demands on such equipment and other facilities to do other work which is to be performed. 27 K. Drivers on leave will only be allowed to bid on routes if their estimated return to work day is less than thirty (30) days after the first day of route bidding. L. Drivers on leave who fail to return to work within the thirty (30) days of the first day of route bidding must forfeit the route and the route will be reposted for bidding. M. Drivers absent in excess of forty-five (45) consecutive days will forfeit their routes, which will be reposted for bidding. 28 !I' n 0 !IC .~... ~ ::z: n .zm.. . m\n:o rn \u0026gt; 0:, n en en C) ~ .z.. . For Board Approval Date: April 16, 2004 Board Proposal #3 ARTICLE 14. HOURS OF WORK MID OVER+IME A. The normal work year for school-term employees shall be that number of student days mandated by the State Department of Education. However when summer employment is available, it shall be posted for (7) days. Hiring for summer positions shall be based on-seniority, good work attendance, and job performance. Drivers/ aides who accept summer employment and who do not complete the assignment obligation will not be considered for summer employment for the next two (2) years. Exceptions will be made for emergency and/or extreme medical conditions. B. Regular pay shall be paid on early dismissal days and drivers will work adjusted schedules as required to meet needs of students transported. Drivers shall receive regular pay for time worked on emergency days. C. When inclement weather forces the closing of any work sites, all local radio and television stations, including KLRE, shall be notified so that announcements may be made no later than 6:00 a.m., if possible. D. Reporting Time. All OOef6 transportation employees will be required to report to work in the morning not later than thirty minutes before the first scheduled stop on the first run or 6:00 AM whichever comes later. All OOef6 transportation employees are required to report not less than 30 minutes before too their first scheduled afternoon pickup time. Additionally, all transportation employees must report 30 minutes before their noon run. E. Assignment/re-assignment Of Bus Routes. The following procedures will be followed in assignment and re-assignment of bus routes. 1. At the beginning of the school year all returning drivers will be assigned, to the extent possible, to the route which most closely resembles the route the driver drove at the end of the previous school year. 2. New (first year) drivers will be assigned open routes based upon the director' s/supervisors' assessment of aptitude. These assignments will be made following the initial assignments ofreturning drivers and after the conclusion of the bid process. 28 3. On or ru:ound By October 1 of each year, (Unless an emergency prevents the Administration from compiling the necessary information.) all routes will be open for bidding. Employees will be afforded an opportunity to ''bid\" on-RmS routes of their choice. For this purpose a route will be considered to be a combination of morning/afternoon school runs assigned to an individual bus to make most effective use of limited vehicular resources. The assignment of runs routes will be based on driver seniority. This will be the only time during the school year that all routes will be open for bidding. Scheduled bidding times will be established by management and strictly followed. Each driver will be allowed fifteen (15) minutes to bid. Those drivers who cannot be present may authorize a unit member or management to bid for them if their proxy is given in writing. Those who exceed their time or fail to show will be placed at the bottom of the list. A seniority list will be posted at least three (3) days prior to the bidding with all parties given an opportunity to correct any errors. The tentative route list-s book for bidding will be posted during the same period. Any necessary changes to the routes after posting and before bidding will be posted and highlighted. Also, no changes will be accepted one (1) work day before bidding starts. All changes prior to that day will be posted prior to the start of bidding. After bidding begins, students will be added to the appropriate runs as required. 4. Following assignment of this route no further bidding will be made. A driver will be assigned to drive the remaining open route. This cut-off of bidding is necessary to retain stability of operations and preclude a domino effect of all routes. 5. It is possible that the nature of the route originally bid could be changed significantly during the course of the school year. The determination of when a route falls into this category will be made by the director based upon the recommendations of the supervisors and dispatchers. lt is also possible that additional routes could be added during the school year or that routes become vacant due to resignation or termination of the driver. 6. If the events of the preceding paragraph occur, the route will be posted for bids for two working days prior to assignment. No bids will be accepted beyond 5 :00 p.m. of the second working day following posting of the routes. Drivers who bid on and accept routes made available under the circumstances related in the preceding paragraph will not be allowed to bid on any 29 !I' C') 0 I: .~.. m C') % C') .mz. . m ::0 r\"' \u0026gt; a, C') \"\"'' C, ~ .z. . additional routes for another thirty (30) days. If the bidding process causes another route to become vacant, the administration may appoint a driver to fill the vacancy until all routes are bid the following October. 7. Full-time Substitute positions are not subject to the above procedures. All Fulltime Substitute positions will, however, be posted for two working days to allow drivers to indicate their interest in the position. 8. All routes will be paired with two runs. If for any reason a second run is deleted or the route is put up for bid without a second run, management reserves the right to add one at any time during the year. Additionally, for any route that can not be paired drivers will be asked to do an additional run during the time frame they would normally have a second run and there will be no additional compensation. The procedures outlined in this policy statement are intended to insure equity and consistency in assignments within the Transportation Department. Changes in assignments outside of the bidding process will be made only for reasonable cause. The Superintendent shall have the right, at his/her discretion, to make administrative changes in assignments. Such assignments shall have precedence over all other assignments. F. Training requirements for bus driver personnel are a condition of employment. We are obligated by law to train personnel in matters of safety and performance. Therefore it is incumbent upon the District to provide this opportunity to all unit personnel. Prior to the opening of school, on panmt conference days, and t@acher work days and throughout the school year the District will provide thirty hours of paid mandatory in-service. Personnel may take additional training during the year. The District will pay $25.00 per @ach tlH=ee how= s0ssion or~ $10.00 per hour up to a total of 45 hours per year per employee for staff development. 30 For Board Approval Date: April 13, 2004 Board Proposal # 2 ARTICLE 19. LEAVES A. B. 1. Attendance Incentive - An attendance incentive will be given to all drivers, aides, and monitors who have perfect attendance. If a driver, aide, or monitor is required to serve jury duty or is Ofl military lsa.vs, these absences will not count against the employee. There will be three separate periods established for achieving perfect attendance. The employee shall not miss any days for sick leave, military leave, be on leave without pay, or be off the payroll for any reason to qualify for the perfect attendance incentive. ($200, $200, $200, $200) 1. The first incentive period will begin the first day of contract and end ovember 30. The incentive of $200 will be paid on the supplemental 2. 3. payroll in December. The second incentive period will begin December 1 and end February 28 (29). The incentive of $200 will be paid on the supplemental payroll in March. The third incentive period will begin March 1 and end the last day of school. The incentive of $200 will be paid on the supplemental payroll in June. 4. An additional $200 incentive will be paid if the employee bas \"perfect attendance\" for the entire year. 5. An incentive of $100 for missing only day aoo or $75 for missing only 1 day will also be paid psr paid per period. Sick Leave Accumulation of sick leave shall begin with the first month of employment, or the first day of the school year, whichever is applicable and shall accrue at the rate of one day per month. 2. If the employee resigns or leaves his/her employment position before the end of the school term, the Little Rock school District may deduct from his/her last pay check full compensation for any days of sick leave taken in excess of the days earned. 35 !II 0 0 :I: .ii.=.. ~ :,: 0 .mz.. . m\no fl !T1 \u0026gt; ~ V\u0026gt; V\u0026gt; C\u0026gt; .~... 3. An employee is entitled to sick leave days only for reason of personal illness or illness or death in his/her immediate family. Immediate family shall be considered to include father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, grandparents, grandchildren, sister-in- law, brother-in-law, mother-inlaw, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, and other persons living in the same household. 4. A record of sick leave used and accumulated must be maintained by the District. Sick leave that is unused during any school year shall be carried forward until 175 days have been accumulated. 5. An employee who qualifies for sick leave may use any amount up to his/her total number of accumulated days. 6. Accumulated days of sick leave that are used may be restored up to 175 days in the same manner that they were first accumulated. +. The Superintendent of Schools may advance three days sick leave to ntw.' employees upon the employee's v,'Fitten request and the recommendation ofth@ supervisor or department head. 7. In cases where an employee frequently claims sick leave for personal illness, or upon an absence of five (5) days or more due to personal illness, the District may require a doctor's certificate verifying the illness. 8. Two sick leave days may be used for personal reasons. C. Leave Without Pay Leave of absence, without pay, may be granted by the Director of Human Resources to an employee upon written request and recommendation of the Director of Transportation under the terms stated below: 1. For personal illness, if it can be shown that rest and recuperation will contribute to the welfare of the employee. 2. Request for leave of absence must be submitted by the employee to the supervisor or department head at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the leave, except in case of emergency. 3. Failure to notify the supervisor or department head of intention to resume work, or failure to report for duty at the expiration of a leave of absence or extension granted, or failure to ask for additional leave of absence in case of protracted absence shall be considered a resignation. 36 4. Employees who are on leave without pay do not accrue seniority while on leave. D. E. F. G. Military Leave Military leave will be granted, without loss of status and art1mdance incsntive, but with no pay, according to the provisions of the Military Leave Act. Jury Service and other Related Appearances Any employee called for jury duty, or who is subpoenaed to testify during work hours in any judicial or administrative matter related to district business, including requested attendance during an arbitration fact-finding proceeding shall be paid his/her full compensation for such time with no loss of any leaves, seniority, or Joss of any other benefits. When subpoenaed in non-District related business, the leave will be without pay, but will be considered as an eKcused abs@c@ 1Nith no loss of any other benefit except the attendance incentive pay. Maternity Leave The District will grant an unpaid leave of absence for maternity leave. The leave will commence upon the request of the employee and her physician. Accumulated sick leave days can be used in the maternity leave at the discretion of the employee as disability as defined by the employee's physician. The employee will be allowed to return to work upon release from her physician. Emergency Leave An unpaid leave for health or other emergency reasons may be granted by the Director of Human Resources upon written request. This leave may be extended with the approval of the Director of Human Resources for a specific period oftime. H. Bereavement Leave Employees may use sick leave days for leave connected with the death of members of the immediate family. Immediate family shall be considered to include father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, grandparents, grandchildren, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-Jaw, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, and other persons living in the same household. I. Union Leave The Union will be allowed to use up to six (6) unpaid leave days per year. Not more than two (2) such days may be used at any time. The Union president shall authorize to the Director of Transportation the names of those persons to be granted such leave. 37 !II 0 0 E .~.. ~ % 0 .mz. . m\n,a C) !l $! ~ z....Z.... C: ~ 0 h !\" \u0026gt; CJ 0 \"\"'' C) $! .z.. . J. On-The-Job-Injury Any employee suffering an on-the-job-injury shall be paid his/her full compensation for such time with no loss of any leaves, seniority, or loss of any other benefits, subject to the regulations of the State of Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission to the limit that the payment of Workers' Compensation and other accrued leaves do not exceed 100% of the employee's regular salary. K. Absenteeism Because unwarranted absenteeism wastes the District's money, and works a hardship on employees who maintain good attendance records, the administration will follow a policy of progressive discipline for absences and tardiness. An employee who is absent from his/her position for five (5) consecutive days without notifying the Director of Transportation shall be considered as abandoning his/her position. L. Family Medical Leave Qualified Bus Drivers/aides/monitors may take up to twelve (12) weeks of unpaid leave under the terms of the Family and Medical Leave Act except immediate family. (See Article XIX, Section H for definition.) After the leave has been approved the Bus Driver/Aide/Monitor will receive full normal health care coverage for up to twelve (12) weeks of the leave. When the maximum of twelve (12) weeks has expired the language in any other provisions of this contract shall apply. 38 Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 20, 2004 Board of Education Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by: Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Subject Federal grant submission: Smaller Learning Communities Summary The District submitted a Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) proposal to the U. S. Department of Education on April 29, 2004. The proposal includes two LRSD high schools, Central and J. A. Fair. Objectives The LRSD SLC proposal includes three broad objectives: 1) to restructure the target schools into smaller learning communities based on students' career and academic interests to create a more personalize and supportive school environment\n2) to 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) to enhance teacher capacity to incorporate researchbased instructional strategies into their daily teaching practices that engage students in learning through targeted, ongoing professional development and capacity building activities. Budget amount $749,928 Duration September 2004 - August 2007 !JI n 0 lll: .ii.=. m n ::c n m .z. . m\n:o !TI \u0026gt; a:, n V\u0026gt; V\u0026gt; C\u0026gt; ~ z.. . Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MAKRHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 20, 2004 Board of Education Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by: Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Subject Federal grant submission: Community Technology Center Summary The District proposes to submit a Community Technology Center grant application in partnership with EAST, Inc. to expand the newly established Central High 9th grade technology center Objectives The LRSD CTC proposal includes three broad objectives: 1) to expand access to information technology and related training for disadvantaged residents of the Central High community Budget Match Duration 2) to provide extended instructional services through after school, Saturday and summer programming 3) to enhance teacher capacity to incorporate technology-based instructional strategies into teaching practices through professional development $500,000 In-kind match is required September 2004 - August 2005 ~.... s 8 :,r\n\u0026gt; 8 ~ 0z (J) !\"' \u0026gt; a, (\") (J) (J) C\u0026gt; ~ .z.. . Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MAKRHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 20, 2004 Board of Education Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by: Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Subject State grant submission: 21 st Century Community Learning Center Summary The District proposes to submit a 21 st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) grant application to create a community learning center at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Purpose Budget Duration The LRSD Mabelvale 21 st CCLC proposal will include extended learning opportunities that will operate after school, before school, on Saturdays, and during the summer. These programs will include intensive academic enrichment opportunities along with other high interest activities designed to complement the students' regular academic program. $150,000 - Year One $390,000 - Year Two through Year Five $540,000 - Total Request September 2004- July 2009 .p.. s a:, 8 ::\u0026gt;\u0026lt;  8 '.!l 0z \"' !TI  a:, (\") \"\"'' C\u0026gt; .z~.. Department of Instructional Technology 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 May 20, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: EETT Grant A tri-district grant proposal was submitted to Arkansas Department of Education for an EETT (Enhancing Education Through Technology) Grant on May 13, 2004. This grant is a partnership grant submitted by the three districts in Pulaski County. It will provide mobile Alphasmart labs to four middle schools in each of the three districts to support literacy, mathematics and science instruction. It will also provide professional development in how to use the mobile labs for teachers in the schools involved. LRSD schools selected are Cloverdale Middle School, Henderson Middle School, Mabelvale Middle School and Southwest Middle School. The total amount requested from the grant is $300,000. LRSD share of the funds is $100,000. No matching funds are required. We are asking the Board's approval to maintain the submission of this grant. p -4 8 a, 8 :,,:: \u0026gt; 8 ~ 0z \"' -4 a, C:. ~~ o\n:o zm zn\noJl\n:o C\u0026gt; ~~ m!I:: !\" \u0026gt; a, n \"\"'' C\u0026gt; ~ z -4 TO: FROM: ',_!_,,# !.~ ,,,~ 'H - l' fj ~ , ' ~~ '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" May 20, 2004 Board of Directors Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood /Elementary Literacy THROUGH: Mr. Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent SUBJECT: Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS) Grant Proposal Summary -- The Early Childhood Department requests approval to submit an application to the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education, for new and continued funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood programs for the three and four ( 4) year old children who reside in the district. Objectives -- The overall goal of the LRSD ABCSS program is to expand the opportunity for quality early childhood education experiences for the three- and four-year-old children in the district who are educationally deprived. Expected Outcomes -- Having access to nurturing, supportive educational experiences will prepare preschool children to enter kindergarten with the necessary cognitive, physical, social and emotional, and early language and literacy skills for success in school. The outcomes of the project will be measured through an online assessment system required by the project. Population -- Three and four year old children who reside in the district and who meet specific criteria established by the ABCSS program. Source of Budget/Budget Amount -- The Arkansas Department of Human Services has announced the availability of funds to assist in providing early childhood programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children, ages three (3) and (4) years, as specified in the Arkansas Better Chance Program for School Success, Act 49 of 2004. This proposal will allow the District to make application in a competitive process for approximately $5.5 million in continuous funding from the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Early Childhood Education. The funds will support centerbased early childhood education opportunities for the four-year-old children in the district and home-based (HIPPY) educational opportunities for the three year old children in the district. 810 \\'\\'. t- 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 p -, g a, 8\n,,\n\u0026gt; 8 ::!l 0z u, -, a, C: . -n ::!\u0026gt; O\n:a zm z\ng g ~~ m!I: ~ -u,, C: 0 :m:amz :S -, u, ::c a~ Zo u, a, Manager -- Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy Duration -- ABCSS funding is renewed annually upon submission of the grant continuation application. Long Range -- Continuation of and expansion of early childhood services offered in the District. Other Agencies Involved -- none Needed Staff -- Based upon the amount of funding provided and the level of the expansion of the preschool program, the District will potentially need 1) one clerical position to complete, submit, and maintain the required quarterly reports and other miscellaneous information and 2) one coordinator's position to manage the implementation of the expansion of the early childhood program. Comments -- The District decided to make application for every school which met the eligibility criteria even though some schools fell in the category of lowest priority for funding. Recommendation -- We recommend approval of the request to submit this proposal to the Arkansas Department of Human Services. ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE FOR SCHOOL SUCCESS (ABCSS) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PROPOSAL  Site Information  Program Abstract May 14, 2004 0 ~ C: C\n,om mz S--\u0026lt; (l)::C 6~ ZC (I) a, ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION COVER SHEET 2004-2005 NAME OF DISTRICT/AGENCY Little Rock School District ADDRESS -81-0 W-. -Ma-rkh-am- ---- CITY _L_t_'ttl_e_Rock---'-'--'----- ZIP CODE COUNTY _P_u_ la_ ski_ ___ CONGRESSIONALDISTRICT -\"-2 _ TIN# 716014717 MAIN OFFICE CONT ACT PERSON(S): Krista Underwood 1ELEPHONE NO. E-MAIL ADDRESS _5~0c.\n:l_-44\n...\n...\n..7--=-3\n.:32::.:\n5_ _____ FAX NO. Krista. underwoodcaUrsd. org THREE AND FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN 501-447-7619 72201 CENTER-BASED PROGRAM MODEL (178 days minimum) HOME-BASED (Full Program year) TOTAL NUMBER OF ABC CHILDREN TO BE SERVED TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-ABC CHILDREN TO BE SERVED (acrou the district) List all sites that will serve ABC Children CENTER-BASED HOME-BASED 1202 95 150 0 ABC Site No.of No. of No. of Counties Program School Districts No. of Name ABC Non-ABC ABC Will Program Will Serve ABC Children Children Class- Serve Days of rooms Ooeration HIPPY 95 0 n/a Pulaski LRSD 178 Bale 60 0 3 Pulaski LRSD 178 Baseline 60 0 3 Pulaski LRSD 178 Brady 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 Carver 20 0 1 Pulaski LRSD 178 Chicot 80 0 4 Pulaski LRSD 178 Cloverdale 60 0 3 Pulaski LRSD 178 Dodd 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 Fair Park 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 Franklin 60 0 3 Pulaski LRSD 178 Fulbright 20 20 l Pulaski LRSD 178 Geyer Springs 60 0 3 Pulaski LRSD 178 King 80 0 4 Pulaski LRSD 178 Mabelvale 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 Meadowcliff 60 0 3 Pulaski LRSD 178 Otter Creek 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 Rightsell 10 0 1 Pulaski LRSD 178 Program Begin \u0026amp; End Dates August 19, 2004 - May 23, 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3. 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3 2005 August 19, 2004- June 3 2005 August l 9, 2004 - June 3 2005 August 19, 2004- Tnn3 ~fin\u0026lt; August 19, 2004 - June 3, 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3. 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3 2005 August 19, 2004 - Tnn 3 ~M\u0026lt; August 19, 2004 - June 3. 2005 August 19, 2004 - June3. 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3. 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3 2005 August 19, 2004 - June 3. 2005 Rockefeller 40 60 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004 - Jtme 'l '\u0026gt;llll\u0026lt; Romine 30 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004- June 3 2005 Stephens 80 0 4 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004 - '--1 '\u0026gt;llll\u0026lt; Wakefield 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004 - June3 2005 Washington 100 0 5 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004 - Tun1 ?MS Watson 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004- June3 2005 Western Hills 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004 - T,- 1 ?1\\1\\( Wilson 40 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004- June3 2005 Woodruff 22 0 2 Pulaski LRSD 178 August 19, 2004- Tun 1 ?/lll( TOTAL 1297 0 62 PROGRAM'S FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING \u0026amp; ENDING DATES: July 1 _2004=.June 30.,2005 Is your program audited by Legislative Audit? Yes If not, a copy of your audit is required each year. If your program is a joint application, list all agencies involved I certify that the infonnation in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge. SIGNATURE ~ ~ DMSION OF CHILD CARE \u0026amp; EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF BUMAN SERVICES P.O. BOX 1437, SWT S-160 LIITLE ROCK, AR 72203 501-682-9699 =\" :r  m 8~ \"-D,: z..:. 5z-g-, 0 \"...' C: 0 ::Om mz S\"\"' u,:,:: 0~ ~55 ! .p.. s a, 8 :,,\n 8 =!l zi5 \"' Program Abstract Little Rock School District Arkansas Better Chance for School Success PROGRAM ABSTRACT I. Over all Program Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the LRSD ABCSS program is to develop and expand the early childhood education opportunities for the three- and four-year old children in the district who are educationally deprived either through the center-based or home-based (HIPPY) setting. Having access to nurturing, supportive educational experiences will prepare the children to enter kindergarten with the necessary cognitive, physical, social and emotional, and early language and literacy skills for success in school. Center-based Program Goals The District goals for the center-based programs will be achieved through the following program objectives: 1) Development of teachers' capacity to deliver research-based developmentally appropriate instruction to enhance all areas of a child's development\n2) Development of teachers' capacity to deliver research-based developmentally appropriate literacy instruction in the areas of oral language development, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge\n3) Provision of both English and Spanish materials/supplies to provide a print-rich environment\n4) Utilization of screening assessments or other appropriate measures to determine whether children are developing the language, cognitive, and early literacy skills they need for later academic success\n5) Utilization of assessment data for program evaluation\n6) Inclusion of the Preschool program in the District's Literacy plan to ensure alignment of programming from Preschool to Grade 5 and easy transition from Preschool to Kindergarten\n7) Opportunity for parental engagement in children's early learning\n.... a, C:. :::\n~ i5::o zm z\n:g no ::0 C) ~~ m:r:: r, u...,. C: C ::om mz S-\u0026lt; u,::,: i5 ~ ZC u, a, 8) Activities to ensure children's smooth transition to elementary school programs\nand 9) Dedication of a portion of the Office of Early Childhood staff time to monitoring implementation of the ABCSS program in selected schools. The objectives for each school's preschool program are included with the site information. HIPPY Program Goals and Objectives The Little Rock School District HIPPY program operates with two major sets of goals and objectives: 1) Child-focused Goals\n2) Parent-focused Goals. The child focused goals include two years of educational experiences with emphasis on language development, sensory and perceptual discrimination skills and problem solving. The parent focused goals include, self-esteem, parent as educator skills, problem solving skills, advocacy for child's educational needs, and transition from home to school. II. Type of Program and Curriculum Used Center-based Program Using the state's Early Childhood Framework as a basis, the Little Rock School District's center-based four-year-old-program uses a curriculum that was developed by a task force composed of specialists, teachers, instructional aides, and parents. The curriculum is based on the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the (International Reading Association) IRA standards for programming for the preschool child. The District curriculum provides instruction that is sensitive to the developmental changes in growth and learning that occurs according to the child's strengths, interests, needs, and experiences. The program offered in all sites across the district offers a learning environment that is safe, yet provides challenging and achievable opportunities. Play is recognized as an important vehicle for the social, emotional and cognitive development of children and a reflection of their development. The curriculum is sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children and provides for interaction with students from various backgrounds in diverse settings to respect and value each other. In addition, the LRSD preschool program accepts and mainstreams special needs children in their classrooms and all facilities are handicapped accessible. The district provides services through the Tri-district Early Intervention Program. HIPPY Program The LSRD's home-based program (HIPPY) serves the specific purpose of maximizing efforts for trained District personnel to work in a cooperative, collaborative manner with parents to effectively intervene in the lives of three- and four-year-old HIPPY participants to improve learning. The program is coordinated with and under the supervision of the Little Rock School District Early Childhood Education Program which allows alignment of programming with the District's preschool center based program. The collaborative effort also provides the needed resources, such as support staff, opportunities for professional development and instructional materials for HIPPY children that are provided to the center-based teachers and children. Ill. Teacher qualifications Little Rock School District currently employs certified personnel licensed in early childhood or elementary education to teach in every preschool classroom. In addition, all teachers' aides and Home-Based Educators in the district are required to have a Child Development Associate's (CDA) certification. The District ensures that the practice of hiring highly qualified personnel will continue as the expansion of the preschool program is implemented. IV. Number of students to be served The number of students projected to be served by LRSD ABCSS center-based program is 1202 four ( 4) year olds. The number of students projected to be served by the LRSD home-based (HIPPY) program is 95, with the majority of the children being the age of three (3). 3 ~ a, C-~:,n.. . o\n,c zm z\ng no\n,c Cl ~ ~ m\nI: r\u0026gt; ~ C: 0\n,cm ms~z en ::c 0~ ZO en a, V. History of program operation Center-based Program Little Rock School District received its first Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) grant in 1991 and opened three preschool classrooms. The District received funding for 78 children through ABC in six classrooms in three schools in the district (Woodruff, Romine, Rightsell). Since that time the District has shown continued commitment to providing preschool opportunities by expanding the preschool program into every school, except the four Magnet schools. Unfortunately, although the District has committed significant funding for preschool, the funding has not been sufficient to allow placement for every child. Every year the Little Rock School District may have as many as 500 children on a waiting list for placement into its 4-year old program. HIPPY Program The HIPPY program has been in operation in the Little Rock School District since 1986 and is one of the four oldest in the state. Prior to this year, even though the HIPPY program was under the supervision of the LRSD Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy Department, the base office was housed in other locations. Last July 2003, the base office was relocated to the LRSD Instructional Resource Center which also houses the Early Childhood Department. The Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy has been more involved in overseeing the maintenance and operation of the program and the Coordinator works part time as a literacy specialist in the Department, allowing more collaboration and alignment between the two programs related to job performance, resources, and professional development. VI. License status/Quality Approval/ Accreditation status All of the existing Little Rock School District preschools are licensed by DHS and have obtained Quality Approval/ Accreditation. During the 2003-04 school year, the average ECERs rating for all programs in the district was 6.9, with many sites receiving a perfect rating of 7.0. A letter from 4 the Division of Childcare and Early Childhood Education (DCECE) indicating the license and quality approval status of the preschool programs across the district is provided in Appendix A. In addition, the review of the HIPPY program by the state resulted in an exemplary report with the program garnering 93% on the Validation Instrument. It is the intent of the District to continue the exemplary efforts made by program staff to work toward an even stronger validation rating. The district ensures that qualified personnel will be employed in the preschool programs and the same rigor of quality currently offered in the District will be maintained in all sites funded through ABCSS. The District utilizes a personnel evaluation system that monitors any employee whose certification is deficient. After a designated amount of time, any employee who has not met the licensing requirements is removed from the position. VII. Justification of need Justification for funding the LRSD preschool center-based and home-based program is based on four issues: high poverty, low achievement, a history of high quality preschool programming and local interest. High Poverty. According to the 1989 census, approximately 24% of the children 5 years and younger who live in Little Rock live below the poverty level. Family composition is related to income and poverty--youth with two parent families generally have greater incomes than youth from families with only one parent. About 3 out of 10 families in Little Rock are single-parent families-about 2 out of 10 of those are white families and 5 out of 10 are African American families. About 22% of Little Rock's children live in poverty, but for African American youth the poverty rate climbs to 37%. The district's total African-American population is approximately 69% and many of the schools for which the district is making application have an African-American population of 65-95%. In addition, the district Hispanic population increases every year with the enrollment currently at approximately 3%. 5 _, CD -cn .... \u0026gt; o\n:o zm z~ no\n:o C\u0026gt; ~~ m!I: !\"' !!l C 0\nom mz :-5-t en ::c 0~ ZO en a, In the Little Rock area, high quality preschool programming would diminish the disparity in achievement that exists between high poverty and low poverty children. Low achievement. Nineteen (19) of the District's elementary schools are in school improvement because oflow performance on the state's Benchmark Exam in math or literacy. The District's student performance on the State's Criterion Reference Test (CRT) has improved every year, but still continues to be less than satisfactory. High Quality Programming. Recognizing the value of preschool education to the later success of children in poverty, LRSD has dedicated district funds to implement preschool programs in all elementary schools except the four Magnet schools. Every year the District's preschool programs have achieved quality status, and DCCECE can be assured that LRSD will continue to provide the high quality preschool programming that is currently being offered on a limited basis. High Interest. The high quality preschool programs offered by LRSD has resulted in numerous requests for placement. At any given time during the year, there are as many as 500 students waiting placement in the District's preschool program .. Limited Local Resources. For the past several years, the district has offered preschool programming to more than 1000 preschool children (approximately 53 classrooms of four-year-olds and HIPPY) with funding that is little more than the level of district match funding that will be required of the ABCSS FY2004-05 grant. The District is anticipating increasing the number of children served in both the center-based and home-based programs to 1429 (approximately 20 new classrooms), including the children to be served through the continuation grant. Even though the district has diligently dedicated local funds to preschool programs for several years, the funding has not been sufficient to provide preschool placement for all children and with the level of implementation that the District desires. In addition, NCLB has required the District to redirect funds 6 to providing additional services for students in Grades K-12, therefore, impacting the amount of District funding that is available for preschool expansion. VIII. Status of Elementary Schools Regarding Percent (%) of Children Proficient in Math and Literacy on 4th Grade Benchmark Exam Little Rock School District will be requesting funding for the following schools with the highest priority for funding (3 or 2): Bale, Baseline, Brady, Chicot, Cloverdale, Dodd, Fair Park, Franklin, King, Mabelvale, Rockefeller, Stephens, Wakefield, Washington, Watson, Wilson, and Woodruff. In the schools with a priority ranking of 3 or 2, the average percent of students performing on below proficient on the 2002 and 2003 administration of the Primary Benchmark Exam in literacy was 54% and math was 68%, with averages ranging from 77% and 83% below proficiency, respectively in literacy and math, to 33% and 53% respectively. A table of the assessment data is attached. (See Appendix B.) IX. School Improvement Status Of the 25 schools for which the district is making application, sixteen (16) are in school improvement and include the following: Bale (Year 2), Baseline, Brady, Chicot (Year 3), Cloverdale, Dodd, Fair Park, Franklin, King, Mabelvale, Rockefeller, Stephens, Wakefield, Washington, Watson, and Wilson. x. Academic Distress Status: not applicable XI. Percentage of children in the school area receiving free and reduced lunches. In the schools for which the District is making application, the average percent of children who qualify for free and reduced lunch is approximately 75% with the range being from a high of 95% to a low of 21 %. Schools receiving a priority ranking of 2 or 3 for funding have an average poverty level of approximately 82%. Appendix C provides a table of the free and reduced lunch percentages for each school for which the District is making application. 7 -\u0026lt;IJl C:. :::\n~ o\nn zm z\ng no\nn C) ~ ~ m:I: 0 !!l C: C\nnm mz S-\u0026lt; (1)% 0~ Zc (I) a, XII. Number of children currently enrolled in kindergarten in the elementary school The number of kindergarten children enrolled in the elementary schools for which the district is making application is 1480. The total number of Kindergarten children in the District is 2010. XIII. Description of Daily Schedule Center-based Program In compliance with the Arkansas Better Chance Schools and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, the daily schedule of the LRSD provides a balance of structured and unstructured activities which focus on active learning and time for discovery through play as well as opportunities for small and large group interactions. Schedules reflect a substantial portion of the day in which children are involved in free choice center activities while participating daily for an additional hour in outdoor play. It is the goal of the Little Rock School District to establish consistent routines allowing for smooth transitions between daily events in order to meet individual needs of children. HIPPY Program Homebased Educators who reside in target neighborhoods are trained to teach the HIPPY curriculum to parents of three and four year old children. Each Homebased Educator is assigned 27 families and visits each family's home every week for one hour to instruct parents in the use of the learning material. Parents are required to attend a monthly group meeting where they meet with their Homebased Educator one and one half hours to review curriculum, look at the materials covered in the previous weeks and discuss individual progress. Parents who attend group meetings are exempt from a home visit on that particular week. XIV. Match/Integration of Funding Sources The Little Rock School District ensures that the required district match funding (40%) will be provided to support implementation of a high quality preschool program in all schools and in the HIPPY program. District funds will be allocated and used in the following ways: 8 Title I funds will be used in ABCSS schools to: Purchase classroom materials Provide professional development opportunities District operating funds will be used in ABCSS schools to: Purchase classroom materials Employ personnel to supervise and provide technical assistance Provide costs of maintenance and operation Provide office supplies and copier expenses Provide costs of the online assessment required of the project Library Media Funds will be used in ABCSS schools to: Purchase books to support classroom libraries Purchase materials for shared reading LRSD Division of Curriculum and Instruction will use district funds to employ personnel to assist in the folloPwroivnigd:e follow-up professional development in the form of modeling and technical assistance to support implementation of Pre-ELLA and Early Childhood Benchmark Training. Provide monitoring of the implementation of Pre-ELLA training Provide technical assistance for state monitoring for Quality Assurance Assist and monitor the administration of the required assessments Analyze data to assist Pre K teachers and principals in instructional decision making and in program evaluation 9 !.-.\u0026gt;.. s a, 8 ::.. \u0026gt; 8 :-s 0z VI .... a, C: . ~~ 0\na zm z~ no\na C) ~~ m:11: ~ ~ C: C :am mz s-\u0026lt; V, ::c 0~ ZC v, CD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 May 20, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rene' Carson, Middle Level Science Specialist Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent THROUGH: Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Adoption of Health Textbooks Short Summary - The Board is asked to approve the selection of new health books for the 2004-05 scheol year. Objectives - 1) to replace the existing textbook used in the high school, which is approximately 10 years old, with a current and very appealing health textbook, 2) to add a grade appropriate textbook for the sixth grade health program, 3) to add a health focus with an appropriate textbook in the fifth grade program. Expected Outcomes - The health program of the district will be improved and strengthened by the replacement of the textbook used in the high schools. Since the change to the middle school concept, there has not been an appropriate health book for the sixth grade health program. The previous book was used in the eighth grade program. The new textbook is developmentally appropriate for our sixth grade students. Health will be added to the science curriculum in the fifth grade. Instruction about the body systems will be an added as part of the fifth grade curriculum so our students will be better prepared for the Benchmark Science Exam to be given in 2006-07. Population - Health is offered as a senior high elective for a half unit of credit. Students may choose health as an elective in grades 9-12. In middle school, health is offered in sixth grade as a companion to physical education. The students receive a semester of health instruction and a semester of physical education. Health has not been offered in elementary school for the last several years as a separate course. The science curriculum does not cover the body systems, and adding health to the existing science curriculum will strengthen our students' understanding of their bodies. Budget Amount/Source of Budget - Each high school will need approximate 350 health textbooks. Each middle school will need 2 class sets for the sixth grade classes. Each elementary school will need a class set of books for each fifth grade classroom. ~.... E a, 8 ::.. \u0026gt; 8 :!l 0z fJ) 0 ~ C: 0\n,:,m mz S-\u0026lt; U,::C 0~ Zo U\u0026gt;a, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 May 20, 2004 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rene' Carson, Middle Level Science Specialist Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent THROUGH: Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Adoption of Health Textbooks Short Summary - The Board is asked to approve the selection of new health books for the 2004-05 scheol year. Objectives - l) to replace the existing textbook used in the high school, which is approximately 10 years old, with a current and very appealing health textbook, 2) to add a grade appropriate textbook for the sixth grade health program, 3) to add a health focus with an appropriate textbook in the fifth grade program. Expected Outcomes- The health program of the district will be improved and strengthened by the replacement of the textbook used in the high schools. Since the change to the middle school concept, there has not been an appropriate health book for the sixth grade health program. The previous book was used in the eighth grade program. The new textbook is developmentally appropriate for our sixth grade students. Health will be added to the science curriculum in the fifth grade. Instruction about the body systems will be an added as part of the fifth grade curriculum so our students will be better prepared for the Benchmark Science Exam to be given in 2006-07. Population - Health is offered as a senior high elective for a half unit of credit. Students may choose health as an elective in grades 9-12. In middle school, health is offered in sixth grade as a companion to physical education. The students receive a semester of health instruction and a semester of physical education. Health has not been offered in elementary school for the last several years as a separate course. The science curriculum does not cover the body systems, and adding health to the existing science curriculum will strengthen our students' understanding of their bodies. Budget Amount/Source of Budget- Each high school will need approximate 350 health textbooks. Each middle school will need 2 class sets for the sixth grade classes. Each elementary school will need a class set of books for each fifth grade classroom. ~.... s Ill 8\n,\n: \u0026gt; 8 ~ 0z U) -c\u0026lt;:: :I ll ~~ o\n:o zm z\ng no\n:oG'l ~~ m 31: !\"' !!l C 0\n:om mz s--\u0026lt; U)::,: 0~ ZO U) a, Manager - Rene' Carson, Middle Level Science Specialist Duration - These textbooks will be used until the next health adoption in the state textbook cycle. Long Range/Continuation - NI A Other Agencies Involved - NI A Expectation of District - The district should expect quality health instruction from the teachers of the health program. The textbook for the program will be an excellent resource for the teachers and will provide up-to-date information for our students. Needed Staff - NIA Comments - The health and wellness of our students has been on the news more this year than in previous years. Legislation was passed that required the Body Mass Index of students be taken and sent home to help educate the parents about the needs and current state of their children's health. Obesity in our children is an increasing problem and should be addressed in our health and physical education curriculum. An outstanding health education program is an essential element of our District's curriculum. Recommendations - Fifth Grade- Your Health. Harcourt, 2003 Edition Sixth Grade - Teen Health, Course I, Glencoe/McGraw Hill, Red, 2003 Edition Senior High Health Program - Health, Glencoe/McGraw Hill, 2003 Edition Committees Fifth and Sixth Grade Health Debbie Hipps - Booker Arts Magnet Irish Williams - Fulbright Elementary Donna Corrothers - Otter Creek Elementary Karen Koepple - Henderson Middle School Damian Patterson - Pulaski Heights Middle School Andrew Logan - Dunbar Magnet School Marvin Burton - Principal, Henderson Middle School Sue Strickland - Board Representative Senior High Health Committee JoAnne McLendon - Central High School Darryl Seward - Central High School Barbara Mathis - Parkview Magnet School John Daniel - Hall High School Dr. Linda Brown - Principal, Parkview Magnet School Larry Berkeley - Board Representative Rene' Carson - Ex-officio member Sharrell Tate - Ex-officio member To: From: Through: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION 7701 SCOTT HAMILTON DRIVE LITTLE ROCK, AR 72209 May 20, 2004 Board of Directors Carol Green, Director, Career-Technical Education Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Textbook Adoption Recommendation Family and Consumer Science Industrial Technology Education Short Summary - The Board is asked to approve the textbooks recommended for adoption in the areas of Family Consumer Science grades 7-12 and Industrial Technology Education grades 7-9. Objectives - To adopt textbooks as recommended for the adoption period of 2005-2010 Expected Outcomes - Students will have access to the most recent published textbooks and supplemental materials. Population - All Little Rock School District students enrolled in Family and Consumer Science courses and Industrial Technology courses. Budget Amount/Source of Budget - Little Rock School District and magnet schools textbook budgets Manager(s) - Carol Green, Director, Career-Technical Education Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Sharrell Tate, Textbook Coordinator Duration - This adoption is proposed for the period of July, 2004 - June, 2010 Committee Members - Maureen Pierce, Teacher, Central High Shannah Ellender, Teacher, Central High Evelyn Callaway, Teacher, J .A. Fair Kat Sherbett, Teacher, J.A. Fair Liz Lucker, Teacher, Hall High JoAnn Arrington, Teacher, Hall High Gertie Jackson, Teacher, Dunbar Middle Annithia Harris, Teacher, Cloverdale Middle Pat Carr, Teacher, Forest Heights Middle Michelle Vire, Teacher, Mabelvale Middle !.J.\u0026gt;, z \u0026gt;z n\ni! UI 0 ~ C: 0\ncm mz S--\u0026lt; UI :X: 5~ Zo UI Cl Brenda Byrd, Teacher, Pulaski Heights Middle Joyce Asberry, Teacher, Southwest Middle Ex-Officio Members - Carol Green, Director Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Board of Director Sharrell Tate, Textbook Coordinator Long Range/Continuation - Textbook adoptions are submitted during the state adoption period. Other Agencies Involved - N/ A Expectations of Staff - Teachers are expected to utilize textbook in instructional delivery as required per curriculum frameworks and Arkansas Department of Workforce Education standards. Needed Staff - NI A Comments - Textbooks were reviewed by the review team composed of all Family and Consumer Science middle and high school teachers. Teachers also attended the State Textbook Caravan on March 11 th, to review textbooks and discuss textbook information with vendors. The CareerTechnical Education Director, as well as Little Rock District Textbook Coordinator attended the caravan. Textbooks were evaluated on several criteria including state standards, gender bias, multiculturalism, format, technological content, supplementary materials, etc. Recommendations - We recommend the following textbooks for adoption. High School Course Clothing Foods \u0026amp; Nutrition Housing and Design Child Development Parenting Textbook Clothing: Fashion, Fabrics \u0026amp; Construction  2003 Guide to Good Food  2004 Homes: Today and Tomorrow  2002 The Developing Child  2003 Parents and Their Children  2004 Changes and Choices  2000 Consumer Education and Economics  2004 Human Relations Managing Resources Childcare Guidance \u0026amp; Management Services Child and Adult Care Professionals  2004 Nutrition and Wellness Nutrition and Wellness  2004 Family Dynamics Families Today  2004 Family \u0026amp; Consumer Sci. Creative Living  2004 Family \u0026amp; Work Connections-Building Life Skills 2004 Industrial Technology Edu. Technology: Today and Tomorrow  2004 Middle School Family \u0026amp; Consumer Science Discovering Life Skills  2004 Exploring Industrial Technology Introduction To Technology  2003 Grade Level 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 7-8 7-8 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT HEALTH SERVICES May 20, 2004 Board of Directors FROM: Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services THROUGH: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director, Pupil Services Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Administrative Services Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Schools SUBJECT: Recommendation for Compliance with Act 1220 (2003) Act 1220 is legislation to improve the health of children. Act 1220 defines responsibilities of the Department of Education and the school districts. One component of this law is: Beginning with the 2004-2005 school year, every school district shall: Convene a school nutrition and physical activity advisory committee that shall include members from school district governing boards, school administrators, food service personnel, teacher organizations, parents, students, and professional groups such as nurses and community members. (A) School District Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee The School District Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee shall be structured in a way as to ensure age-appropriate recommendations that correlate to the current grade configuration of the school district 1. This shall be done utilizing at least one of the following options: a. Require each school to establish a School Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee. b. Require subcommittees to be established representing the appropriate age and grade configuration for that school district. c. Require that membership on district committee includes representatives from each appropriate grade level group ( elementary school, middle school, junior high, senior high). .!J.:,l z z\u0026gt; 0 ~ \"' )( ?\u0026lt; ~o ~5 o!!? C: z\no C\u0026gt; z\no Em m:11: Z\u0026gt; ...\no ::0: \"' -\u0026lt;al C:. :::\n~ o\n,:, zm z\ng no\n,:, C\u0026gt; ~~ m I: r\u0026gt; !!l C: 0\n,:,m :ms .z.... u,:,: 5~ ZO \"' cc 2. At a minimum the District Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee will: a. Annually, assess the school nutntton environment of each school campus beginning in school year 2004-2005 utilizing at a minimum the following modules of the School Health Index for Physical Activity, Healthy Eating and a Tobacco-Free Lifestyle available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/SHI/index.htm Module 1: School Health Policies and Environment Module 2: Health Education Module 3: Physical education and other Physical Activity Programs Module 4: Nutrition Services Module 8: Family and Community Involvement The School Health Index is a self-assessment and planning tool that will enable schools to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the school's nutrition and health environment, policies and programs. b. Assure that the School Health Index assessment is included in individual school improvement plans. Schools will document and report improvement in weaknesses noted in their annual School Improvement Plan reports to the District Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee. c. A~sist the school in implementation of Child Nutrition Standards to provide increased healthier options for all foods and beverage sold or served on the school campus. These include all foods and beverages other than those offered as part of reimbursable meals, including vending machines, snack bars, fund-raisers, school stores, class parties and other venues that compete with healthy school meals. d. Maintain and update annually, a list of recommended locally available healthier options for food and beverage sales venues. e. Review and make recommendations to the local school board regarding all food and beverage contracts. f. Maintain a list of non-food and healthy food alternatives for fund raisers. g. The District Committee will assess current physical activity within the school and the community by utilizing standards defined by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). h. The District Committee will develop strategies to meet physical activity standards in the school and community by utilizing standards as defined by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 1. Assure that the physical activity standards are included in the school improvement plans. J. Schools will document and report improvement in weaknesses noted in the annual School Improvement Plan report to the District Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee and the Arkansas Child Health Advisory Committee. I am recommending that the attached committee roster be approved and charged with the responsibilities of compliance with Act 1220 as defined in the legislation. !.J.:1, z \u0026gt;z n ~ \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT May 17, 2004 2004 Nutrition I Physical Activity Advisory Committee NAME LOCATION Bushmiaer, Mar20 Coordinator, Health Services Barksdale, Diane Principal, Carver Blaine, Barbara Counselor, Western Hills Brown, Sandra RN, Baptist Health - Community Outreach Buck, Larry Principal, McClellan Burton, Marvin Principal, Henderson Ed2erson, Pat Parent and Student in Colle2e of Public Health Elston, Jo Evelyn Director, Pupil Services Favela, Zaul 11 t \" Grade Student, McClellan High Frasier, Coreen PE Teacher, Rockefeller Gan2oso, Ace 11th Grade Student, Parkview Ma2net Goolsby, Susan ACH Nutritionist/ Parent Kin2 \u0026amp; Mann Green, Sheila Tobacco Prevention Coordinator, Pupil Services Hayman, Kimberly Nurse: Baseline, Geyer Sprin2s, Wakefield Henderson, Julie UALR, Share America, Health Services/ Parent - PHMS Hynes, Stephanie Walker Supervisor, Child Nutrition/ Parent - Mann Islam, Arie Secretary, Athletics/ Parent - McClellan \u0026amp; Cloverdale Middle Kelley, Carla Nurse, Henderson Kni2ht, Katherine Wri2ht Teacher Rep Lacey, Marian Dr. Assistant Superintendent, Administration McCoy, Morlin Director, Child Nutrition Merritt, Re2inald Safe \u0026amp; Dru2 Free Schools Coordinator, Pupil Services Mitchell, Katherine Dr. LRSD Board of Directors Robinson, Tiffany 10th Grade Student, J.A. Fair Hieb Sco2in, Annette Assistant Director, Athletics Shindler, Lindsey 10th Grade Student, Central Hi2h Smith, Paula Romine Parent Wheeler, Gary Dr. Pediatrician, UAMS, ACH /Parent-Central High Williams, Keenan 11th Grade Student, Hall Hi2h LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CARE PROGRAM DATE: MAY 10, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: ...~. artha Rogers,~RE Program Supervisor Jo Evelyn Elsto , irector Pupil Services Junius Babbs, Associate Superintendent THROUGH: Morris Holmes, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: CARE Program Tuition Fee Increase The CARE Program is a self-supporting before and after school child care program currently provided at twenty two LRSD elementary schools. Care income comes directly from parent tuition, and The Department of Human Services Childcare Vouchers or other programs that provide childcare tuition assistance to parents CARE is seeking approval to raise tuition fees by $15.00 per month or 13.64% for a maximum of $125.00 per month as compared to the current $110.00 per month. In the event that a raise is approved for the 2004/2005 school year, this increase would cover the 2.875% raise plus a 10% raise, three additional school days and one additional staff development day that have been added to the 2004/2005 school calendar. If a lesser raise were approved, CARE would increase tuition fees according to that percentage. The revenue generated by the tuition rate increase would offset the payroll increase. Your approval will allow the CARE Program time to be prepared when the raises are determined. This will help us prepare, print, and mail registration brochures mid-July and flyers and handbooks would be ready for August registration. ~ \u0026gt; a, . C: c!!! oz zm ~~ c5 kl z::o en S n m en .!1.1, z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt; ~ en EXPLANATION OF 13.64% INCREASE IN PAYROLL 200412005 Current CARE Rates Registration fee Before \u0026amp; After School Full day CARE $25 per year $110.00 per month $12.00 per day Proposed CARE Tuition Rate Increase (Other fees would remain the same) Registration fee Before \u0026amp; After School Full day CARE $25.00 per year $125.00 per month $12.00 per day Drop-in $8.00 per day Drop-in $8.00 per day With a !3.64% rate increase, the daily rate would increase from $5.75 to $6.32 per day, an increase of .57 per day. As compared to other child care programs, CARE registration and tuition rates are and have historically been one of the most reasonable in the area. Current Childcare Rates for Local Childcare Centers ( Based on average registration and weekly rates) Registration fee Before \u0026amp; After School Full day CARE Drop-in From $25 to $100 per year $40.00 - 50.00 per week $15.00 - $17.00 $160 - 200.00 per month The Department of Human Services Daily Rate Cap for Before \u0026amp; After School Averaged over 9 months Registration fee Before \u0026amp; After School Full day CARE Drop-in Pre-K OHS does not Pay registration $219.00 per month $17.00 per day School Age OHS does not Pay registration $151.33 per month $15.20 per day The Department of Human Services daily rate cap for before and after school child care is $11.05 per day or $219.00 per month for preschool and $7.65 per day or $151 .33 per month for school age children. Increase in Payroll Estimated Through June 2004. Administrative payroll (includes fringe benefits and FICA) 12.875% Increase CARE Aides payroll (Includes fringe benefits and FICA) 12.875% Increase Three additional school days One additional staff development day 2004-2005 Total CARE payroll increase for 2004/2005 13.64% Tuition Fee Increase in revenue $314,500 X 12.875% $ 40,492 $478,657 X 12.875% $ 61,627 $ 8,550 $ 4,200 $ 12,750 $114,869 $127,534 Increasing tuition $15.00 per month would generate $1271534 in additional revenue and therefore offset the payroll increase of $114. 869. A lesser percentage would be used based on the actual raise if less than 10%. We request Board approval of this recommendation as submitted. \u0026gt;CD . C: 0!! oz zm ~~ ~ Kl Z\na:, en:s 0 m en !..I,' z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;.. en r\u0026gt; ~ C: 0\na:,m mz :s .... en::c o\u0026gt; zZ enO OJ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda.watson@lrsd.org TO: Board of Education FROM: Linda Watson, Ed. D. LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 SUBJECT: 2004 - 2005 Student Handbook Revisions The attached represents the recommendations for the revision of the 2004 - 2005 Student Handbook. The old information is presented in regular type and the new or recommended revisions are presented in bold type. The information that is being deleted is presented with a strike through. The administration is recommending the approval of the revisions. DRAFT 2004-2005 STUDENT HANDBOOK REVISIONS SAFE AND UNSAFE SCHOOLS Pursuant to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, the following information is to be provided to parents: Safe Schools Safe schools are those where students, staff members and visitors feel safe and welcome and have the opportunity to learn, teach, work, and engage in activities without being threatened, intimidated, bullied, harassed, or made the victim of crime. Such schools provide an environment in which students are challenged academically, respected and supported socially and emotionally by peers and staff, held accountable for their actions, and able to work without fear. Perhaps, most importantly, a safe school is one where students are connected and feel a part of the school. This broad definition of a safe school extends the concept of safety beyond the realm of physical well-being to include the related areas of social climate and order. Unsafe Schools For the purpose of NCLB, the definition of a persistently dangerous public school implies a pattern of unsafe behaviors as demonstrated over time, not just a single event. The committee recommended a period of two consecutive years, during which the following are evidenced, establishes the condition of \"persistently unsafe.\" A school would be considered persistently dangerous if the following conditions are observed: 1. For each year during the past two consecutive years, the school has had a federal or state gun-free school violation as allowed by the USC and/or Arkansas Criminal Code Annotated, or at least one violent criminal offense has been committed on school property (Violent criminal offense means homicide, rape, robbery and/or aggravated assault), and 2. For each year during the past two consecutive years, the school has experienced expulsions for drugs, alcohol, weapons or violence that exceeds 3% of the total school population as reported on October 1st of each year. NOTE: If a school is designated as an unsafe school, students will have an opportunity to transfer to another school where there is space. STUDENT CONDUCT CODE- ELEMENTARY STUDENTS 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  SoufQi11g or iighti11g  Playing radios, tape players or band instruments 0 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 OTE: THE OFFENDER WILL PAY FOR DAMAGE TO A 'Y Bl S EQUIPMENT. EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM PENAL TIES l. A otulio11t , he poooeoooo light@ro, light@r Auili0 a11cl.'er Acu,ooablo pPoli1t0t0, 8tfl@lrn0, uo@o a11, tobaeeo proliuet, or uo00 aR, illiigal clrugo on a b1to, r: ho ph, oieall, or , o,eall, abuo@o a \\mo 1fri, e,, er eommito an aet of , anlialiom eauoing liamag@ to a bus shall not b@ p@Ffflitt@li to Filie a 00hool euo in tho Littlo Roelt Eohool Qi0tfi@t f@r a mi1tim1tm ofniR@ @@Its. ln aliditien, th@ paronti'guarliian ofa ohtlient 11he damagoo a oehool bus ::ill bo ,equi,od to r@imburo@ the Qiotriet for tho ooot ofrnpai,ing tho damag@ bof@r0 th@ traRopertation p,i, il@go io rootornli. m tho o, ont ef a ooeond eff@no@ of an, on@ eftho aeov0, a owdont r: ill bi! doniod tranopertation f@r tho romaind@r of tho oehool term. ~ 1. As a last resort, the Transportation Department may discontinue a bus route when a large number of students who ride the bus refuse to obey the regulations. If it becomes necessary for school personnel to consider eliminating a bus route because of continued misconduct by students, except in extreme circumstances, parents will be contacted by letter or telephone to inform them of the situation. A meeting with parents/guardians and school personnel will be arranged to discuss the circumstances and to consider possible solutions. 2. All regulations and sanctions pertaining to student behavior and safety that apply during the school day are applicable to students while they are riding buses to and from school. ~M\u0026gt; (\n: ( 'untinurcl rni1 htha iur nn tht 1 t'h11nl hu 1,\" ill rt tt# inn lo,,, oftran,,fHlrhttion pri ilegt!!,-. Wfl-t~~M==t-h-~ rtctnattKlt1r o+=Utl' '1t'mt 1,1t1r ur t.rhoul _:'t:UJ', '\\ote: Repeated \\'iolations of Category I Olfrmes \"ill result in the student being charged under Ruic :? I -\\. Category :?. !D .., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;..... en \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt; ~n EO o!!! c:Z :,\n,C., Z:,\n, :il:m m\ni: Z\u0026gt; \"\"\":,\n, ~ en STUDENT CONDUCT CODE - MIDDLE AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Rule 8: Smoking or Use of Smokeless Tobacco Smoking or possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or tobacco products of any kind on school district property, at school-related activity or on the school bus is prohibited. (Arkansas Code 5-78-101-102) First Offense: Enrollment in, and completion of, a smoking education program. Enrollment documentation is required. ~ Two days in-school suspension for failure to complete the program. Second Offense: Enrollment in, and completion of, a smoking education program. Enrollment documentation is required.~ Four days in-school suspension and probation. ote: A student found in possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or flammable products on school buses will be required to attend a student/ parent/ administrator conference within 24 hours of the incident. 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 Stude11t Ha11dbook. NOT PERMITTED  Eating and drinking on the bus  Smoking  S euftling 8F HgffliRg  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 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\n\\OTE: THE OFFE:\\DER WILL PA\\' FOR DA\\lAGE TO A \"i\\' B\\'S EQl'IP\\IE:\\T. These rules are set to ensure that the students riding a bus m the Little Rock School District are transported as safely as possible and are, at the same time, provided a pleasant trip to their destination. STUDENT CONDUCT CODE - MIDDLE SCHOOL AND SENIOR ffiGH STUDENTS EXCEPTIO TO MINIMUM PENALTIES 1. A otuti@nt urho poooooooo lightoro, lighter th1itio enti/or flemmeblo p1'0tiueto, omolrno, uooo ens tobee88 protiuet, or uooo ens illogel srugo one buo, who phyoieelly or\n1erbelly e@uoeo e l\n,uo dri, er, or BOR'lfmto en eet of , entielioM eeuoing tiemege to e buo ohell not b@ pem1itteti to fitie e oehool buo in the Jsittle Roelt School Qiotriet fore rninimurn of nine .,.Hilo. ht eetiition, tho pe,ene\u0026lt;~ereien efe otuti0nt II ho tiemegoo e oehool buo\n1ill be ,011uiroti to ,eimi\niu,oo d~o QiotJ:iet for tho GOot offepeiring tho eemogo b0fo,o the tJ:enoportetion privilege io rcoto!'oti. 1H tho o  llnt ofe ouonti off@no@ of ens on11 ofth11 ebovo, e otutient ill I\n,@ eonieti trenoportetion for tho romeintio, oftho o@hool toflfA . .!.. 1. As a last resort, the Transportation Department may discontinue a bus route when a large number of students who ride the bus refuse to obey the regulations. If it becomes necessary for school personnel to consider eliminating a bus route because of continued misconduct by students, except in extreme circumstances, parents will be contacted by letter or telephone to inform them of the situation. A meeting with parents/guardians and school personnel will be arranged to discuss the circumstances and to consider possible solutions.\n. 2. All regulations and sanctions pertaining to student behavior and safety that apply during the school day are applicable to students while they are riding buses to and from school. 1,l,'AIU'ING: \u0026lt;?ontinu@d ntisbelta\\'ior on the o@ltool lrno will result in a loos of transportation pri\\ilogoo, temporarily or for tlte renteinder of tlte seme,\nter or u@ltool year. ote: Repeated violations of Category I Offenses will result in the student being charged under Rule 218, Category 2. !..I,I z  zn\ni! \"' \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ?\u0026lt; ~n ~5 o!!! C: z\na C) Z\na 31::m m31:: Z)\u0026gt; ....\na\n,i\n\"' STUDENT CONDUCT CODE - MIDDLE AND SENIOR IDGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Rule 14: Gambling Playing a game of chance for something of value will not be tolerated. All funds that are not claimed will be confiscated and deposited in school's Activity Fund. First Offense: Suspension: 3-5 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 4-6 days and probation (block schedule schools) Second Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 26A. Possession/Use of Paging Devices ~tltlfltlP!i), Cellular Phones and/or Other Electronic Communication Devices The use or possession of a beeper or other electronic communication device (CD, MP3, DVD) 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: Suspension: 5 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 6 days and probation (block schedule schools) Third Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 39: Extortion/Robbery Obtaining or attempting to obtain money or property from an individual by force or threat of force is prohibited. (Arkansas Code 6-18-502 and 6-17-113) DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS/PROCEDURES Student/Parent Reinstatement Conference When a student is being short-term suspended, a conference should be held with the parent/guardian and the student to seek resolution of the misconduct and to consider the reinstatement requirements. The parent/guardian and administrator should agree on a mutually satisfactory time for the conference. If the parent/guardian does not request a conference by the end of the suspension, the appropriate administrator shall initiate contact. The building administrator may select an alternative means for a reinstatement conference if the parent/guardian is unable to attend. Students who have been in an alternative, residential- or day-treatment, and other educational faclllty must be reinstated by the Student Hearing Office. .!l.:,J z z\u0026gt; n ~ UJ )( ?\u0026lt;\n,..n ~o co!!z?\n,\n, C) z\n,\n,\nl:m m\n1: Z\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;\n,\n, =\"' UJ POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ANTI-BULL YING Consequences for Violation of This Policy By Students in Grades 6-12 First Offense: The student or students who are the\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_1770","title":"Court filings regarding motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Court's order, Joshua intervenors' and LRSD's exhibit and witness list, 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":["2004-04"],"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.)--History--21st century","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","African Americans--Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","School integration","School improvement programs","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Court's order, Joshua intervenors' and LRSD's exhibit and witness list, 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/1770"],"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":["18 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, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their opposition to the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be released from further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Court's order of April 19, 2004; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' exhibit list and witness list; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) witness list and exhibit list; 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.    . ., . C,\\ t,(A,~ - t: JWR... APR 15 200, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK WESTSRN DIVISION By~ 5Epc(]Al( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED . APR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Mon'i taring of Its Desegregation Efforts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2. 7 .1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy.\" [Mem. Opiri., September 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The LRSD motion should be denied apd supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional years. 1 The Int.ervenors' Opposition is based upon record in the case, the accompanying memorandum, and evidence (including expert 1This two year period of time will afford the LRSD the minimum time it needs to achieve compliance with tne remedy; and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM the time to determine whether compliance is not merely transitory. 1 I i I l . i I I i l i testimony) and arguments to be submitted at the hearing scheduled - by the court. iRenvsr ~ ... Ro ert Pressman . 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass, 405900 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY ,. 10013-28 97 212-965-2200 2 o Walker 'ckey Hicks ohn W. Walker, P.A . 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 15th day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. 3 (J ' tr ~ - FILED  ' c.ao-Jl;!_.,DISTRICT COURT ~ -. ..,..., s::rv11 DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 15 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By . DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUN~Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED APR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitorina of Its Deseareaation Effo~ts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2. 7. 1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy\" [Memorandum Opinion, September 13,2002,at 172, para. F]. Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The retention of jurisdiction should be for a new period of two school years. This court's September, 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's 1 / ,.. supervision. This court wrote: I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs under 2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2. 7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs [at 150; emphasis in original] . I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in rernediating the academic achievement of African American students. [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenors' opposition to the LRSD motion. A. The Lack of the Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2 . through 14, the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students: . [ \"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin., at 170; see also id. at 168) (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, the court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to . prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations.\" [Mem. 2 / ,J' , 1'  ' Opin. at 156; see id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley ) ; at 156-57 (school - board); at 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]; at 159 (Dr. Lesley)]. (3.) Subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation/assessment unit. [ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 2, 16] (4.) In its opinion of September 13, 2002, the court found that the LRSD had identified \"many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2. 7 [of the agreed upon Plan] II [Mem. Opin. at 150] The Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. [Mem. Opin. at 170; emphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM , the LRSD has not even - identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate (much less provided evidence of the assessment or evaluation of each program). [ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 23.] (5.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mem . Opin. at 151- 152; 153; 156-158], the LRSD properly concluded that it must each year, among other things, complete several compreh~nsive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students . \" [Plan Section 2. 7] 1 (6. ) On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled \"Program Evaluation Agenda.\". The regulation 1 . LRSD Compliance Plan, filed March 14, 2003, at 7. 3 / sets forth standards and procedures for program evaluations in the - LRSD. [See LRSD Submission of March 14, 2003, Appendix l] It provides in part (at 5) that \"the first meetings [of the committee responsible for evaluating a particular program] will be devoted to the following tasks . D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, 'Has this curriculum\\instruction program been effective i .n improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.)\" (7.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the \"Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation\" authored by Dr. Steven M. Ross and others of the Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis. The LRSD approved a list of research questions for this study not including the auestion quoted in para. 6 1 identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 2 Indeed,the Literacy Evaluation states (at 4): \"The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of Africa:n American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District.\" (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document regarding the \"Page 148\" evaluations. It is titled \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Progr~m Evaluations in Little Rock School District.\",[filed by LRSD on March 14~ 2003] The document articulates, among others, 2 See Literacy Evaluation at 1 (research questions), at 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 4 the following premise [Plaintiffs' Notice ... , March 14, 2003, at - 1]: Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment.' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, now it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. (9 .) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows (at 3): (10.) . [Dr. Ross] also describ.ed the program evaluation process, which included a classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district .. Respectfully, the O TTr'\\-\"':\\ 1 1 V \"-.\u0026amp;..._.,..I.. ..L. text of the Literacy Evaluation shows, consistent with its stated purpose, that it \"focused] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data .\" The description of programs is exceedingly terse and, at grade levels 10-12, almost non-existent. [Literacy Evaluatton at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess ~ctual program implementation. This is the case because the funding which the LRSD provided to Dr. Ross and his Center was not sufficient to pay for classroom observation. This study can provide little help to answer the question \"whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners.\" ,In this regard, it is noteworthy that LRSD Regulation IL-Rl includes, as one 5 / i -l criterion for identifying evaluation topics, the following question - [at 4] : \"Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the prograrn?\"3 ( 11.) Other elements of LRSD policy IL-Rl, as well as the professional standards on which the LRSD standards drew, buttress Joshua Intervenors' contention that the Literacy Evaluation falls short of the mark when judged in the light of the objectives of the court's Compliance Remedy (i.e., conducting PROGRAM evaluations for a particular purpose.) (a.) LRSD policy IL-Rl contains the following content: Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. [at 3) \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" G:C:  Write a clear description .. of the curriculum\\ in3truction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. [at 4-5) (b.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") provides that \"all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Cammi ttee on Standards for Education Evaluation.\" Policy IL-Rl further identifies these standards; they are The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) . These standards include the following content in the section on \"accuracy standards\" [at 127-28): 3 The Literacy Evaluation does inform the LR,SD that it must determine whther it has a literacy program at grades 6-12 and, as well, assess the need to communicate the content of the program to teachers. See Evaluation at 43 (first paragraph}. 6 / STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It is necessary for the evaluator to gain a solid understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons of the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to describe orally, and, if possible, in wri ting--the intended and actual program with reference to such characteristics .as personnel, cost, procedures, location, facilities, setting, activities, objectives, natrire of participation, and potential side effects ... C. Engage independ~nt observers to describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved ... (1 2 .) The LRSD provides as one comprehensive evaluation \"An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003\" (December 2003 ) . The dos:;ument provides only a brief general description of the math and science programs evaluated. [at 9-10] It notes the phasing in of the program in the period 1998-1999 to 2002-03 [at 7-~], with grades 10-12 reached in the school year 200 ?. -03. [i3t. 9] The evaluation recognizes the importance of actual implemen~ation in the classroom. [at 11, 106, 107] It identifies three methods utilized 7 / to secure data on this matter, but does not report any results. [at - 11] With regard to the description of the program evaluated and its implementation, this evaluation falls short of the LRSD and professional standards cited above. Consequently, one can not determine whether the program or any component of it is responsible for any of the outcomes cited in the report. ( 13.) The weakness of the \"Page 148\" evaluations also evidences the lack of capacity of the LRSD to fulfill paragraphs (a) and (A) of the Compliance Remedy. [Mem. Opin. at 170-171] See infra, para. 15 and (14.) The ODM Report of March 30, 2no4, states: \"Contrary to the spirit of the regulation for program evaluation, the [LRSD] literacy evaluation team's involvement was limited to tacit approval of . the evaluation  plan and assisting with data - collection . \" [at 16] This is a negative factor in terms of the system's developing internal capacity for conducting evaluations and assessments . B. The Preparation of the Page 148 Evaluations (15.) The LRSD did not comply in substance with the requirement of the court-ordered remedy that it [prepare] the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report . [Compliance Remedy, Mem. Opin. at 170] The evaluations filed by the LRSD on March 14, 2003 do not satisfy the sLandards for evaluations set forth in Regulation ~LRl, o~ the professional standards on which they are ~ased. See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 148 8 'Evaluations,'\" filed April 14, 2003; ODM Report, March 30, 2004, - at 21 (citing views of Dr. Ross \"that, for the most part, the evaluations of the subject programs 'were worthless'\" and \"that the evaluations were of little or no use to the district.\") C. The Use of Evaluation and Assessment Results (16.) The LRSD provides no discussion of any use made of the results of evaluation/assessment in the science area . [ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 15] (17.) The LRSD did not use the \"page 148 [evaluations]\" \"as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs.\" [Compliance Remedy, Mem.Opin . . Qt 171-7-2] Th:e1.-e is no suggestion of such use in either the March 14, 2003 submission or the March 12, 2004 submission of the LRSD; see also ODM report, March 30, 2004 at 22. D. The Failure of the LRSD to Provide Information ( 18.) Subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has acted in a manner to limit the availability of information about its compliance activities . (a) LRSD Policy IL-Rl (\"Program Evaluation Agenda\") adopted by the LRSD on October 10, 2002, provides in part (at 5) that the \"team leader\" for each evaluation shall G. Plan wa vs to Provide reaular oroaress reports {e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reoorts to the Superintendent's Cabinet an.d\\or Compliance team) to stakeholders, including the Associate ' Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, _the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), 9 / and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). - Thereafter , the LRSD did not implement this provision . (b) On April 8, 2003, as part of the Section 8 process, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors directed a letter to the LRSD concerning the plan for carrying out evaluations and the provision to Joshua of information on observation of the educational program within several schools . The LRSD ignored this letter, Attachment A hereto. (c) The Joshua also discussed their concerns regarding the LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy in a letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM on March 10, 2004, a copy of which was provided to counsel for the school district. hereto. E . Other Factors This letter is Attachment B LRSD submissions subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy do not show that in that period the district worked with the Arkansas Department of Education to remediate the racial academic achievement disparities which continue to exist in the LRSD. See, for example, the test data in the math-science evaluation. The LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Pulaski . County School District Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989 (as Revised September 28 , 1989), Section IIIF( a,c), III-G . CONCLUSTON The LRSD has neither completed adequately the products which this court required, nor demonstrated the capacity to carry on 10 adequately in the evaluation/assessment sphere without court - supervision and monitoring. Therefore, the LRSD motion should be denied and supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional school years. Respectfully submitted, ~-tG 1\"2-~~v- Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal . Defense- and- . Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 11 J hn W. Walk:er (./Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 / I on all a copy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served counsel of record on this 15th day of April, 2004 by placing of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. f}L7l2 l\u0026lt;)vJiw-, LI- 12 / JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITn.E ROCK, AB.KANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER OF COUNSEL. SHAWNCIDLDS ROBERT McHENRY. PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD Lrrru RocK, ARKANSAS 12210 PHONE: 1501) 372-3425  F.4.X (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbellnec Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge.\u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD Dear Clay: April 8, 2003 This letter is a follow up to the issues raised by Joshua Intervenors regarding implementation of the evaluation remedy. As you will recall, Ann Marshall has chaired two meetings on this matter. Joshua lntervenors requested that the LRSD a.dd to the matters to be the subject of full evaluation the providing of interventions for students failing to meet standards. We took the position that this area is of particular importance to the class which. we represent. We also requested that the evaluation standards be.modified to guarantee that the outside -consultant is in charge of the evaluation product for the area for which he or she is hired. We have had no respoo:')e as to whether the LRSD school board has adopted our two suggestions. Please inform us of the school board's decision on each of these matters and the date of action by the Board. At each of the meeting chaired by Ms. Marshall, we were informed by Dr Lesley about detailed reviews of teaching practices and other factors within several schools. We were.twice told that we would receive copies of the reports for these schools. We have yet to receive the reports and ask that they be provided promptly. At the second meeting, Dr. Lesley indicated that she had in mind ex~erts to recommend to work on each of the comprehensive evaluations. However, she declined at that time to identify those persons. Please inform us of the experts who have been selected to work on each of the evaluations and provide us with a copy of the curriculum vitae if we have not already been provided a copy. ff the schedule for producing the comprehensive evaluations has been changed, please provide us a copy of the revised schedule. As we are in need of deciding whether to raise any of these matters before the court, . we / Attachment A Page 2 - Letter dated April 8, 2003 would appreciate a prompt response to this letter. Sincerely, Robert Pressman cc: Ms. Ann Marshall / JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS lvis. Ann S. 1:vfarshaJl, Monitor Office ofDesegregati.on monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 A.\"'l'ORNEY .Af! LAW 1723 BROADWAY 1rrrLE RoCK, .ARKANsAs 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHEN-:RY, P.A.: DONNAJ. McHENRY  8210 liF.NDERSON RaAJl   L1Trr.E ROCK, AElw!SAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  F.AX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net . Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the ~ourt  is c.011ceri-1ed, a s ;;,.re are, about impr.uving the acadernic .achit:vement OI ...~ _Jiica!I~l...m.erica:r1 students. o.ur belief is th.at ~11 of the components oftheJ?lan were intended to work :hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the .process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the D_i.strict's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all pro grams as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Rep0rt were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very pur_poses of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no :further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Prow.am Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation.of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock Sahool District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. 1:vJr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process o.utlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Lit'-J.e Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as, you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 1 / Attachment B We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that.we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to \"No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State  accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicrt outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its cqmpliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programswould be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is that achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your,attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's :use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediati.ng the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, pag~ 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or  correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of Afiican American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for exampie. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion ii; in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have :o.ot successfully addressed African American  student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossiqle to attain. 2 / I 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her :findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th. grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th. graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page i 70, paragraph A , contemplates the use of this data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding-the participation .of African.American students in Pre-AP and AP courses :which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other pro grams aimed at improving African American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement ofBencbmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic .in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). . -~ 12) The evaluation reports discussed prnfessional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. .., .J The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because ofyqur designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for OD.M by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. TWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson N.fr. Chris Reller Nk Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAM FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS K LITTLE ROCK DIVISION Br,.:-t-,:......!.,J.,:.....-L.l,,.~:::::..=:~::::-== LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. APR 21 2004 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Please file a list of your expected witnesses and exhibits by noon, day after tomorrow, April 21, 2004. For each witness you expect to call, please set forth the amount of time you expect to spend on direct examination. If you want a conference call regarding the presentation of evidence at the hearing next week please call Ms. Mary Johnson at 501-604-5144 forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED this / f;{ty of April, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. 8 5 8 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED APR 21 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 April 20, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed ADE's Response to the Court's Order of April 19, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 April 20, 2004 MAH Enclosure cc: Scott Smith (w/enclosure) Very truly yours, ~r Assistant Attorney General IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN OISTRICi ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMi:....n11.__, K LITTLE ROCK DIVISION .B-,~~~w.:::..c....=~~= 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 APR 1 g 2004 D OFF/Cf OF ESEGREGAT/ON MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please file a list of your expected witnesses and exhibits by nrnn, day after tomorrow, April 21, 2004. For each witness you expect to call, please set forth the amount of time you expect to spend on direct examination. If you want a conference call regarding the presentation of evidence at the hearing next week please call Ms. Mary Johnson at 501-604-5144 forthwith. ~tf IT IS SO ORDERED this Jj!_ day of April, 2004. DNlHOllNOW NOllVD3HD3S3a ~033~~0 eAs,kG(4,~D s,R,c, xouR, RKANsAs ~DOZ 8 Z ~dV APR 2 f 1AnL JAMts ,uu, By: W. MccoRMA C3Al3~3H IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT C  CK, CLE Rk EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL . .  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' EXIIlBIT LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The )6shua\u0026lt;Interverio:rs rriay use tliefoliowing exmbits~dunng the hearing scheduled for ,. ':. :: ~- ...... .:.~!' ; .. :,, : - -:- ~-;::~.i.;~1: -.~::~;. ,',!-~ . . ;1~~ : . . ~:...:::, :1 r ... r  . . : April 26 and 27, 2004: ,.!. : 1   1) LR.Sb Policy IL (\"Evaluati\u0026lt;?n of Instructional Programs,,J; CX 575   - 2) LRSD :Regulation IL-Rl (\"Program Evaluation Agenda)  3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Ye~ Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Provided to Intervenors by Counsel for the LRSD, October 25, 2002) 5) Memoranda from Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education (Prepared by Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley): a) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 b) Approval ofthe SEDL's Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21, 2002 : i\".,f)] ; ; ,ri : c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Edtic\"atiori'D'evelopment Lab (SEDL\\ November 21, 2002 - -  \"  d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 f) Onward to Excellence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 k) Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 6) Guidelines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) 7) Letter from Chris Heller to Ann Marshall and John W. Walker, October 27, 2003 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 9). LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation 10) An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 11) The LRSD's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 12) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D. (Professor, Lynch School of Education, Seriior Research Associate, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College) 13) Grade .to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race 14) Vita, Richard C. Hunter, Ed. D. (Professor of Educational Administration and Head of the Educational Organizatien and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted, 0J 9 I 0 (kv~ t/~ f 1~ ,i1}rYVJfi'\"' .. ; . , Robert Pressman i hA 22 Locust Avenue g(v  Lexington , MA 02421 781 - 862 - 1955 Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachk.in Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson Str eet New York, NY 10013-2897 212 - 965-2200 ~n w( Walker /~ickey Hicks / John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway Little Rock , AR 501-374-3758 Ark . 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE P .A. 72206 I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21st day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage ' ,') I' / prepaid . .,, ~ ,, , ti~ :;f utb r,, RECEIVED uflLEO EASTERN \\s\\tfwcr COURT ICT ARKANSAS - APR 2 8 2004 APR 2 12004 '\\MfSW OFRCEOF :  McCORMACK CL DESEGREGATION MON!i0RlNG --- , ERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEPCLERK - PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors may call thefollowing persons as witnesses du.....:...ng the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D., Expert - 1 1/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School, L~SD - 10 minutes 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School, LRSD - 10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD - 10 minutes 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent, PCS SD - 5 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, Pr ssman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955  [/Rickey Hicks Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones   -      .....  President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21st day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of saG in the United 1hStates mail postage prepaid. _ j ~ \\ I i r\\l._ 1 1 \\ / /\\ . \\.. /, (V ,V\\./\\J ~ ( V ; fl/jlJ ( ( t l~V . IOIO\u0026lt;I t--'. 4 As,}!kt,('m,f D Ots-,-Rtc-,- COI.Jttr AR~'-'Si\\s . APR 2 1 ,n,.L JA.MEs c.w, Sy: w. MccoRMA. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C Cl(, CLER}( EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS Dt:pC(ERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL. MRS. LORENE J,?SHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS Thl'TERVENORS Toe Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\"), CX 575 2) LR.SD Regulation IL-Rl (''Program Evaluation Agenda) 3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Year Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Provided to Imervenors by Counsel for the LRSD, October 25. 2002) 5) Memoranda from Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education (Prepared by Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bom:rie A. Lesley): v~ i 1 a) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002  V,1 ~=-b) Approval oft:he SEDL's Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21 , 2002  v ~ /  ., c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002 '- ,/ VtJ l. m d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 .,, ;9 v ~, 1. t:: e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002   v~I-!!1- ) Onward to E.'Ccellence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 v g) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 l s ~ e ,. / ) \\/4 1.-u:r h) Vital Link program Evaluation. February 13, 2003 / Vo . IY- i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003   I-fV j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003  --- \\/4,/ ~ k) Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 / Vt} l. fY 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 / 6) Guidelines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003)  7) Letter from Chris Heller to Aon Marshall and John W. Walker, October 27, 2003 / 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 / 9) LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation C. 1~ 6,, ,_, 10) An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 ( i: ,., D   11) Toe LRSD's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 f .t\\D~l~\"f) 12) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D. (Professor, Lynch School of Education, Senior ~ Research Associate, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College) 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race .' 14) Vita. Richard C. Hunter, Ed. D. (Professor of Educational Administration and Head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. ? Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted, l ! , ! ~ST#~G'sstfo . '\"''er OIJF(r ;\\.q ~S,\\,s APR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~~W. I /$f EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAs\u0026gt;'~  Mccol?M-4cK. WESTERN DMSION ' CLf:Rk DepCWfRK LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSffiJA. ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE .JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as v.:itncsscs d~...ng the henring scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - l hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D., Expert - 11/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - I hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School, LRSD - 10 minmes 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School, lRSD - 1 0 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD - 10 minutes 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent, PCS SD - 5 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rocle School District. f . J [} . ~-J;, f\u0026amp;~,J . irs rt ressman ry}ri\"n 22 Locust. Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 Elaine R. Jones     President \u0026amp; Directer-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Respectfully submitted, '.__ - c:1Lrh - ;1-  ohn W. Walker ~' ickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A . 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy cf the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21 st day of April, 2004 ;~e~!f~ing a copy of 5T\\ int Ut;f:~; mail postage \\ I . 1 t . r+ 0 ,__,. .-. '..!.-1 \\., \\..,,I) t ' V d V ;,., - - - - - - -------- ---------- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED APR 21 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 April 20, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed ADE's Response to the Court's Order of April 19, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 April20, 2004 MAH Enclosure cc: Scott Smith (w/enclosure) Very truly yours, ~T Assistant Attorney General FIL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTE.\u0026amp;s~sTR1~'2RT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS N DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 f 20()/f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK -----~=,:JP~J~AilluNT~F DEPCU::RK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL APR 2 ,' 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfflNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST The Little Rock School District expects to call the following witnesses and present the following exhibits at the hearing scheduled to being on April 26, 2004, except Dr. Lesley, whose testimony will be presented by deposition. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WITNESS LIST Dr. Steven M. Ross, Director, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis - expected direct examination time - 1 hour; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, former LRSD Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour; Dr. Ed Williams, LRSD Research Specialist - expected direct examination time -30 minutes; Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes; Page 1 of 4 6. 7. Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes; Vanessa Cleaver, Director of National Science Foundation Grant - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes. EXHIBIT LIST 1. Program Evaluations and Accompanying Memoranda submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval on October 24, 2002, November 21 , 2002, December 19, 2002, February 13, 2003 and February 27, 2003 (These were attached to our Notice of Filing on March 14, 2003 in Volumes I - IV); 2. September 26, 2002 Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03; 3. October 4, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley transmitting Compliance Plan to counsel and Ms. Marshall; 4. October 10, 2002 memo to Dr. Ken James from Ann Marshall re LRSD 's Compliance Plan 5. October 10, 2002 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Bonnie Lesley; 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. October 11 , 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall regarding Compliance Remedy; October 17, 2002 Request for Qualifications of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant; October 25, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall; November 4, 2002 letter to John Walker and Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley; Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in LRSD prepared by Dr. Ross; December 3, 2002 letter to Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley; December 3, 2002 letter to John Walker from Bonnie Lesley; January 27, 2003 Memo to Dr. Ken James from Dr. Bonnie Lesley regarding contracted Services - Dr.Ross; February 13, 2003 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Lesley regarding Information on Completion of Eight Program Evaluations for Submission to Federal Court Page 2 of 4 15. April 8, 2003 letter from John Walker to Clay Fendley; 16. Response to ODM and Joshua Objections, by Dr. Steven M. Ross; 17. Changes in Science Curriculum, by Dennis Glasgow; 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~~9.lL- ---- -~::~~:-. -....... , -----.. \u0026gt; B ~,,.,---q..=:\u0026amp;4,1~2J~~:_;_f,,,c:..4+~........,,.,... Page 3 of 4 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 April 21, 2004: 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 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 Page 4 of 4 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Lillie Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson B-ille MaryJane Rf.\"bick Lillie Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas April 30, 2004 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 . Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, :ti- m1t General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier - - ------ ---------- --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 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 2004. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, Attorney, 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 30, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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, 2004 Based on the information available at March 31, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    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_1041","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":["2004-04"],"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/1041"],"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.\nDNIHOllNOW N011~93H93S30 :!0331:l:JO ~ooz I z ~dv 03A 03~ Agenda RECEIVED OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIO ONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting / APR 2 2 04 ci:FICE OF DESEGREGATI ITO. I G I\n.,. April 2004 n-.. .,\u0026gt;. .. \",m..'. ,... - .... :I: Oz o\u0026gt; \"C'-\"\u0026lt;' m-..\n,:,c: -z\n,:,n o,...\" i\"5' r-z nm \u0026gt; F .., \"0 ' n :em me ,... C: on,.~.. ffiJ :l m ill !X\u0026gt; i n \"\"'' ,... \"..,' \"n'\"o' - 3: \u0026gt;n :::. p::\nzm \"' \u0026lt;\n,c \u0026gt;,,.  ~ c:,\n,c o \u0026gt; I! \"c' c... 31:3: ml!: 31: c c:,\nz rn r \".,,'\"_ c\nz Cl I. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING April 22, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 111. 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: 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 G. Update: OCR Compliance Review - Final Report V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes B. Personnel Changes VI. SCHOOL SERVICES: A. 2004 Summer Educational Programs n -c ,\u0026gt;.. .. .,\nm.o.. ,.... _ _, 3C Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ m..,\no C: -z\non 0 _, ,.... c5 r-z \u0026gt;n \"' F :a:, \u0026gt;m i:nc3 C~: _:a,:, 111 n\no :::\nm ,.n :::!8 Oz Z:::\n\"'o z \"' !X' i n. ::\no,,: U) r- ..,\no\no no _, 3C \u0026gt;n :::\n,::\nm z U) Regular Board Meeting April 22, 2004 Page2 VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Regulation: GBEA-R - Conflict of Interest B. Dedication of Right of Way: Parkview Magnet High School C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT (\")\"D .\u0026gt;\nJmtl ,- rr...-.. :-1: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ m..,\nJ0 C: -z\n,oC\"\u0026gt; 0 ..... ,- c5 r-z (\")U\u0026gt; \u0026gt; F \"D g :m1:mo ,- C: (\") $! 0,- ,i\n~ ::1 m\nJ0 \"'\nJ0 \u0026gt;m  \"D cno C:\nJ0 ~ ..... -1!! (\")\nJO =q:q ~8 Oz z =l \"'\n\"' ?'\nJ0 m ~ (\")\nJO .\n,c ,- .\".',\nJtl\n,o C\"\u0026gt;O .... !I: \u0026gt;n =\u0026lt; p:\n~ \"' I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS C. LRCTA IV . Kt.l'\\JKll\u0026gt;/\\.UNIN\\UN~AIIUN:\u0026gt; A. BOARD MEMBERS '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: April 22, 2004 Board of Directors (il ~ Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Off~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Bill Goodman~ April 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects The construction projects at Mabel vale Magnet Middle, Mann Magnet Middle and Williams Magnet Elementary have been completed and the staff and students have moved into the additions and remodeled rooms. However, some work is ongoing mainly to address construction deficiencies (\"punch lists\" items) that are a part of all construction projects. I hope you have an opportunity to visit all or some of these schools. You will be pleased with the results. An architectural firm has been selected for the remodeling of the original buildings at Forest Heights Middle School that were constructed in 1956. One objective is to improve the appearance of the school from Evergreen Street. As this project develops, I will keep you informed of the details of this objective. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501 -324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 .!J,:,I m\n,\n, ~ zz ,m-n ~z Cl m rn !\" \u0026gt; C C :::. 0\n,\n, rn i!ll c3 ~ .:.\". Pl :c C\ng ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facilitv Name Project Description I Est. Comple11on Cost Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 , Jul-04 Brady Addition/renovation I $973,621 7 Aug-04 Central Renovation - Interior I $10,200,2661 Aug-05 Dunbar Renovation/addition I $6,149,0237 Dec-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music ' J. A. Fair jroom a dd1\".ll on $ 3,155,640 May-04 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 , Jul-04 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 I Jun-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 ' Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Aug-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 I Aug-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 ' Jul-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING/ SUMMER 2004 I Est. compTel1on Facilitv Name Proiect Descriotion Cost Date Booker Roof $48,525 Aug-04 Booker ADA Rest rooms TBD _ Aug-04 Central Reflecting Pond $50,000 Aug-04 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area I $225,000\nAug-04 Chicot Drainage I $64,700 1 Aug-04 Chicot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm $53,919 1 Aug-04 Geyer Springs Roof Repair : $161,752 Aug-04 Henderson Lockers $80,876 A~ Mitchell Building Remediation $165,000 May-04 Mitchell ______ !Renovation I $2,212,493 Aug-05 VVestern Hills ADA Rest rooms $15,000 ~4 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name Proiect Descriotion 1---c,B_o_o.,k...er_ ______- +E~lec~tric_a_l_U,pgrad_e_ ____ Booker Roof Booker ADA Rest rooms Carver Media Center Expansion Chicot Electrical Upgrade Chicot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm Cloverdale Ecl.e.::.:m..c:.ce:.:n..c.t.:a.=1.:r.Ly.__ __,..cA...:.d:::cd:.:i..tci.o.:'-n_ ______ Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade Fair Park !Addition Forest Heights Remodel I I I -r I I l Garland _-=_-=_-=_-=__- Remodel ---------- Geyer Springs Roof Repair Gibbs Addition Henderson Mablevale McDermott Meadowcliff Pulaski Hgts. MS Rightsell Washington Western Hills Western H-ills- -- Western Hills Woodruff --COC-kers Fire Alarm Upgrade Fire Aiarmupgrade Addition Energy monitoring system installation Renovation Fire Alarm Upgrade Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC Fire Alarm Upgrade ADA Rest rooms Parkino addition Cost I Est. Completion Date Unknown $48,525 TBD Unknown Unknown $53,919 Unknown TBD Unknown ' $1,400,000 Unknown $161,752 Unknown $80,876 TBD TBD Unknown Unkn~ $2,494,000 TBD $640-:000-- TBD TBD $193 ,777 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Aug-06 Unknown . Aug-05 Unknown Unknown Unknown .!.\",' m\n-, z~ z ,m.. n :c \u0026gt;z C) m u, rn \u0026gt; C 0 ::::\n0\n-, u, .~., 0 ~ :\"' ..... m n :c C ~ ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description Cost I t::st. c.\nomple11on Date Administration I Asbestos abatement $380,495 I Mar-03 Administration I Fresh air system I $55,ooo I Aug-03 Administration I Fire alarm I $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation I Mav-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy monitoring system installation I $15,160 I Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 I Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Aug-02 Bale i Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale I Energy monitoring system I Mar-02 Bale I Partial roof replacement I $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 l Aug-01 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker I Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady  Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Brady I Asbestos abatement I $345,072  Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 I Mav-01 Carver Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central Parking I Student parking $174.000. I Aug-03 Central/Quigley \\Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 I Aug-03 Central/Quigley I Irrigation System $14,500 Aug~03 Central Purchase land for school I Unknown Dec-02 --- r- $2,000,000 - Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations Dec-02 --- Central Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 ---- -Oc-t-0-1 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation I $80,876 Aug-Q_1_ -- --rront landing tile repair --- Central - $22,470 __ Aug-01 ~ rgy efficient lighting -- Cloverdale Elem. $132,678 Jul-01 -- ---- Energy efficient ligh~ --- -- $189,743 -- Cloverdale MS Jul-01 --- --- - --- Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1 ,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd -- Energy efficient lighting -r - - $90,665 __ Aug.:Q_1_ Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile __ $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd ~ lace roof top HVAC T $215,570 --Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation --- - I $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services _ Fire alarm -- $12,000 __ Aug-03 HVAC renovation/fire alarm - Fair Park - $315,956 Apr-02 Fair Park -- - Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling -- - $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair ----- ~ rgy efficient lighting -- - $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair - Press box -- - $10J84 Nov-00 - ~ urity cameras - J. A. Fair - - $12,500 Jun-01 ~ hletic Field Improvement $38,000 - J. A. Fair Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System - $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs - $39(871 Aug-03 Forest Park R eplace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking - $111 ,742 Aug-03 Forest Park E- nergy efficient lighting - $119,788 May-01 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,950 Aug-01 - - Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright - - ~ king lot -- ~ $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright ~ of repairs $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation $2,511 ,736 Mar-03 Gibbs - Energy efficient lighting - $76,447 Apr-01 -+- Gibbs Energy monitorina svstem installation $11 ,770 Jul-01 2 .fD., m\n,\n, is zz ,m- (\") ~ C) m U\u0026gt; !\"' \u0026gt; C: C =i 0\n,\n, U\u0026gt; ~ ~ ~ :\" --\u0026lt; m (\") :i:: C: ~ ?. m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement , $168,222 i Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting I $296,707 I Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements I $93,657 Aug-01 Hall I Intercom I I Feb-01 Hall Security cameras ! $10,600 ' Jun-01 Henderson Energy efficient lighting : $193,679 i Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym I $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 I Aug-01 Henderson  Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 1 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson I Renovation \u0026amp; fire- al~a-rm_ __ -- ~ $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot ------~$26_9~,58_8 _____ J_u_l--o--'1 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-0t Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $106,598 1 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS ,Renovate bleachers $134,793 . Aug-01 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 ' Mar-04 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Apr-04 1-M_a_n_n_ _______.\n..A._sc.p1._hal_t w_alks _________- 1 The total $1 _8 million I Dec-01 ,--M_a_n_n_ _______- --,W_a_lk_w_a~1y_c_a_n_op~iies_ _______ __, is what has been ,__ __D_e c_-_0_,1 Mann Boiler replacement used so far on the Oct-01 Mann ~F_e_n_c_in~g ___________ -\u0026lt; projects listed I----- Sep-01 Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 McClellan I Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 McClellan I Stadium stands repair $235,000 McClellan Intercom $46,000 McDermott I Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Meadowcliff Fire alarm ------ $16,175 Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview --------- Asbestos abatement _ $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting ___ ~ _ $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system - $20,000 - Energy monitoring s stem installation $17,145 ~ efficient lighting -- : $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation . $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 - HVAC renovation Energy monitoring system installation Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement Parking lot 6 classroom addition Parking Improvements ~controls -- Roof replacement Exterior lights HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls Locker replacement Enerav efficient liahtina $237,237 $10,695 $81,828 $10,000 $138,029 $888,778 $142,541 $210,000 _ $273,877 $10,784 $301,938 $120,000 $315,000 Jun-01 Ma -01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 3 !XI ~ m\n:c ~ zz ,m... C') :c \u0026gt;z G) m (/) !\" \u0026gt; C: 0 =. 0\n:c (/) ~ ~ 0 :!l CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 22, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Proiect Description Cost I Est. Completion Date Procurement Enen:iy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm $25,ooo l Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground I $17,ooo I Dec-02 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting I $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace rooftop HVAC I $539,1751 Aua-01 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 I Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I Mar-03 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 I Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 I Aua-00 Southwest New roof I $690,000 I Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest I Drainage I street widening I $250,000 I Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation I $4,830 T Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aua-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 I Dec-01 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 Terry . Media Center addition $704,932 ---Seo-02 Wakefield Security cameras $a,ooo I Jun-01 Wakefield I Energy efficient lighting $74,776 T Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington 1Security cameras $7,900 I Jun-01 Washington 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 1Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills 1Asbestos 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 IR enovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Feb-04 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 ~ I - Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Aua-02 4 .!J.,I m :a:, fS z z m rn ! C) m u, !\" \u0026gt; C: 0 =l 0 :a:, u, ~ c3 :!!l Date: April 22, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From: @sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - April This is the fifty-fourth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. 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. .!J,,I m\no ~z z .m... (\") z~ Cl m rn :n .... ~ :c C.. , 0 ?!\nm Audit Report - April 2004 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial 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. 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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 501-44 7-1115 . My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. .!D., m\n,:, is zz ,m- C'l :z: \u0026gt;z c\n, m u, :n .... m C'l :z: C ~ ~ m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: April 22, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  May 3, 2004 is a District sponsored professional development day. All sessions on this day will be centered on technology training for teachers. The primary focus will be integrating technology into the curriculum. A few sessions of basic training will be provided for those teachers who need it.  LRSD Technology Center will be completed this summer. Staff from Instructional Technology and from Computer Information Services will be moving out to the new center which is located on the campus of Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. Technology training rooms and a distance learning center will be available for LRSD teachers. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA IA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical March 26 - April 22, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. .~., m\no ~z z .m.... (\") ~z C) m U\u0026gt; Date: To: From: Through: Subject: April 5, 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Education Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Update on the final report on Compliance Review 06995008 conducted by the Office for Civil Rights. Summary: A review of the district's progress reports was submitted to the Little Rock School District on March 18, 2004. The review addressed specific actions taken by the Little Rock School District to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunities and services to national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. The report received by the district provided specific details in each on of the compliance areas that OCR has determined that the Little Rock School District has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the Commitment to Resolve. Objective: To provide an update on the progress to date that the Little Rock School District has made in meeting the terms of the Commitment to Resolve - Compliance Review 06995008. Expected Outcomes: NIA Population: National origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient. :\u0026lt;:\n,o \u0026gt;0  C: 1-::z::! Zm ~I: en~ m\n,o en !JI \"0 m\n,o ~ z z m rn ::c z\u0026gt; C\u0026gt; m en ESL Report to Board April 22, 2004 Page 2 Budget A.mount/Budget Source: ESL Department Manager: Karen E. Broadnax, Supervisor, ESL Department Long range: Continuation of the Little Rock School District ESL Program Other Agencies Involved: NIA Expectations of District: Continuation of the services provided to_national origin language-minority students, who are limited English proficient, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.  2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.  794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C.  12131-12161, and their implementing regulations. Needed Staff: NIA Comments: None Recommendation: We request that the Board of Education accept this report. !JI \"0 m\n,c ~ zz ,m- C') ~ z C) rn\n,,\n:\n\"'~ C: C') 31::,: ~8\n,c ,- \"0\"' jg m C)\n,c ~~ 31:m en\"' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS SOUTHERN DIVISION , DALLAS OFFICE MAR 1 8 2004 Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Holmes: Ref: 06995008 The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Southern Division, Dallas Office, has completed a review of the progress reports, which were submitted to OCR by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Little Rock, Arkansas, to address the specific actions taken by the LRSD to ensure the provision of equal educational opportunities and services to national origin language-minority students who are limited English proficient (LEP). The LRSD voluntarily submitted a Commitment to Resolve (CTR), which was accepted by OCR on September 30, 1999, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.  2000d, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.  794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C.  12131- 12161, and their implementing regulations. In the progress reports, the LRSD provided OCR with documentation pertinent to the implementation of the CTR. Based on a review of the progress reports and additional information gathered during the on-site monitoring visits conducted by OCR on December 10- 11, 2002, and March 11-13, 2003, OCR has determined that the LRSD has satisfactorily fulfilled the terms specified in the CTR. Provided below, by commitment provision, is an explanation of how OCR reached this determination: Identification of Students With a Primary Home Language Other Than English The progress reports revealed that, at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the LRSD administered a Home Language Survey (HLS) to all students to identify those students who have a primary (first-learned) or home language (language influence) that is other than English (PHLOTE). In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD directed staff (i.e., principals, counselors, registrars, and secretaries) at every school site and at the Student Assignment Center to secure a completed HLS for all students upon initial emollment. Further, the LRSD developed a procedure that allows for other methods of identifying 1999 BRYAN STREET. SUITE 2600, DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 -6810 www.cd.gov Our nusswn IS to ensure equal access to educanon and to promote educarwnal exceUeru:e throughout the nanon. !JI \"D m\n,:, ~ z zm,.. . n ~ z Gl m \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; Page 2 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent PHLOTE students based on teacher referral, counselor recommendation, and interviews with parents. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Assessment of PHLOTE Students A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented procedures for assessing PHLOTE students in all four English language proficiency areas (i.e., speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension) to determine which students are LEP. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD assessed and/or reassessed all PHLOTE students by administering an assessment instrument (i.e., Language Assessment Scales). The information further revealed that the LRSD provided training to all LRSD staff responsible for administering the assessment instrument to ensure proper test administration and interpretation of test scores. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Placement of LEP Students and Ensuring Appropriate Services The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed and implemented a policy requiring the district to provide alternative language program (ALP) services to LEP students through a research-based English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) program. Information reviewed revealed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 1, 2, and 3 on the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) are identified as LEP and are placed in the ESL program after obtaining consent from the parent/guardian of the student. The information showed that PHLOTE students who score at a level 4, and 5 on the LAS are considered fluent in the English language and are identified as non-LEP and, as a result, are placed in the regular education program. A review of information revealed that the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), which is comprised of at least one or more ESL teachers, a counselor, and a campus administrator, is responsible for making placement decisions. The information revealed that the LRSD provided training to LP AC members as follows: 1) OCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services\n2) interpretation of language proficiency assessments\n3) laws and rules governing confidentiality of records\nand 4) procedures for identification, placement, and exiting students from the ALP. The LPAC is responsible for ensuring that the parents of LEP students placed in the ALP receive an explanation of the benefits of the ALP in a language they can understand. The information indicated that the LRSD ensures the delivery of language support services to LEP students whose parents have refused placement in the ALP by providing training to regular education teachers in ESL methodologies and instructional strategies, parental involvement, tutoring, summer school, and by monitoring the academic progress of such students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. .!I.,I m ~ zz ,m.. n ::c \u0026gt;z G) m U\u0026gt; Page 3 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Selected Alternative Language Services Model The progress reports revealed that the LRSD selected a research-based English-as-a-SecondLanguage (ESL) program to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of LEP students at all grade levels. The information showed that the goal of the ESL program is to enable LEP students to master English language skills (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, and listening) and content area concepts and skills so that students are able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRSD established the same curriculum standards and grade-level/course benchmarks for all students, including LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Staffing and Staff Development The progress reports revealed that the LRSD developed procedures to ensure that the district has appropriate staff to implement the ALP. The information in the progress reports showed that the LRSD made significant progress with respect to the number of teachers who obtained an ESL endorsement through the Arkansas Department of Education's \"ESL Endorsement Program.\" In addition, the information revealed that the LRSD has developed an \"ESL Training Program\" to provide continuous training opportunities for all personnel (e.g., principals, regular education, special education, gifted and talented, etc.) responsible for delivering instruction to LEP students. Specifically, the LRSD provides training to staff on how to adapt the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments for the delivery of instruction to LEP students. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD designed an appraisal instrument to assess the performance of teachers who deliver ALP services to LEP students. OCR reviewed documentation pertaining to the training provided to administrators on the use of the evaluation instrument and on observation techniques to enable them to identify ESL methodologies. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Materials The LRSD developed procedures to ensure that materials and equipment are appropriate for the implementation of the ALP. The progress report revealed that the LRSD surveyed ALP staff to determine whether there was a need for additional materials and equipment. The information showed that the LRSD provided teachers with materials and equipment, which are appropriate to the curriculum, and comparable in quality, availability, and grade level to the materials provided for the instruction of non-LEP students. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. .!D., m ~\"' z z ,m.... 0 $: z C) m \"' Page 4 - Dr. Morris Holmes. Interim Superintendent Reclassification and Exit The progress reports revealed that the LRSD established and implemented procedures for the exiting, monitoring, and reclassification of LEP students. The information indicated that the criteria employed by the LRSD is based on objective criteria using the LAS test scores in reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension plus other criteria to determine whether students will be able to participate meaningfully in the regular education program. A review of the information showed that a LEP student must score a \"3/4\" or a \"3/5\" or at the Fully English Proficient Level on the LAS post-test prior to exiting the ALP. The information revealed that the LPAC monitors the academic progress of LEP students who exit the ALP for a period of two years to ensure academic success in the regular education program. Specifically, the LPAC ensures that exited students are successfully participating in the regular education program by reviewing the following: I) grades in all core subject areas\n2) teacher observations\n3) counselor comments\nand 4) assessment results. When the LPAC determines that a student needs to re-enter the ESL program, the student is placed back into the ALP after obtaining approval from the parent of the student. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Parental Notice The LRSD developed procedures for providing notice to the parents of PHLOTE students of school activities in a language they can understand. The progress reports revealed that the schools maintain a list of all PHLOTE students whose parents are limited English proficient and require communication in another language. OCR reviewed the documents which have been translated by the LRSD, to include but not limited to the following: Home Language Survey, Notice of School Placement, Notice of ESL Program Services, Notice of Testing Exemption, Exit Letter to Parents, K-8 Curriculum Standards and Grade-Level/Course Benchmarks, Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks, Summer School Applications, Parent Involvement Conference Notices, and the LRSD's Parent/Student Handbook. In addition, the information showed that bilingual staff at the schools translated newsletters, notices, letters, and flyers into other languages. Further, the LRSD advertises information in local publications in Spanish. The information showed that the LRSD disseminated a list of translators/interpreters to the school sites. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Education The progress reports showed that the LRSD revised its policies and procedures pertaining to the process for referring, identifying, evaluating, and placing LEP students with disabilities. The progress reports revealed that ALP staff and Special Education Department staff share information to ensurethat LEP students with disabilities receive special education and alternative language services concurrently. A review of the progress reports revealed that the !J' \"D m :\u0026lt;I ~ zz ,m... C') $: z C) m UJ ?\"~ UJ C: UJ !ICC') iml::g:c :\u0026lt;1,\" D UJ ~~ C) \u0026lt; ~ r\n~rn Page 5 - Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent LRSD provided training to special education staff (i.e., speech pathologists, resource teachers, and psychological examiners) in ESL methodologies to ensure the proper delivery of both ALP and special education services. Further, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD provides information to parents in a language they can understand pertaining to their rights and procedural safeguards by utilizing an interpreter or by providing information that has been translated into a language they can understand. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Special Opportunity Programs The progress reports revealed that the LRSD implemented procedures to ensure that LEP students are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in the Gifted and Talented (GT) program at the elementary level and in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at the secondary level. The information reviewed revealed that the LRSD provided information about the GT program to parents in their native language. In addition, the progress reports revealed that the LRSD staff administered a nonverbal assessment instrument (i.e., Torrance Thinking Creatively) to test LEP students who had been referred for placement in the GT program. The progress reports further revealed that the LRSD provided cultural sensitivity training, training in identifying the characteristics of language minority gifted students, and ESL instructional strategies to LRSD staff. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Program Evaluation and Modification A review of the progress reports revealed that the LRD has adopted procedures to conduct an annual longitudinal performance evaluation of the ALP and make modifications to the ALP based on the results as required by the results of the program evaluation. The information showed that the LRSD evaluated its ALP on an annual basis in which it reviewed the following: 1) curriculum service delivery\n2) materials and resources\n3) staffing and staff development\n4) student academic progress\n5) longitudinal data comparing LEP students to non-LEP students. and LEP students in the program to LEP students not in the program wiL'li respect to academic achievement, attendance, drop-out rate, graduation rate, retention rate, gifted and talented program placement, and special education program placement of LEP, and students who have exited the ALP, and LEP students not served in the ALP. The information showed that the LRSD made the necessary program modifications and improvements as required by the results of each program evaluation. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR and complied with the OCR reporting requirements. Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student records .~., m\n,o fS z z ,m... (\") z~ C) m u, Page 6- Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Maintenance of Records for LEP Students The progress reports revealed that the LRSD apprised all staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records regarding the implementation of the ALP and documenting actions pertaining to students participating and exiting the ALP. A review of student records revealed that the LRSD maintains, at a minimum, the following documentation in student cumulative folders: Home Language Survey, LAS assessment data\ncommunications with parents in a language they can understand\nplacement decisions\nreport cards\nmodifications\ndecisions to exit student\nand decisions for students to reenter the ALP. Based on a review of the information, OCR has determined that the LRSD has fulfilled the terms under this provision of the CTR andcomplied with the OCR reporting requirements. After analyzing the above information provided by the LRSD, OCR has determined that the LRSD has met all oft..'ic commitn1ents as specified in the CTR. Therefore, OCR is closing this compliance review contingent upon the LRSD's continued implementation of the terms delineated in the September 30, 1999. While no further progress reports are required, OCR understands that the LRSD will continue to conduct qualitative and quantitative program evaluations in accordance with its civil rights responsibilities. OCR is available to provide technical assistance to the LRSD and will work with you and LRSD staff to ensure continued compliance with the regulatory requirements under Title VI, Section 504, and Title IL Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We appreciate your cooperation and that of your staff, especially the assistance provided by Ms. Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. John F. Stephens at 214/880-2464 or Ms. Maria H. Gonzalez at 214/880-4918. Sincerely, n / tr_(1, r_ / Tayl~ugust, b~ Office for Civil Rights Southern Division, Dallas Office C: Ms. Karen E. Broadnax, ESL Supervisor .~., m :,0 ~z z ,m... (\") ~ C\u0026gt; m (/) DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS April 22, 2004 Board of Education ~everly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. p g z ~ c5 z U\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 2 April 22, 2004 NAME Coleman, Lucy Reason: Leaving City Hill, Peggy Reason: None Given Jones, Gregory Reason: Accepted Another Position Moore, Kenneth Reason: Terminated Bledsoe, Fred Johnson, Marcus POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsrf erminations Certified Employees Speech Pathology 9-18-00 62-08 FOREST HGTS. 4-1-04 SPE925 Elem IV 8-1-02 1-04 STEPHENS 3-17-04 TCH925 ElemV 8-13-98 4-07 FOREST PARK 3-26-04 TCH925 Asst. Principal 7-22-96 66-15 HALL 4-8-04 ADC105 New Certified Employees Art 1-20-04 1-01 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Band 4-2-04 1-01 MANN TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 41088.00 29409.00 36683.00 57060.00 27309.00 annual 5831.61 prorated 27309.00 annual 5831.61 prorated f) C 0 z ~ cz5 u, ~ .., z )\u0026gt; z n ,\u0026gt;- u,\ns,,~ u, CU\u0026gt; 1:n 1:::C mg\n,o ,- ~u, elm G)\n,o ~~ 1:m u, u, .)\u0026gt; :\u0026lt;: G) C\" a, er ~~\n', o,%,- mer G) Cf Ccr ~~ or z: IT \" ?'\n,o 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ::E Personnel Changes Page 3 April 22, 2004 NAME Oshea, Christine Tell, Hatem Williams, Norma NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Tutor WAKEFIELD Business Ed. FAIR Alt. Skills FOREST HGTS. START DATE END DATE 3-25-04 2-23-04 9-29-94 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 4-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH950 6-16 ANNUAL SALARY 31431.00 annual 7694.05 prorated 27309.00 annual 9387.47 prorated 48998.00 TCH925 r\u0026gt; g z ?\ncz5 en !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z C') ,\u0026gt;.... en\ni,,~ en C en :i:n :i:::C mg\no,.... .,, en i3 !B C) \u0026lt; ~\u0026lt;'5 :i:m en en ,. ,t\n == C),... CJl ct ~. ~ ~ ~~ Cl Cl CCI E~ oz'\"r' rr \" Personnel Changes Page 4 April 22, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Akins, William Custodian 4-5-02 1-02 Reason: Personal MCDERMOTT 3-19-04 CUS928 Beard, Roberta Instr. Aide 1-20-04 1-10 Reason: Accepted Another FAIR.PARK 4-5-04 INA925 Position Booth, Jesse Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 Reason: None Given FAIR 3-12-04 SOFR9 Brown, Robert Custodian 12-7-00 1-04 Reason: None Given STEPHENS 3-12-04 CUS12 Clegg, Earslean Care 4-1-02 1-08 Reason: None Given CARE 3-31-04 CARE Hawkins, Dawna Instr. Aide 8-31-99 1-07 Reason: Accepted Another OTTERCREEK 3-19-04 INA925 Position Hawkins, Derrick lnstr. Aide 1-26-04 1-10 Reason: one Given KING 3-11-04 INA925 Jackson, Brenda Child utrition 2-22-99 1-01 Reason: None Given CHILD NUTRITION 3-3-04 FSMEAL Jenkins, Clebum Custodian 3-24-03 54-05 Reason: None Given FACILITY SERV. 3-19-04 AD 12 ANNUAL SALARY 11046.00 14472.00 16802.00 15526.00 7.32 13492.00 14472.00 10527.00 29580.00 r, 8 z ?\ncz5 \"' !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z (\"') .\u0026gt;.... \"'\n,-\n \"'\n,, C: (\"') :l::c ~8 .\n.o, ..,..,..\ngo\nmo ~~\ni::m \"'\"' ,. \u0026lt;\n, f' 1%1 ct ~~  % ~~ Gl Cl C: Cl ~~ oz \"r' rT Cl !\"' ~ 0 .~., ~ I Personnel Changes Page 5 April 22, 2004 NAME Johnson, Tammy Reason: Accepted Another Position POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition WATSON START DATE END DATE 11-30-03 4-2-04 Moore, Pamela Care 3-10-98 Reason: Returning To School CARE 2-27-04 Reed, Audrey Reason: None Given Tidwell, Darrell Reason: None Given Bus Driver TRANS. 10-13-03 3-1-04 Child Nutrition 2-2-04 CHILD NUTRITION 2-18-04 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-05 CARE 3-02 BUSDRV 1-01 FSH4 New Non-Certified Emplovees Brown, Suzanne 4YROLD Aide 3-22-04 BALE Clark, Phyllis Child Nutrition 3-10-04 CHILD NUTRITION Davis, Calvin Custodian 3-8-04 CLOVERDALE MID. 1-10 INA925 3-01 FSH550 1-01 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 8364.00 6.88 10409.00 4314.00 14472.00 annual 3754.90 prorated 8364.00 annual 2330.95 prorated 5313.00 annual 1530.37 prorated r\u0026gt; 8 z ?\niz5 U\u0026gt; !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z C') ,\u0026gt;.... U\u0026gt;\nii,~ U\u0026gt; C: U\u0026gt; :1:n ,1:% mg\n,c,,.... .,, U\u0026gt;\n,om O\n,c, C) \u0026lt; ~(\"\n:1:m U\u0026gt; U\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt; C\u0026gt; 1=' ID ct ~ ~ 2 ~~ C) Cl C: Cl ~~ o\" z'r IT \" !X'\n,c, 6 ,.~,., \"~' ~ Personnel Changes Page 6 April 22, 2004 NAME Dokes, Joann Ekeanyanwu, Jennifer Garcia, Maria Johnson,Ricky Kiefer, Eugene Lyons, Bernard McCoy-Robinson, Sandra POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition MCDERMOTT Instr. Aide DODD ESL CURR./LEARNING Security Officer HALL Custodian JEFFERSO Custodian TERRY Child utrition CE TRAL START DATE END DATE 3-10-04 3-8-04 3-22-04 3-30-04 3-17-04 3-2-04 2-23-04 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-10 INA925 1-07 INA12 36-11 SOFR9 1-02 CUS12 1-01 CUS12 3-01 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 8364.00 annual 2330.95 prorated 14472.00 annual 4146.03 prorated 17418.00 annual 5114.22 prorated 14473.00 annual 3260.40 prorated 14355.00 annual 4337.04 prorated 13784.00 annual 4809.74 prorated 8364.00 annual 2879.41 prorated ~ g z .\u0026gt;... ~ z u, !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z n ,... u,\n,,,~ u, Cu,\ni:: n 31:::C ,m, ,g... .., u, ~lB G)\u0026lt; ~ \u0026lt;\"I 31:m u, u, \u0026gt;~\n, ?' a,ct r-\n~~ ~,,. gi (J ~~ oz\"\",r,'. (J ,!X,' 6 .~., \u0026gt;,, ~ m ::E Personnel Changes Page 7 April 22, 2004 NAME McNeary, Alma Mercado, Maria Scott, Frank Smith, Jimmy Watson, Stacie Young, Ilisa POSITION SCHOOL Nurses TERRY Instr. Aide BRADY Custodian DUNBAR Instr. Aide ALC Instr. Aide DODD Child utrition BALE START DATE END DATE 3-3-04 4-01-04 3-22-04 4-7-04 3-8-04 3-8-04 SALARY CLASS 1-07 NURSES 1-10 INA925 1-01 CUS925 1-10 INA925 1-02 INA925 3-01 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 16280.00 annual 4917.92 prorated 14472.00 annual 3129.08 prorated 5313.00 annual 1386.00 prorated 14472.00 annual 2816.27 prorated 11425.00 annual 3273.11 prorated 8364.00 annual 2422.36 prorated fl g z ?\ncz5 \"' !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z C') ,\u0026gt;- \"'\n,,,~ \"C': \"' ll: C') ll: :i:: mg\no ,- .,,\"' ::Om 8::o ~ri ll:m en\"'\n\u0026gt;\n,\"~' a, 0: ~-~~ ~If g~ ti s~ o\" %~ ti ?' 6 .~,, )\u0026gt;\nD ~ ~ Personnel Changes Page 8 April 22, 2004 NAME NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Non-Certified Promotion Non-Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY !\"\u0026gt; g z ~ cz5 U\u0026gt; TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 April 22, 2004 Board of Directors FROM: Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools THROUGH: Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Summer Educational Programs Short Summary-The Board is asked to approve three categories of summer educational programs for our students. These three are summer enrichment opportunities for children (grades pre-K-12), credit recovery summer school, and the compilation and advertisement of a menu of educational opportunities for children in the Greater Little Rock area for summer 2004. Objectives-To provide greater opportunities for students to participate in educational programs during the summer that provide experiences that will:  increase students' academic knowledge, skills, and confidence.  build on prior student learning and give students a head start for the Fall 2004 school term,  provide enrichment opportunities (for all students) or credit recovery (secondary students). Expected Outcomes-Student will have access to a variety of challenging educational programs during the summer. Our school facilities will be utilized more effectively during the summer months for the benefit of students. Population-All Little Rock School District students have the potential to participate in a summer educational program. Budget Amount/Source of Budget-The budget projections for the programs are as follows:  The budget for Summer Enrichment Programs will be determined based on the number of quality proposals submitted to us at our request or in response to an RFP\nhowever, a ceiling of $150,000 is requested to fund approximately 12,000 student-days of summer enrichment.  The budget for the Credit Recovery Summer School for secondary students is $293,060 for approximately 760 students.  The cost of advertising a menu of summer programs in the city that might interest our . students and their families will be nominal. f\u0026gt; g z .\u0026gt;.. \u0026lt;5 z U\u0026gt; !.=,,' z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ U\u0026gt; Manager-Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Instruction and Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Duration-The current proposal is for June, July, and August, 2004. Long Range/Continuation-Greater coordination and scale-up of summer programs and after school programs will occur in the near future. A staff position will be established or reassigned to provide direction to the identification, development, coordination and oversight of all after school and summer enrichment programs. Staff members have been participating in discussions with the City of Little Rock around the issue of afterschool initiatives. Mr. W. J. Monagle with the City has been spearheading this effort. Other Agencies Involved-Hopefully, the entire community will be involved. Certainly, many city agencies, institutions of higher education, museums, art and music centers, churches, and existing organizations for boys and girls will be involved in this effort. Expectations of Staff-A staff person will be assigned primary responsibility for this effort. Many staff members are already involved in portions of summer and after school programs\nhowever, the effort is fragmented. We plan to pull all the existing programs as well as new programs under one \"umbrella.\" Expanding educational opportunities for students is an ongoing commitment for our staff. Needed Staff-One new staff position, working in Pupil Services, has been requested for the 2004-05 budget year. Many other existing staff positions have a stake in this effort and will be involved. Teachers will be hired to teach credit recovery summer school courses based on the student enrollment. Comments-We cannot afford for our students to lose significant ground in the summer. Involving students in educational summertime activities can help improve students' achievement during the traditional school year. Recommendations-We recommend approval of the three initiatives for summer educational programs. Detailed budgets will be developed as more information becomes available. Three initiatives are proposed for summertime and/or after school implementation:  Summer Enrichment Programs  Credit Recovery Summer School for Secondary Students  Menu of summer educational opportunities for students and families Summer Enrichment Programs The district solicited proposals for summer enrichment opportunities for students from Philander Smith College and The Princeton Review. Also, the district issued an RFP for summer enrichment programs that is open to the public as well as to schools and teachers. r\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ ~z en ?\u0026lt; :c ~s\no= z~ C'\u0026gt;,\"' 0 ?\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;C'\u0026gt; c\n,o '-m g~ ~\"'~\"' m z... . RFP-Following is the \"teaser\" for the RFP for Summer Enrichment Programs. This was emailed to all schools for posting and was advertised in the newspaper. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) RFP24-019 SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) is requesting proposals from qualified individuals/companies who wish to provide high quality summer instruction for students in our schools. The providers must be external educational entities\nhowever, this does not preclude schools and/or teachers from individually or collaboratively acting as informal external educational entities for this summer enrichment initiative. LRSD requires that these services be provided by individuals or groups that can demonstrate high-quality, performance based instruction founded on a research-based program of studies and successful instructional strategies supported by data. Summer Enrichment Program providers must complete an application based on this request for proposals. It is expected that proposed programs will include underserved students as a high priority and that instruction will concentrate on expanding, enriching, extending, and/or strengthening students' academic skills, knowledge, and confidence. Although the proposed programs are not limited to the areas of reading and math, reinforcement and application of reading and/or math skills should be incorporated into the programs in order to help students achieve Arkansas' standards, as demonstrated by improved performance on the Benchmark and end of course exams. Copies of the RFP and Application are available from Darral Paradis, at Darral.Paradis@lrsd.org or phone number (501) 447-2262. Proposals must be received no later than 2:00 p.m., Thursday, April 22, 2004 at the LRSD Procurement Office, 1800 East Sixth Street, Little Rock, AR 72202. The District reserves the right to reject any or all responses and waive any irregularities or formalities in proposals received. The District reserves the right to negotiate with the apparent acceptable Offerers. Awards will be based on those considerations that are in the best interest of the District and will be made to the responsive, responsible offerer whose proposal is judged to be the most effective and economical for the purpose intended, according to the requirements stated in the Request for Proposal. BY: Darral Paradis CPPB, C.P.M. I Director of Procurement The amount of funding for Summer Enrichment Programs will be contingent on the number of quality proposals\nhowever, an amount of $150,000 is requested as a ceiling. This amount could ~ C 0 z ~ cz5 u, ~ .., z \u0026gt;z n\ne u, fund up to 12,000 student days of summer enrichment experiences. A tuition charge will be considered to defray part of the cost. Credit Recovery Summer School for Secondary Students 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. The majority of our students would be eligible for full tuition. For the 2003-04 school year, the LRSD had 5,243 students on the free lunch program and 753 on the reduced-price lunch program. Our legal advisers have examined the law and consulted with ADE, seeking clarity and any possible consideration for leniency. They found no relief for the district. A committee of administrators was formed to discuss the options for the district- to discontinue summer school or to have summer school. Issues in Favor of Continuing Summer School  Parents expect the district to provide some option for grade recovery. Historically, we have provided summer school for students who have failed courses, allowing them the opportunity to retake failed courses in order to advance to the next grade and/or to graduate.  The majority of students enrolled in summer school receive free or reduced-price lunch and would be denied another opportunity to recover skills.  Without summer school, there would be an increased number of students retained in the regular classrooms, adding to an already-crowded situation. Concern Cost to district for tuition-free summer school for identified students, estimated at $288,060 for staff salaries and $5,000 for transportation for middle school students (stops throughout the city). Detailed costs will be available later. Recommendation Because of the compelling need to continue to remove barriers for our low-performing students, we recommend that the district explore and allocate funds for summer school. f\u0026gt; 0 0 z ~ cz5 U\u0026gt; ~ .., z \u0026gt;z 0 \u0026gt;,.... U\u0026gt; Menu of Summer Progams in the City for Students and Families The following is a survey that is being used to compile a menu of surrimer educational programs around the city for summer 2004. The menu will be made widely available to parents and students SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM SURVEY The Little Rock School District (LRSD) recognizes the great value of children of school age having educational summertime activities. The district would like to assist parents and their children in finding appropriate enrichment activities during the summer. - If your organization is having a program for children this summer, please complete the survey. If you know of individuals or people who we might contact to get information about possible summer programs, please let us know who they are. LRSD will compile a list of summer programs and make that information available to parents and children. Thank you very much. Organization Summer Activity Times/Dates Age Children Served Contact/Phone I know ofperson(s)/organization who may be offering a summer program for school-age children. The name of someone to contact about this is: Name Phone Number e-mai I address My name and phone number are: My Name My Phone Number e-mail address RETURN THIS INFORMATION TO: Dr. Mona Briggs Little Rock School District Garland Building 3615 West 25th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 447-2070 mona.bnggs@lrsd.org Many parents/guardians are interested in summer activities for their children. The compiled_ list will be available on the LRSD Website and also in a printed format available to hand or mail to interested parents. ~ 0 0 z ~ cz5 (I\u0026gt; !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z n ~ (I\u0026gt; Memorandum Date: April 22, 2004 To: Little Rock School District Board of Education Through: _ ~~- Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~~:\u0026gt;~~~!~~}t Stewart, Chief Financial Officer ~73/Williarns, Director of Human Resources Prepared By:~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Subject District Regulation GBEA-R. Reference AR statute 6-24-101:119 (Act 1599 of 2001). Board Policy GBEA and the corresponding Administrative Directive dated May 1, 2004 are attached for your reference. Summary: The statute above precludes a school District employee from contracting with the public educational entity employing him or her if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directly interested in the contract. The Administration believes it necessary to have a Regulation in place to summarize the statute and to guide the Board and Administration in possible exceptions. Manager(s): Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Recommendation We request the Board of Education review and approve Regulation GBEA-R as attached. f\u0026gt; g z ?. cz5 (J) !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ (J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEA - R CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Employees selling to the District The LRSD contracts for goods and services in confonnance with statutory ethics laws and, in addition, in a manner that will avoid any conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. Accordingly, the Board will approve employees as District vendors under the statutory exception provisions only when it is clearly in the best interest of the District. General Prohibitions and Guidelines for Statutory Exceptions: In general, except as provided below, it is a breach of statutory ethical standards for an employee to contract with the District if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directly interested in the contract. The Board by exception may under unusual and limited circumstances approve an employee's business as a District vendor if the Board determines that the potential vendor relationship is in the best interest of the District. In such cases, the Board will document the approval by written resolution after fully disclosing the reasons justifying the potential vendor relationship in an open meeting in confonnance with AR law. Following are the guidelines for these exceptions: I. No exceptions will be allowed for District Administrators (defined as Director-level and above) who are directly or indirectly interested in a contract since these individuals are in District-wide decision making positions. In addition, any employee on a District Administrative salary schedule is prohibited from conducting business with family members. 2. District Administrator's family members who have a financial interest in a business as defined by AR law may contract with the District only after appearing before the Board of Directors explaining why their particular vendor circumstance should be considered unusual and limited. In the event the Board by resolution approves the business as a District vendor, the District may contract with the family member's company for transactions of any amount for a fiscal year provided the services/commodities are procured on a competitive basis and where the family member company's offer is the lowest received. However, the ADE must first have approved the District resolution before any contract will be valid or enforceable. 3. Under no circumstances will it be authorized for the District to do business with an employee when the employee regardless of their salary schedule placement or position has the ability to set the specifications for purchase and choose and/or recommend the vendor. 4. Non-Administrative employees (defined as any employee below Director-level) who are directly interested in a contract may conduct business with the District only after appearing before the Board of Directors explaining why their particular vendor circumstance should be considered unusual and limited. In the event the Board by resolution approves the employee as a District vendor, the District may contract with the employee's company: Adopted: a. for transactions totaling up to $5,000 for a fiscal year provided the services/commodities are procured on a competitive basis and where the employee company's offer is the lowest received or\nb. for transactions expected to exceed $5,000 for a fiscal year provided the services/commodities are procured on a competitive basis and where the employee company's offer is the lowest received. However, the ADE must first have approved the District resolution before any contract will be valid or enforceable or\nc. where competitive quoting/bidding is not practical regardless of dollar amount due to the nature of the service or commodity (sole source) provided the ADE has first approved the District resolution in those cases expected to exceed $5,000. Legal Reference: A.CA 6-24-101:119 Attachments: Conflict of Interest General Disclosure Statements for Board Members, Administrators, and Non-Administrators f\u0026gt; g z ?\ncz5 (/) .!,=.,' z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ (/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEA STAFF ETHICS/CONFLICT OF INTEREST Employees of the Board will not engage in any activity that conflicts, or raises a reasonable question of conflict, with their duties in the District. Staff Gifts and Solicitations No employee of the Little Rock School District will accept any gratuity or favor from any supplier, contractor, or person performing personal services for the Little Rock School District. Further, the same policy will apply to any person, partnership, company or any other entity which may be expected to perform such services, or offer bids or prices for any supplies, construction, or maintenance work to be performed for the District. Advertising of Products or Services by District Employees No employee of the Little Rock School District will use District facilities, school time, or the school or District name for any form of private advertising for products or services. ~Jepotism In order that there is no conflict of interest in the supervision and evaluation of employees, at no time may any administrator directly be responsible for the supervision and/or evaluation of any employee directly related to him or her. Adopted: November 18, 1999 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy BCB f\u0026gt; 8 z ?\nc5 z en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: Effective: May 1, 2004 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE (AR Code 6-24-101:119) All District employees will be required to complete and have a current \"Conflict of Interest\" disclosure form (see attached: form for Administrators - any employee on an administrative salary schedule and Non-Administrators - any employee not on an administrative salary schedule) on file with the District's Human Resources Department. Forms are available from the Human Resources Department. New employees to the District will be required to complete the appropriate form and forward to Human Resources before beginning work with the District. The Human Resources Department will be responsible for coordinating its completion for all new employees. Existing employees who have not previously completed the form or who have had a change in disclosure status will be required to request a form and complete/return it to the Human Resources Department. The Procurement Department will maintain and publish an annual list of employees and their affiliated companies with whom the District may not conduct business resulting from an analysis/review of the submitted disclosure forms and in keeping with Arkansas Law. Disclosure (form attached) required by law from Board Members will be coordinated by the Superintendent's Office. f\u0026gt; g z ?\ni5 z U\u0026gt; CONFLICT OF INTEREST GENERAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (FOR BOARD MEMBERS) All LRSD Board Members have an affirmative obligation under AR statute 6-24-101: 119 to disclose relationships they may have with vendors before the District enters into a potential contract or before services are performed. Disclosure must be made by completing the form below. The form must be completed and submitted to the Superintendent's Office. Ignoring this requirement or knowingly failing to comply with the provisions of this statute could result in the filing of criminal felony charges. GENERAL DISCLOSURE Board Member Name: ___________________________ _ Personal Mailing Address: City: ______________ State: __ _ Zip: ___ _ Phone: Please check either YES or NO below: I am declaring a Vendor Conflict of Interest Relationship _ YES or NO If you checked YES above, please complete the following: Company Name: Mailing Address: City: ______________ State: __ _ Zip: ___ _ Work Telephone: Complete below and check all that apply: __ I OR a family member own more than five (5) percent of the company above. __ I OR a family member hold a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management with the company above\nor __ I OR a family member am an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where my compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the  LRSD. Board Member Printed Name Board Member Signature Date Submitted .!=.,' z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' Dear Board Member: CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTIFICATION LETTER Board Member Except as noted below (See Exceptions) a school District is prohibited from entering into a contract with a Board Member who has a direct OR indirect interest in the contract. Arkansas Law 6-24-101: I I 9 requires full open disclosure before a Board Member may sell, lease, provide services or enter into a .Q!l!@! with the District where he/she is a Board Member if the Board Member has knowledge that he or she is directlv OR indirectlv interested in the contract. \"Contract\" means any transaction or agreement for the purchase, lease, transfer, or use of real property or personal property and personal or professional services, including but not limited to, motor vehicles, equipment, commodities, materials, services, computers or other electronics, construction, capital improvements, deposits and investments. \"Directly Interested\" means receiving compensation or other benefits personally or to a business or other entity in which the individual has a financial interest. \"Indirectly Interested\" means receiving compensation or other benefits personally, for a family member, or for a business or other entity in which the individual or a familv member has a financial interest. \"Family Member\" means an individual's spouse\nchildren of the individual or spouse\na child's spouse\nparents of the individual or spouse\nbrothers and sisters of the individual\nanyone living or residing in the same residence with the individual or spouse\nor anyone acting or serving as an agent of the individual \"Financial Interest\" in a business or other entity means: (i) Ownership of more than a five percent (5%) interest\n(ii) Holding a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management\nor (iii) Being an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where the individual's compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the public educational entity. Financial interest does not include the ownership of stock or other equity holdings in any publicly held company. THEREFORE, all LRSD Board Members have an affirmative obligation under this statute to disclose relationships with vendors before the District enters into a potential contract or before services are performed. The form on the back allows for this disclosure. All Board Members are to complete this form and forward to the Superintendent's Office. Failure to fully disclose could result in criminal felony charges being brought against the Board Member. The entire AR Code including this law may be viewed at www.arkle!!.state.ar.us under research resources. EXCEPTJONS: I. A Board Member or his/her family member, after proper disclosure, may be allowed to conduct business with the District employing him/her if the transaction is approved at an open board meeting. Any Board Member direct]) or indirectly interested in the proposed contract shall leave the meeting until the voting on the issue is concluded. and the absent member shall not be counted as having voted. In some cases apprornl by the Director of the AR Depanment of Education may also be required . ., This statute does not appl) to most ordinar) employment contracts. including contracts of extra duties such as bus dri,er. club sponsorships. and officiating ball games. , 'either does it apply to reimbursements paid for proper work-related expenses. 0~ BACK CONFLICT OF INTEREST GENERAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (FOR ADMINISTRATORS) All LRSD employees have an affirmative obligation under AR statute 6-24-101: 119 to disclose relationships they may have with vendors before the District enters into a potential contract or before services are performed. Disclosure must be made by completing the form below. The form must be completed and submitted to the Human Resources Department. Ignoring this requirement or knowingly failing to comply with the provisions of this statute could result in the filing of criminal felony charges. GENERAL DISCLOSURE Employee Name: Personal Mailing Address: City: _____________ State: Zip: ___ _ LRSD Location: _____________ LRSD Phone: ____ _ Please check either YES or NO below: I am declaring a Vendor Conflict of Interest Relationship _ YES or NO If you checked YES above, please complete the following: Company Name: Mailing Address: City: _____________ State: __ _ Zip: ___ _ Work Telephone: Complete below and check all that apply: __ I OR a family member own more than five (5) percent of the company above. __ I OR a family member hold a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management with the company above\nor __ I OR a family member am an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where my compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the LRSD. Employee Printed Tame Employee Signature Date Submitted r\u0026gt; g z ~ iz5 en ~..,, z )\u0026gt; z C') \u0026gt;,- en Dear Employee: EMPLOYEE CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTIFICATION LETTER Administrator (Any Employee on an Administrative Salary Schedule) Except as noted below (See Exceptions) a school District is prohibited from entering into a contract with administrator employees who have a direct OR indirect interest in the contract. Arkansas Law 6-24-101: 119 requires full open disclosure before a school District administrator employee may sell, lease, provide services or enter into a~ with the school District where he/she is employed if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directlv OR indirectlv interested in the contract. \"Contract\" means any transaction or agreement for the purchase, lease, transfer, or use of real property or personal property and personal or professional services, including but not limited to, motor vehicles, equipment, commodities, materials, services, computers or other electronics, construction, capital improvements, deposits and investments. \"Directly Interested\" means receiving compensation or other benefits personally or to a business or other entity in which the individual has a financial interest. \"Indirectly Interested\" means receiving compensation or other benefits personally, for a family member, or for a business or other entity in which the individual or a farnilv member has a financial interest. \"Family Member\" means an individual's spouse\nchildren of the individual or spouse\na child's spouse\nparents of the individual or spouse\nbrothers and sisters of the individual\nanyone living or residing in the same residence with the individual or spouse\nor anyone acting or serving as an agent of the individual \"Financial Interest\" in a business or other entity means: (i) Ownership of more than a five percent (5%) interest\n(ii) Holding a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management\nor (iii) Being an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where the individual's compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the public educational entity. Financial interest does not include the ownership of stock or other equity holdings in any publicly held company. THEREFORE, all LRSD administrator employees have an affirmative obligation under this statute to disclose relationships with vendors before the District enters into a potential contract or before services are performed. The form on the back allows for this disclosure. All administrator employees are to complete this form and forward to the Human Resources Department. Failure to fully disclose could result in criminal felony charges being brought against the employee. The entire AR Code including this law may be viewed at www.arkleg.state.ar.us under research resources EXCEPTIO 'S: I. A District employee or his/her famil~ member. after proper disclosure. ma) be allowed to conduct business with the District employing him/her if the transaction is approved at an open board meeting. In some cases approval b~ the Director of the AR Department of Education may also be required. 2. This statute does not appl) to most ordinal') employment conrracts. including contracts of extra duties such as bus driver, club sponsorships. and officiating ball games. either does it apply to re1mburst111ents paid for proper \\\\Ork-related expenses. OJ\\ BACK ~ 8 z .\u0026gt;.. i5 z \"' .~., z \u0026gt;z (\") ,\u0026gt;- \"' CONFLICT OF INTEREST GENERAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (FOR NON-ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYEES) All LRSD employees have an affirmative obligation under AR statute 6-24-101: 119 to disclose relationships they may have with vendors before the District enters into a potential contract or before services are perfom1ed. Disclosure must be made by completing the form below. The form must be completed and submitted to the Human Resources Department. Ignoring this requirement or knowingly failing to comply with the provisions of this statute could result in the filing of criminal felony charges. GENERAL DISCLOSURE Employee Name: Personal Mailing Address: City: ______________ State: __ _ Zip: ___ _ LRSD Location: -------------- LRSD Phone: ------ Please check either YES or NO below: I am declaring a Vendor Conflict of Interest Relationship_ YES or NO If you checked YES above, please complete the following: Company ame: Mailing Address: City: ______________ State: __ _ Zip: ___ _ Work Telephone: Complete below and check all that apply: __ I own more than five (5) percent of the company above. __ I hold a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management with the company above\nor __ I am an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where my compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the LRSD. Employee Printed Name Employee Signature Date Submitted r\u0026gt; 8 z ~ cz5 Cl\u0026gt; Dear Employee: EMPLOYEE CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTIFICATION LETTER Non-Administr-.i-tor (All employees NOT on an Administrative Pay Schdule) Except as noted below (See Exceptions) a school District is prohibited from entering into a contract with non-administrator employees who have a direct interest in the contract. Arkansas Law 6-24-101 : 119 requires full open disclosure before a school District nonadministrator employee may sell, lease, provide services or enter into a contract with the school District where he/she is employed if the employee has knowledge that he or she is directly interested in the contract. \"Contract\" means any transaction or agreement for the purchase, lease, transfer, or use of real property or personal property and personal or professional services, including but not limited to, motor vehicles, equipment, commodities, materials, services, computers or other electronics, construction , capital improvements, deposits and investments. \"Directly Interested\" means receiving compensation or other benefits personally or to a business or other entity in which the individual has a financial interest. \"Financial Interest\" in a business or other entity means: (i) Ownership of more than a five percent (5%) interest\n(ii) Holding a position as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or other top level management\nor (iii) Being an employee, agent, independent contractor, or other arrangement where the individual's compensation is based in whole or in part on transactions with the public educational entity. Financial interest does not include the ownership of stock or other equity holdings in any publicly held company. THEREFORE, all LRSD non-administrator employees have an affirmative obligation under this statute to disclose relationships with vendors before the District enters into a potential contract or before services are performed. The form on the back allows for this disclosure. All nonadministrator employees are to complete this form and forward to the Human Resources Department. Failure to fully disclose could result in criminal felony charges being brought against the employee. The entire AR Code including this law may be viewed at www.arkleg.state.ar.us under research resources. EXCEPTIONS: 1. A District employee, after proper disclosure, may be allowed to conduct business with the District employing him/her if the transaction is approved at an open board meeting . In some cases approval by the Director of the AR Department of Education may also be requ ired . 2. Thi s statute does not apply to most ordinary employment contracts, including contracts of extra duties such as bus driver, club sponsorships , and officiating ball games. Neither does it apply to reimbursements paid for proper work-related expenses. ON BACK '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" April 22, TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcome: Population/Location: ittle Rock School District Board of Directors ~torofFacilityServices ~ ~  . Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial 0~ Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Request for Dedication of Right of Way: Parkview High School Request to dedicate to the City of Little Rock rightof- way on 26th Street near Parkview High School To fulfill the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit To go forward with construction at Parkview High School Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Parkview High School, Barrow Road and 26th St. area NIA Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved : Expectations of District: Needed Staff: Comments: F-.ecommendations: Director of Facility Services Permanent NIA City of Little Rock Fulfillment of the requirements of a conditional use permit. NIA See Below Approval by Board The Conditional Use Permit that allows the Little Rock School District to go forward with the planned construction at Parkview High School, requires that the District deed to the City of Little Rock the right of way on 26th Street, which borders the east side of our campus. This right-of-way dedication will not detract from the operation of the school and will eventually improve the streets in the neighborhood. It is recommended that the Administration be allowed to proceed with this right-of-wa) dedication. DE:cg 810 \\\\ '. i\\Iarkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-44\"\"-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 r\u0026gt; C 0 z ?\nc5 z Cl) !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z C\"\u0026gt; ~ Cl) DEDICATION DEED KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That (Company or Partnership Name), an Arkansas (Type of Corporation or Partnership!, GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable considerations to it in hand paid by the CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, GRANTEE, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby dedicate, grant and convey, without warranty whatsoever, unto the said GRANTEE, for the purposes of the installing, operating and maintaining public roadways, public utilities, storm drainage and for other public purposes, all its right, title , interest and estate in and to the following-described land shown on the \"Right-of-Way Dedication Exhibit\" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said GRANTEE, and unto its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused this Deed to be executed on this __ day of ________ , 2004. ST A TE OF ARKANSAS ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI ) By: (Authorized Signature) (Printed Name \u0026amp; Title) (Name of Corporation or Partnership) Acknowledgment On this day personally appeared before the undersigned, a Notary Public within and for the County and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioned and acting, the within named (Authorized Signature), to me personally well known , who stated that he was the (Title) of (Name of Company or Partnership). an Arkansas (Type of Corporation or Partnership), and stated and acknowledged that he was duly authorized in that capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said (Name of Company) and further sated and acknowledged that he had so signed executed and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth . IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this __ day of ______ , 2004. Notary Public My Commission Expires: (SE AL) H:\\Public\\RMB\\Fonns\\ROWdeed.doc f\u0026gt; 0 0 z ~ \u0026lt;z5 u, RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION EXHIBIT 3/16/04 BARROW ROAD 19 w---- 11 \"{__ N 53'26'55\" W I 5  : 52.31 ' I 20 : I I Right-of-Way Dedication Description Port of the SW SI'/, Section 11, T-1-N, R-13-W, City Of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point that is 50 foot west and 25 foot north of the NE corner of Lot 1, Sondon Addition as filed for record in plot book 4, page 295\nthence N 88\"26'31\" W along the existing right-of-way line of 26th Street, a distance of 593.22 feet\nthence N 53'26'55\" W along said existing right-of-way line, a distance of 52.31 feet\nthence S 88'23'31\" E, a distance of 636.13 feet\nthence S 01'40'03\" W, a distance of 30.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.423 Acres (18,440 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 - --+' ,JJ \\!\u0026gt; I w I W1 I: III ~~i=, ,,,,l I I I z J_ _JI ,I ~ --- -- i ~ LONGCOY STREET ~ 1\nz ----T-- ~I ~ Cl) 19 I I 20 - -~+-'.: \",\n,_., U) N lo co z I I ___ l_ __ ! I I I I I /w r\"\n_ l\"1 I~ ' \u0026lt;O I I Vl TATUM STRE~. I I --------=t-25 -~S 014003 W I 30.00' I II P.0.8. 100 0 100 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 ,, 1 oo 200 .!'.::,\u0026gt;, z,.. z C\"\u0026gt; ~ \"' ....... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: April 22, 2004 Board of Education FROM: ~al Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Central High School Central High School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School $848.00 check for bus expenses for 9th grade students to attend the production of Romeo and Juliet The novel, \"Bleachers\" by John Grisham, to each member of the Tiger Football Team. The total value of donation is $1,603.49. Burger coupons, valued approximately $500.00, to be used as student incentives Donor Leslie Golden and Susan Nichols of Arkansas Repertory Theatre Kevin Crass of Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm McDonald's RC Enterprise, Inc. A framed oil painting Mr. Carey Hilburn of Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, valued at approximately $350.00, to be hung in front office of school Board of Education April 22, 2004 Page 2 School/Department Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Little Rock School District Little Rock School District Seven (7) \"teaching computer tables\" and a portable AV computer station for the technology center of new library. The total value of donation is $1,400.00. Assorted office furniture and a Canon typewriter, valued at approximately $100.00, to be used where needed Two (2) Mark 100 AT Metal/Weapon Detection Systems with an extra control module, valued at approximately $7,500.00 Donor Fidelity Information Services, Inc. through Ms. Becky Bowling Mr. Mark Ross of Ross \u0026amp; Ross, PA Little Rock National Airport It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. ittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-{ifJfi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL~ SUBJECT: DONATION Leslie Golden and Susan Nichols of the Arkansas Repertory Theatre at 601 Main Street, P. 0. Box 110, Little Rock, AR 72203 very generously donated a check in the amount of $848.00 to Little Rock Central High School. The donation covered bus expenses for our 9th grade students to attend the production of Romeo \u0026amp; Juliet. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted m accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Littfe 'Roci Centra{ JffeFi Scfioo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ ~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Kevin Crass of Friday, Eldredge, \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201, very generously donated the novel, \"Bleachers\" by John Grisham to each member of the Tiger Football Team. The total gift amount was $1,603.49. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted m accordance \\.vitl1 tl1e policies of the Little Rock School District . .. - . 0 \\,.  ._ t I ..... CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement From: Angela Munns, Principal Date: March 22, 2004 RE: Donation Please accept the following donations to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School to be used as student incentives. Business McDonalds RCN Enterprise, Inc. 17200 Chenal Parkway, Ste 300 Little Rock, AR 72223 Donation/Approximate Value $500.00 (burger coupons) Also, please accept the donation of 1 Framed Oil Painting of Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, painted and donation by Mr. Carey Hilburn. The painting will be hung in the front office of the school. Mr. Carey Hilburn 1103 West Main Street Atkins, AR 72823 Donation/Approximate Value $350.00 Framed Oil Painting To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From~nn Blaylock, Principal Date: February 24, 2004 Re: Donation Please accept the donation of seven \"teaching computer tables\" and a portable AV computer station valued at a total of $1,400.00 from Fidelity Information Services, Inc. These tables were donated to our Media Center and our computer lab through Ms. Becky Bowling. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. PROCUREMENT \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1800 East 6th Street  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 447-2260  Fax: (501) 447-2261 DATE: April 1, 2004 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation Mr. Mark Ross, Ross \u0026amp; Ross, PA, P. 0. Box 538, LR, AR 72203 donated assorted office furniture and equipment to the Little Rock School District to be used where needed. Items donated include a computer table, round table, typewriter stand and a Canon S-68S typewriter. The donor estimates the total value of the donated items at approximately $100.00. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Thank you . PROCUREMENT \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1800 East 6th Street  Little Rock, AR 72202  (501) 447-2260  Fax: (501) 447-2261 DATE: April 1, 2004 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~al Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation The Little Rock National Airport donated two (2) Mark 100 AT Metal/Weapon Detection Systems with control modules, valued at approximately $3,000.00 each, and one (1) extra control module, valued at approximately $1,500.00, to the Little Rock School District. The total estimated value of this donation is $7,500.00. . Donor's mailing address is: Little Rock National Airport, Attn: Mr. Joseph Sargent, Electronics Manager, Adams Field, One Airport Drive, LR, AR 72202-4489. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Thank you . Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 DATE: April 22, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: 4'1ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending March 31 , 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. - ----------  Population/Location N/ A  Budget Amount/Source N/ A  Manager Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services  Duration NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None ---------- --------  Expectations of District N/ A  Needed Staff N/ A  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the March 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 03/31/03 COLLECTED 2003/04 03/31/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681,497 96.76% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 8,936,338 111.70% 10,100,000 10,644,676 105.39% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 205,072 109.66% 210,000 199,031 94.78% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 135,184 75.10% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 287,973 84.70% 380,000 254,808 67.05% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 150,103 54.58% 200,000 155,316 77.66% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 183,777 114.86% 240,000 189,155 78.81% TOTAL 97,432,000 67,422,790 69.20% 98,607,800 67,465,729 68.42% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 17,215 71 .73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 17,215 71.73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 40,257,1 19 73.37% 53,226,139 39,125,356 73.51% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 5,241,465 69.06% 8,300,000 4,723,348 56.91% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 903,646 67.44% 1,400,000 993,438 70.96% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% 1,675,000 969,461 57.88% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 205,407 75.14% 273,358 202,301 74.01% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% 3,875,562 2,487,683 64.19% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 2,212,482 67.76% 3,900,000 2,312,167 59.29% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 583,296 57.98% 920,337 548,023 59.55% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 534,979 95.44% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 285,245 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 84,923 13.07% 360,000 236,541 65.71% TOTAL 75,441,106 53,643,152 71.11% 74,776,187 52,418,542 70.10% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 200,754 17.83% 1,350,000 180,868 13.40% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 755,567 22.15% 3,752,430 725,012 19.32% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 121,838,724 69.11% 177,157,418 120,620,877 68.09% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 11,634,200 46.25% 24,075,790 15,366,005 63.82% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% 4,000,000 2,449,984 61.25% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 11,601,757 46.28% 24,689,351 11,600,006 46.98% TOTAL 54,198,923 25,318,433 46.71% 52,765,141 29,415,996 55.75% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 147,157,156 63.84% 229,922,559 150,036,873 65.26% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 03/31/03 EXPENDED 2003/04 03/31/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 64,090,483 63.54% 100,684,982 63,436,899 63.01% BENEFITS 24,838,361 16,098,491 64.81% 26,483,772 16,510,443 62.34% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 13,340,573 67.39% 19,719,297 13,466,132 68.29% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 5,434,989 65.11% 8,185,459 6,610,040 80.75% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 927,565 57.36% 1,575,580 805,976 51.15% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,932,072 34.46% 8,384,567 2,991 ,574 35.68% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191 ,763 100.77% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176, 189,538 115,037,745 65.29% 177,131,999 116,012,827 65.50% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 11,442,759 43.76% 26,056,193 12,143,681 46.61% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,113,349 53.10% 4,000,000 2,771 ,767 69.29% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 14,296,955 57.04% 24,689,351 14,261,356 57.76% TOTAL 55,194,668 27,853,063 50.46% 54,745,544 29,176,804 53.30% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 142,890,808 61 .75% 231,877,543 145,189,631 62.61% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,266,347 (1 ,954,984) 4,847,240 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (889,191) 1,578,177 3,797,771 OPERATING 8,675,891 15,358,630 9,052,274 13,634,905 TOTAL 9,325,586 14,469,439 10,630,451 17,432,676 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 03-31-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 76,602.53 43,199.84 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 1,551,750.15 12,158,026.39 5,255,441 .36 2,752,827.80 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 2,732.72 25,000.00 14,541.25 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 8,679.00 21 ,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 5,000,218.33 2,466,563.49 135,978.32 5, 166,256.33 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 158,459.00 14,368,511.04 7,659,055.84 9,437,398.71 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 934,239.80 224,051.20 1,176,728.24 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 6,797,427.48 30,015,354.97 13,299,526.72 18,612,142.73 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (3,335,868.48) 18,738,730.75 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 997,581 .12 (3,461,559.00) 4,824,799.01 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 998,581 .12 (6,797,427.48) 0.00 0.00 25,308,235.75 GRAND TOTAL  a~z Jg l!Z ~~a ~Ul l~ 12.lW Jg gJ:i J:i~ l!Z Ja\nm:i:.iH:.i ~ gag ag ~g PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 03-31-04 673,846.55 36,870,810.95 265,814.17 4,883,405.13 16,233,828.84 51,647,866.04 I 11,735,611.78 20,032,551.72 142,343,735.18 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED I THRU 03-31-04 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 03-31-04 1 SUBTOTAL (485,325.77) 1 I l I I 889,772.32 149,597.63 I 76,602.53 I o.oo I 630,646.71 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671,442.11 12,158,026.39 5,255,441 .36 I 34,117,983.15 I 113,930.47 109,609.73 I 2,732.72 25,000.00 251,272.92 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661.38 I 8,679.00 0.00 I 4,862,214.57 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 I 3.455,350.67 I 2,466,563.49 1 135,978.32 11,067,572.51 397,615.34 I 4,119,045.21 I 15,666,239.90 14,368,511 .04 7,659,055.84 42,210,467.33 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 I 4.500.374.61 I 934,239.00 I 224,051.20 j 10,558,883.54 I 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 30,015,354.97\nI 13,299,526.72 I 103,699,040.73 I I I ENDING ALLOCATION 03-31-04 43,199.84 2,752,827.80 14,541 .25 21,190.56 5,166,256.33 9,437,398.71 1,176,728.24 20,032,551.72 38,644,694.45 Operating Operating Operating Food Service Activity Fund Fund Total Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund ~apital 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 Risk Management Loss Fund Purchase Date 03-31-04 ofo1-04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND F_9R THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 Maturity Date TFN 04-01-04 Institution Interest Rate =-Type - __ Principal - - --- Bank of America 0.890% Repo - - Twin City ~an~ 1 -~~0% _ _ -CD 10,000,000.00 4,600,000.00 03-15-04 04-15-04 Twin City Ba~ 1.350% CD - - 7,500,000.00 22,100,000.00 03-16-04 TFN Bank of America 6.790% _ :._ RepO- 1,000:00o_ _oo . 03-16-04 03/08/04 01-16-04 01-16-04 01-30-04 11-18-03 05-15-03 - 01-16-04 05-15-03 12-01-03 03-15-04 - 03/29/04 12-05-03 01-15-04 03-16-04 _ J_,000,000.00 TFN Bank of America o.Tiio\n~ - 1,200,000.00 09-06-04 - Regions - --~ 1.050% CD - - 400,000.00 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934~1 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD - 5,231,3~~}f 01-31-05 _ Bancorp South ----1.850/o __ .=--co _ __b!QQ_,2j4.72 - 04-15-04 BankoftheOzarks - 1.300% CD - 6,000,000.00 08-16::04 USBANK 1.420% --CD - 11,000,000.00 06-10-04 sank of Ameri~~ o.910% -~Treasury Bills 5,365,126.36 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks - 1.360% CD 9,000,000.00 -_ 05-03-04~-=_1- Bank or the Ozarks 1:_?~%- _ --co- 3.060,648.33 0g: 15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD--- 10,293,800.80 TFN- Bank otAmerica ~30% -- Repo - 4,420,000.00 -\u0026gt;- --- - --- _ -- --- ---~.872,14~\"G3- 06-15-04 --- Bank of America --1-.0-20/~ _T-r-e-as_u_ry Bills _,_ _66_ 8~,_32_5_.2_8___, -___ 66~,325.28 06-10-04 1-- -- TFN Bank of America 0.250% 400,000.00 400,000.00\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_1441","title":"Report: ''The Little Rock School District's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy,'' 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":["2004-03-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School districts","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''The Little Rock School District's Implementation of the Court's Compliance Remedy,'' 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/1441"],"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":["96 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1759","title":"Court filings regarding scheduling letter, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Joshua intervenors', Knight intervenors', and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) responses to court order, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and 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":["2004-03-17/2004-03-31"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Project management","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding scheduling letter, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Joshua intervenors', Knight intervenors', and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) responses to court order, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and 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/1759"],"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":["83 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, three orders; Court of Appeals scheduling letter; District Court, response to court order by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, response to court order by Knight intervenors; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Court's March 17, 2004, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to order; District Court, supplement to response to Court order by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, NLRSD response to Court's March 17, 2004, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''The Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) implementation of the Court's compliance remedy''; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    \\ \\ RECE i ~ED FILED tUt AR J. \" l'!fv1.lQ 4, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFF!::: '.' '.' DESEGREr.mr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~AME MAR 1 ?. 2004 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION y: ___ \"=~v.u~~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DNIHOllNOW NOllV~31:W3S30 :lO 33H:l0 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~OOl 8 I ~vw ORDER Lawyers for the parties will please provide the following information: 1. Do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"employee\" is to be construed broadly regardless of job description)? 2. The dates of any such attorney-client relationship. 3. Whether you deem it proper for a lawyer representing a party in this case to represent an employee of the ODM. 4. If you deem it proper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority. 5. If you deem it improper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority. \"Attorney-client,\" \"representation,\" and \"consultation\" are to be construed broadly. As an example, a telephone conversation during which the employee seeks to employ a lawyer, or seeks - legal advice of any nature, whether or not it is related to an ODM matter ( even on a one-time - basis) is \"representation.\" A would-be client who talks with a lawyer falls within the definitions above. \"[W]ould-be clients are virtually indistinguishable from 'actual ' clients during the period in which a relationship is under consideration ... \"1 If, for example, a person calls a lawyer, describes a car wreck, and asks, \"has the statute of limitations run\" and the lawyer answers with a definitive, monosyllabic, \"yes,\" this is sufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship for that brief period of time. Generally, see also the Law of Lawyering, Volume 1,  1.6: I 03 and 1.6: 105. Your response to this order must be filed by noon on Friday, March 26, 2004. IT IS SO ORDERED this _/2Tlt,arch, 2004. d,, UN' ~J/r!;;UDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. 1Law of Lawyering, Volume 1,  1.6:115 at 168.17. ~srRl5!4,~ D o1srR1cr couRr IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT MAR f B AR!vws,4,s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMt:s VV 2004 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION .By;  MccoRMAc K, CLt:Rk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER I. In response to an Order, entered yesterday (March 17, 2004) Mr. John W. Walker, one of Joshua Intervenor' s lawyers, has fax ed a letter to me today, a copy of which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A. 2. Among several other things Mr. Walker states, \"we do not represent any member of the ODM staff present or past as far as we know. I add the 'as far as we know caveat' (sic) because we may not know all of the employees present and past of ODM.\" 3. Let's take a look at the record. On October 15, 2002, Joshua Intervenors' lawyers filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors ' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget\" (Doc. No. 3686). The first paragraph of this pleading reads as follows: It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights (emphasis added). 841 4. Then, ten days later (on October 25, 2002), Joshua Intervenors' lawyers filed yet another pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors' Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff' (Doc. No. 3691), with the following first paragraph: On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2001 . Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this court. ( emphasis added) 5. The quotes in the two paragraphs above appear to establish beyond peradventure that Joshua Intervenors' lawyers represented an employee of the ODM in October of 2002 . Furthermore, the Order entered yesterday makes it clear that this is exactly the type of information to be disclosed. 6. The March 18, 2004 letter asserts that Joshua Intervenors ' lawyers do not know the identity of past or present ODM employees. I do not want to practice law for any party, but I believe that, if I were in this situation as a lawyer, I would call or write the ODM and get a complete list of these employees. 7. I have reviewed the Order entered yesterday again -- after receiving the fax letter from Joshua Intervenors' lawyers today -- and I must immodestly admit that I believe it is a model of clarity. It can be faulted, if it is to be faulted at all, for redundancy; but I intentionally made it longer than I normally would so that it would not be misunderstood. 8. Joshua Intervenors' lawyers should carefully check their memories and records to determine if they represent, or have represented, any other employees of the ODM ( other than Ms. Bryant). Likewise, counsel for the other parties should do the same. Once this is done, 2 counsel for each party should proceed to prepare a pleading which will comply with the remainder of yesterday's Order. r--1-f IT IS SO ORDERED t~is Ji day of March, 2004. 3 !))~ fl_UuJ,v_ UNifED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. W ILSON, JR. MAR.18.2004 10:19AM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATroRNEY AT LAW 1723 BRoADWAY 1rrrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELE!\u0026gt;SONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 874-4187 March 18, 2004 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: NO.498 OF COUNSEL ROBERT MclIENRY, P.A. . DONNA J. McP.ENR'f 8210 HE!IDERSON RoAO L1'rrLE RoCK, .AJlxt.NS . .'J! 72210 P!!ONll: (601) 372-342/i  F,IA (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: =-hinuyd@swbell.uet RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2004 (j'm . R : Wilson, Jr E i- District Judge   of Arkansas I am writing to provide the Court a preliminary report in reply to the Order herein dated March 17, 2004. The Order appears to invite, if not require, a responsive pleading. By this letter I am requesting further instruction as to the form the expected final response should take.  With respect to question one (1 ), I have spoken with the other attorneys associated with me, including those not in my firm as such, and inform the Court that the answer we provide is that we do not represent any me!!).j:i_~r of the ODM staff present or past~ far as we k.now. I add the \"as fu as we know cave ~t\" because we may not know all of the employees present and past of ODM. There was 9. period when I believe ODM employed certain e;,,,.-perts and there may have been some part-time or temporary employees hired from time to time by ODM. With respect to the other questions I do not believe them to applicable in view of the answer to proffered question number one, Moreover, questions three through five invite, if not direct, responses to any imaginary hypothetical situation. I therefore cannot provide an answer to a question which I do not fully comprehend and which is not before me in an actual case. I do wish and intend to reply to the Court, however. Accordingly, I request clarification regarding me last three questions. In making the above report I recall that Judge Susan Webber Wright observed that ODM was not represented by counsel at which point she invited me to begin the questioning of ODM. The position that we took at the hearing on behalf of Joshua was consistent with OD M's and contrary to LRSD's. The hearing about which I speak involve extensive inquiries into LRSD's budgeting process and th.at occurred some seven or eight years ago. I deemed it proper men., as I do now, to reply to the Court. Our position was that LRSD was not meeting its budgeting obligations, ODM staff presented expert testimony to that point which I generally elicii:ed and LRSD opposed it. MAR.18.2004 10=19AM Page Two March 18, 2004 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.498 This is our best understanding of how to reply to the Courr' s Order but if our understanding is incomplete, I respectfully request further guidance from the Court for the Joshua counsel. JWW:lp cc: All Other Counsel (fax only) The Honorable J. Thomas Ray R~spectli;llY su)imitte'7, ;~~ 1-rD/ ~'7l t/i John W. Walker \"Li TO: DATE: FAXCOVERSHEET - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number; 501-604 5149 Chris Heller 376-2147 Sam Jones 376-9442 Steve Jones 375-1027 John Walker 374-4187 Robert Pressman 781 -862-1955 Timothy Gauger 682-2591 . Mark Hagemeier 682-2591 Ann Marshall 371-0100 Mark Burnette 375-1940 \"3. / B- O'f c~ e,u~~./, ~ .:~ ;;-~ There are__ pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~/--- ?Z-rrr-- Office of Judge Wm. R. Wi on, Jr .. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 1 8 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLER' By: ' I 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. MAR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw Counsel and For Substitution of Counsel (Doc. No. 3839). Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education requests that Mr. Dennis Hansen be withdrawn as counsel since he is no longer actively participating in the day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's Office. Defendant requests that Mr. Mark Hagemeier be substituted as counsel of record. For good cause shown, separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw Counsel and For Substitution of Counsel is GRANTED.  (7--r;,::. IT IS SO ORDERED this / 0 day of March, 2004. 842 DEP CLER: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - rlAEL E. GANS Clerk of Court Mr. Will Bond BOND \u0026amp; O'BRIEN 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 THOMAS F. EAGLETON COURT HOUSE ROOM 24.329 111 S. 10TH STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102 March 18, 2004 VOICE 1314) 244-2400 FAX (314) 244-2780 www.ca8 .uscourts.gov RECEuVED MAR 2 ;- 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: 03-3088 Re: 03-3404 Greg Bollen vs. Lorene Joshua Pulaski Cty . School vs. Greg Bollen Dear Counsel: The court has decided that they will hear this appeal via telephone conference sometime in May. The exact date will be determined at a later time . If you have any conflicts during the month of May, please bring them to our attention at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. tab cc : John W. Walker Rickey H. Hicks Robert Pressman Clayton Roy Blackstock Mark Burnett M. Samuel Jones III Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher JoH~ellne . Stephen w. Jones Ann Marshall Timothy Gauger Sincerel Trish Calendar Coordinator District Court/Agency Case Number(s) : 4:82-CV-866 WRW RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 March 22, 2004 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Response to Court Order by Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 22, 2004 MAH Enclosures Very truly yours, ~ ~~y Assistant Attorney General UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for its Response to Court Order dated March 17, 2004, state: 1. Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") - supplied the Office of the Attorney General with a list of past and present employees. 2. Undersigned has circulated this list of past and present ODM employees to attorneys within the Office of the Attorney General who have worked on this matter. 3. Tim Gauger, Dennis Hansen, and Mark Hagemeier have never represented a past or present employee of ODM. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General MARK A. HAG IER, #9 Assistant Atto:; en:l 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 ---- ----- -------------------- - 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 March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hageer 2 Rec Er 67ED MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, WAGONER, IVERS AND SNEDDON, PLLC MA\\ 2 ~1 2004 Dr:S'\" OFFICE OF EUGENE R. WARREN (1909-1980) MICHAEL W. MITCHELL* CLAYTON R. BLACKSTOCK** MARCIA BARNES JACK WAGONER III DAVID IVERS EMILY SNEDDON MARK BURNETTE OLIVER HAHN Mr. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ATIORNEYS 1010 WEST THIRD STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 378-7870 www .mbbwi.com Writer's e-mail: mburnette@mbbwi.com March 25, 2004 1: i:Gl1EG11T:O:, ?.lDi'fTDR!W~ MAILING ADDRESS P.O . BOX 1510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-1510 TELEFAX 501-375-1940 *CERTIFIED IN CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCACY BY NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY ** ALSO LICENSED IN TEXAS Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldrege \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Ste. 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Ste. 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et. al. U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Ms. Marshail and Gentlemen: I enclose herein a file-marked copy of a Response to Court Order by Knight Intervenors. MTB/dm Encl. Very truly yours, Mark T. Burnette 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, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FILED U.S. o:::~;:_ ICT COURT EASTER:, C,::;:,:..1..:-;- K-;.KANSAS MAR 2 5 2004 JAMES W. McCOri.:.,,.\\SK, CLERK By:.---------;:;-=-;~;-;; C:::? CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS Come the Knight Intervenors, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004, state: 1. Undersigned counsel obtained a roster of ODM employees and distributed the roster to all current attorneys in this firm. 2. No attorney client relationship has existed between any of the listed employees of ODM and an attorney in this firm. It may also be worth noting that Emily Sneddon, a partner in this firm, was employed as a law clerk in the office of the Honorable Susan Webber Wright during a period when Judge Wright presided over this case. Ms. Sneddon does not participate in the case in her current position. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK, BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By: 72:lMfl~/1/Yldtv Mark Burnette N # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this.24\"\" day of March, 2004: ,;f.at?I Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: 2?kJ,/3trA21d/ Mirk Burnette BAR NO. 88078 R.ECEjVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE OF - ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED U.S. DI STRICT COURT EASTERN  : STRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 6 2004 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ________ __,= PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. (\"Joshua\"), Intervenors herein, by their undersigned attorneys, submit this JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE To THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER and state the following: FACTS On October 15, 2002, Joshua filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors ' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM1 Budget.\" Paragraph 1 of that pleading stated, \"It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court (sic) is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court (sic) has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights.\" Oct. I 5, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget, 1. The \"member of the ODM staff' referred to in that pleading is Linda Bryant (\"Ms. Bryant\"). Joshua did not file its pleading to seek individual relief for Ms. Bryant. Joshua' s sole purpose for filing the pleading was to gain access to documents and other materials so that 1 ODM is the Office of Desegregation Monitoring created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1990. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. o. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). Joshua could \"make recommendations concerning or objections regarding the ODM budget and elements thereof, prior to their implementation.\" Oct. 15, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget ~~ 5(a), 5(b); see also Oct. 15, 2002 Mem. Concerning the ODM Budget. On October 16, 2002, the Court denied Joshua's motion without prejudice, holding it was premature. Oct. 16, 2002 Order. On October 25, 2002, Joshua filed a pleading entitled, \"The Joshua Intervenor's (sic) Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff.\" Paragraph 1 of that pleading stated, \"On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2002. Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this Court.\" Oct. 25, 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff~ 1. Again, the purpose of this particular pleading was not to seek individual relief for Ms. Bryant, rather, Joshua simply wanted the opportunity to provide its input into the budget of the ODM prior to the Court ordering a reduction of its budget. Oct. 25, 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff at 2. Holding that the motion for a stay was moot, the Court denied Joshua's motion the same day Joshua filed it. Oct. 25, 2002 Order. On March 17, 2004, the Court entered an order requesting each party's attorneys to answer the following questions: (1) Do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"employee is to be construed broadly regardless of job description)?\"; (2) The Dates of any such attorney-client relationship; (3) Whether you deem it proper for a lawyer representing a party in this case to represent an employee of the ODM; (4) If you deem it proper, please explain your position in 2 exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority; (5) If you deem it improper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority.\" Mar. 17, 2004 Order. APPLICABLE LAW Before answering the Court's inquiries, a discussion of the applicable law is appropriate. On May 1, 1980, the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas adopted the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, codified at the Appendix to the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Rule IV.B of the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides in relevant part, \" .. . The Code of Professional Responsibility or Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this Court is the Code of Professional Responsibility or Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the highest court of the state in which this Court sits, as amended from time to time by that state court, except as otherwise provided by specific Rule of this Court after consideration of comments by representatives of bar associations within the state.\" In 1985, the Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted the American Bar Association 's Model Rules of Professional Conduct as the State of Arkansas's code of professional responsibility. Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp.2d 1119, 1132 n.19 (E.D. Ark. 1999) (citing In re Arkansas Bar Ass ' n, 287 Ark. 495, 702 S.W.2d 326 (1985)). Thus, the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct is the starting point for analyzing the ethical duties of lawyers practicing before this Court. Model Fed. R. of Disciplinary Enforcement IV.B . In order to determine a lawyer's authority and responsibility, principles of substantive lav.r external to the .. 1odel Rules of Professional Conduct determine whether a client-la,.vyer relationship exists. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct~ 3. Most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal ,., .) - services and the lawyer has agreed to do so. See id. (emphasis added). But there are some duties, such as that of confidentiality under Rule 1.62 , that may attach when the lawyer agrees to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established. See id. Whether a clientlawyer relationship exists for any specific purpose can depend on the circumstances and may be a question of fact. See id; see also Cortinez v. Supreme Ct. Comm. on Profl Conduct, 332 Ark. 455, 464, 966 S.W.2d 251 (1998). The attorney-client relationship is not simply the casual assistance of a member of the bar, but is an intimate process of consultation and planning which culminates in a state of trust and confidence between the client and his attorney. Clements v. State, 306 Ark. 596, 607, 608, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991) (citing Smith v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles, 440 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1968); McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18 (Ak. 1974); People v. Davis, 449 N.E2d 237 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983); In re Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)). 2 The text of Rule 1.6 provides: Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of information. (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b ). (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: ( 1) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act; or (2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the !a,.,,yer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client. (c) Neither this Rule nor Rule 1.8(b) nor Rule l.16(d) prevents the lawyer from giving notice of the fact of withdrawal, and the lawyer may also withdraw or disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. 4 The relationship is not dependent only an express agreement, it may be implied on the part of an attorney who acts in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request by the latter. Sexton v. Supreme Ct. Comm. on Profl Conduct, 295 Ark. 141 , 147 (747 S.W.2d 94 (1988) (Hays \u0026amp; Glaze, JJ., dissenting) (citing Hirsch Bros. \u0026amp; Co. v. R.E. Kennington Co., 124 So. 344 (Miss. 1929); 88 A.LR. 1; 7A C.J.S.  169). Although the Model Rules are silent on the subject, the Supreme Com1 of Arkansas has stated that attorneys remain obligated to avoid any \"appearance of impropriety.\" Arkansas Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2002-347 (citing Saline Mem'l Hosp. v. Berry, 321 Ark. 588, 906 S.W.2d 297 (1995); Burnette v. Moman, 303 Ark. 150, 794 S.W.2d _145 (1990)). Joshua will now turn to answering the Court's questions. I. JOSHUA'S ATTORNEY'S \"REPRESENTATION\" OF MS. BRYANT On or about October 14, 2002, Ms. Bryant informed Joshua's attorney that her employment with the ODM was about to be terminated and sought counsel regarding her legal rights. Oct. 15, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget 1 1; Oct. 25 , 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff 1 1. When Ms. Bryant communicated her desire to have Joshua's attorney explain her legal rights to her, at that specific moment the duty of confidentiality codified in Model R. of Pro fl Conduct 1.6 was triggered. Scope, Model R. of Prof 1 Conduct 1 3. Upon learning where Ms. Bryant worked and what relief she was seeking, Joshua's attorney told her in unambiguous terms that he could not represent her and that she needed to look elsewhere Lu ublain representation. Joshua's attorney did not rendef any substantive advice, such as informing her of the statute of limitations or the remedies available to her or what administrative measures she had to take prior to obtaining judicial relief. 5 In fact, Joshua's attorney strictly followed Model R. of Profl Conduct 4.33 and gave Ms. Bryant no advice other than to find another attorney. Model R. of Profs Conduct 4.3 cmt. (comparing Rule 4.3 to American Bar Association rule DR 7-104(A)(2) and stating that a lawyer shall not give advice to a person who is not represented by a lawyer, other than the advice to secure counsel). Because Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant and offered no substantive legal advice in the course of declining the representation, most of the other duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship did not attach. Scope, Model R. of Prof! Conduct ,r 3 (stating \"most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal services and the lawyer has agreed to do so\") (emphasis added). Had Ms. Bryant communicated information to Joshua's attorney that was materially adverse to another party in this case (which she most certainly did not), it is arguable that Joshua's attorney would be barred from using that information by Model Rules 1.6 and l.7(b). Rule 1.7(b) provides, \"A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests.\" In the instant case, nothing Ms. Bryant told Joshua's attorney could be reasonably construed to be adverse to the Joshua Intervenors or perhaps more importantly, to the ODM. The ODM is not a party to this case. In fact, Joshua and ODM's interests and efforts are often congruent in that Joshua and the ODM have a duty to monitor the 3 The text of Rule 4.3 provides: Rule 4.3. Dealing with unrepresented person. In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. 6 - school districts ' compliance with their desegregation obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. o. 1. 921 F.2d 1371 , 1388 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding, \"As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of this opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Comi on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate\"). In 1978 or 1979, Joshua's attorney was plaintiffs' counsel  in a federal class action discrimination lawsuit against First National Bank in a case styled Raymond Smith v. First Nat'! Bank. Ms. Bryant was a member of the plaintiffs' class, but was not a named plaintiff or class representative. This representation lasted approximately two years and terminated prior to the filing of the instant case and nearly a decade prior to the OD M's creation. Thus, in answer to the Court's first query, Joshua's attorney owes a Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality to Ms. Bryant stemming from her seeking his legal advice and his declining to give it in connection with her employment with the ODM, because an attorney-client relationship between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney formed for the period in which Ms. Bryant sought legal advice from Joshua's attorney. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct~ 3. That relationship, however, terminated when Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant, and that termination relieved Joshua's attorney of most of the duties that typically flow from an attorney-client relationship. See id. Joshua's attorney also owes a duty of confidentiality to Ms. 7 Bryant based on her membership in the class of plaintiffs in the Ravmond Smith case. That attorney-client relationship terminated over twenty years ago and preceded the filing of this case and the creation of the ODM. II. THE DATES OF JOSHUA'S ATTORNEY'S \"ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP\" Joshua's attorney's representation of Ms. Bryant in the Raymond Smith lasted from 1978 or 1979 until 1980 or 1981. Ms. Bryant's fleeting attorney-client relationship with Joshua's attorney in connection with her employment with the ODM occurred on or about October 14. 2002. The relationship terminated on that same date. III. THE PROPRIETY OF REPRESENTING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ODM This question is difficult to answer given the hypothetical nature in which it is posed. In essence, the Court is seeking an advisory opinion from the attorneys in this case. While the Court has the discretion to do this, exercising that discretion raises the same issues for the attorneys as the Court itself would face were the attorneys to seek an advisory opinion from the Court. An advisory opinion is one rendered when no justiciable case or controversy exists. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 93, 95 (1968). Under Article III, courts are required to \"avoid issuing advisory opinions based upon hypothetical situations.\" Briggs v. Ohio Elections Comm'n 61 F.3d 487, 493 (6th Cir. 1995). A court's judgment \"must resolve a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what th .. 1\"'\\\" \\\"O\"lrl ho \"pen,, h\" pothetic\u0026lt;\u0026gt;l cet of .::ark\" prPicer 'I l\\Te,,,lrirlr 4')') TT Q io.;; LI.QI (107\u0026lt;;) \\. J.J. ..... J.'-4'1' 'I' 1,,t.J.'-6. V .._,\\A. J.\\A.J.J J..1.1,..1.\\A.._, 1;...,.,._,. J..._,.1.-.14 .4, ',f' .1.\".1..1.J.\"-I ,;,..,,;,.., .._.,  ._,,_,_,,_,, I \\ /I _,, Determining whether an opinion would be advisory is interrelated with the question of whether there exists a case or controversy. State of Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. United States Dep't of 8 Transp. 766 F.2d 228, 232 (6th Cir. 1985). The requirements of standing, ripeness, and mootness guard against the issuing of advisory opinions. See id. With that said, Joshua will answer the question based on the factual predicate set forth in Sections I and II of this pleading. Because Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant in connection with her employment with the ODM and in so doing fastidiously avoided rendering any substantive legal advice, the ephemeral attorney-client relationship created and terminated on October 14, 2002 does not conflict with any duties Joshua's attorney owes to any party in this case, another client, or Joshua's attorney's own interests. Model R. Profl Conduct l.7(b). This is so because the brief encounter between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney contained none of the elements that attend the conventional, substantive attorney-client relationship. Clements v. State. 306 Ark. 596, 607, 608, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991). Thus, under this particular set of facts, there was and is nothing improper vis-a-vis the instant case about Joshua's counsel meeting with Ms. Bryant on October 14, 2002, listening to her request for representation, and declining to provide that representation. Likewise, Ms. Bryant's status a class member in the Raymond Smith does nothing to compromise Joshua's attorney's duties to any party in this case, another client, or Joshua's attorney's own interests. Model R. Profl Conduct l.7(b). This is so because that representation started and ended prior to the filing of the instant case and prior to the ODM's creation. Moreover, that representation did not involve any of the parties or issues in this case. Therefore, that former representation in light of this case was also proper. There are countless scenarios under which an attorney for a pa1iy in this case could be approached by an employee of the ODM seeking representation in myriad areas of the law, therefore, Joshua cannot opine on the propriety of representing an employee of the ODM in 9 representation and did not offer Ms. Bryant any substantive legal advice. Declining the - representation terminated the attorney-client relationship, thereby eliminating any potential conflict Joshua's attorney might have with another client, a third party, or any party to this case. Model R. ofProf'l Conduct l.16(a)(l), l.7(b).  Joshua's attorney's representation of Ms. Bryant in the Raymond Smith does not create a conflict because it started and ended prior to this case being filed. Joshua hopes it has answered the questions put to it by the Court in a satisfactory manner. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ,tp- ToM LU. John W. Walker Ark. Sup. Ct. Reg. No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206-1250 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Facsimile(501)374-4187 Robert Pressman Mass. Bar No. 405900 Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02421-5817 Telephone (781) 862-1955 not only that associate, but with the entire firm at least until the associate declines to answer the question or declines the representation. Scope, Model R. of Pro fl Conduct 13 . 11 every conceivable context different from the specific facts involving Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attomey4. Those are the only facts before the attorneys in this case per the plain language of the Court's March 18, 2004 Order. Mar. 18, 2004 Order 11 3-5. Given that, Joshua is inclined to follow the pattern of federal appellate courts and decline to answer anything more than the specific question put before it. Joshua's misgivings notwithstanding, in order to comply as fully as possible with the Cami's directives of March 17 and 18, 2004, Joshua can say that as a general matter, if a current ODM employee sought representation from Joshua's counsel, it would probably be prudent to decline that representation so as not to raise the specter of conflict with the intervenors. Model R. of Profl Conduct 1.7(b). On the other hand, if a former employee of the ODM sought representation for a matter unrelated to that person's employment with the ODM and unconnected from that facts and paiiies in this case, that representation probably could be undertaken. CONCLUSION An abbreviated attorney-client relationship between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney began and ended on or about October 14, 2002 only because Ms. Bryant sought legal advice from Joshua's attorney. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct 1 3. Joshua's attorney declined the representation and did not offer Ms. Bryant any substantive legal advice. Declining the representation terminated the attorney-client relationship, thereby eliminating any potential 4 For example, Messrs. Jones and Mr. Heller work for large, full-service law firms with numerous partners, associates, and support staff. Presumably, any of their partners or associates could be approached by an employee of the ODM seeking advice on anything from domestic relations, tax, probate, or any other legal issue. Theoretically, that employee could approach a newly hired associate in a social setting, ask the associate for an opinion about something completely unrelated to the ODM or this case, and establish an attorney-client relationship with not only that associate, but with the entire firm at least until the associate declines to answer the question or declines the representation. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct 13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, the undersigned attorneys for l'virs. Lorene Joshua et al., Intervenors herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoinfi JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 has been served this 261 1 day of March, 2004, by mailing a copy by First Class United States Mail to : Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 Stephen W Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2039 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3714 Dennis R Hansen Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 J,9tuYW. Walker  Ko-bert Pressman 12 P.3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, the undersigned attorneys for Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al., Intervenors herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregointf JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE To THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 has been served this 26 day of March, 2004, by mailing a copy by First Class United States Mail to: Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2039 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3714 Dennis R Hansen Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 John W. Walker Robert Pressman 12 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Christopher Heller JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1 723 BROADWAY LITILE R OCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 March 26, 2004 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE /JF DESEGREGATiOU MO~{lf Cfi/NG OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. . DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON RO . .\\D LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 E~WL: mchenryd@swbell.net RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, et al. In The United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Case Number 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear Mr. Heller: Enclosed please find a file marked copy of JOSHlJA TNTERVENORS' RESPONSE To TI-lE COURT'S MARCI-I 17, 2004 ORDER. Please telephone me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter. TC Enclosures (1 ) Cc Robert Pressman Mark Burnett Stephen W. Jones M. Samuel Jones, III Dennis R. Hansen Ann Marshall 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'S RESPONSE TO ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOrJ f:10 NITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD, by counsel, will address the five numbered paragraphs in the Court's Order of March 17, 2004, seriatim. 1. No. However, in approximately 1987, Gene Jones was the assistant superintendent for instruction in the PCSSD and the District's representative on the Magnet Review Committee which was then in its nascent stage. Mr. Gene Jones recalls that undersigned counsel helped prepare him for testimony on one occasion concerning Magnet Review Committee issues during that time period. 2. While undersigned counsel does not believe that the foregoing described episode arose to an attorney-client relationship, even as broadly construed, the episode occurred some time during 1987. Of course, this event predated the formation of the ODM by several years and predates Mr. Gene Jones' employment with the ODM by many years . 3. No. 487697-v1 4. Not applicable. 5. The ODM is an \"arm of the court\" and plays a special role in this institutional reform litigation. Accordingly, and especially if school counsel made a conscious decision to represent an employee of the ODM, then other parties could make a cogent argument that the school counsel is disqualified from further representation in the school case because he or she has effectively chosen to represent an employee of an entity directly connected to and originally created by this Court. (See generally Model Rule 1.7). From time to time in the past, one or more of the parties have sought to utilize either the reports of the ODM or testimony from ODM employees to make a point or further their position in these proceedings. Particularly under these unique circumstances, such representation as described in the Court's order should be avoided. Because the monitoring or recommendations made by the ODM can in fact influence the practices of a school district, or could have an affect upon the practices, presentations or positions of any party to this case, then discretion would seem to behoove that such representation be eschewed. Stated another way, if an employee of the ODM was represented by counsel to one of the parties in this case, and particularly if that employee was in a position to influence monitoring outcomes or recommendations to be made by the ODM, and if that counsel had an interest in either the monitoring outcomes or recommendations, then the representation of that ODM employee could present the appearance of impropriety. Particularly since the ODM occupies a high profile position, and presuming that the ODM desires to foster and maintain the trust of the public, any doubt about the representation should be resolved against accepting it. 487697-v1 2 This reasoning seems consistent with certain principles the Arkansas Supreme Court reaffirmed in First American Carriers, Inc. vs. Kroger Company, 302 Ark. 86, 787 S.W.2d 1669 (1990) . In that case, the Court reminded the legal profession that avoiding the \"appearance of impropriety\" was still part of the rules governing attorneys as established by prior decisions of the Supreme Court even though the previous ABA Code of Professional Responsibility had, by then, been replaced by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. As the Court explained: While Canon 9 is not expressly adopted by the Model Rules, the principle applies because its meaning pervades the Rules and embodies their spirit. It is included in what the preamble to the Rules refers to as \"moral and ethical considerations\" that should guide lawyers who have \"special responsibility for the quality of justice\". Another difficulty could arise as respects the budget of the ODM. The Court routinely refers the proposed annual budget to counsel for all of the parties for comment. If one of the lawyers in this case was representing one of the employees of the ODM, then there would be at least a tension between that representation and certain budget issues, including the proposed compensation for that employee or, particularly as this case \"winds down\", issues such as a reduction in force for the ODM or a curtailment of duties and responsibilities. While such developments might be to the financial interest of one or more of the parties to this case, those issues would likely conflict with the employees' own self interest. Another potential issue presents itself as respects the attorney-client privilege. (Please see the Law of Lawyering, Volume 1,  1.6: 103 @ page 137). It is conceivable that an attorney representing an employee of the ODM could acquire information useful to his \"school 487697-v1 3 client\" in this case. However, even if that information might have otherwise been discoverable through routine means, the fact that the attorney acquired it from his or her ODM client would likely (if not certainly) cause the privilege to attach thereby likely precluding the attorney from using the information that would otherwise be useful to his school client. The problem presented in this example is palpable. Id.@ 1.6:115@ 168.16 Another potential example suggests itself in these circumstances. For instance, the ODM client might confide to the attorney something like \"School District Xis fudging on the numbers it is reporting to the ODM, but don't tell anybody.\" While the attorney might very well have ultimately figured out such a circumstance, and used it to his or her advantage in this case, the fact that he or she initially received the information in an obviously privileged communication is at best problematic. Since the information confided likely does not rise to - the level of a \"crime\" or \"fraud\" as discussed in the Code, (assuming the fudging is a product of sloppiness rather than intent) then more likely than not the attorney cannot use the information to the advantage of his school case client presumably to that client's detriment. See, for instance, the Law of Lawyering,  1.6: 105@ 148.2. As discussed generally in the Law of Lawyering, Id. @ 1. 6: 115 @ 168 .17, the examples given above could arise even in the context of a \"one shot\" consultation to which the privilege would attach, however briefly. Accordingly, it would appear to be clearly prudent to even avoid the potential circumstance of establishing an attorney-client relationship, however fleeting, by simply declining to discuss with any ODM employee any issue that could lead to the formation of the relationship. 487697-v1 4 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 26, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 487697-v1 5 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 487697-v1 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 6 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991 ) ALSTON JENNJNGS WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW (1917 -2004 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. MARTIN G. GILBERT ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN O. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER GREGORY S. MUZINGO .. Writer ' s Direct Dial No . S0l -212 - 1273 mjones@wlj .com March 26, 2004 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVI S CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D, WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKES . RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS  LicaJ.Wtnpncticeb!JiJrrtMUnitiedSutes Patent UJd Tndi:rwrk Offic.e 0 J..icauf tn pnctk:e in M\",cbipn only MAR 2 ~l 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREt:rnTIOM MONITOR!N0 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD response to the Court's order of March 17, 2004. Because of the Court's impending deadline, copies of being faxed to all counsel in this case as well. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 488399-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, 6 Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Robert Pressman (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE , MAR Z : 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 March 26, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed AD E's Supplemental Response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of 2 March 26, 2004 MAH Enclosure Very truly yours, Y1~-~ ~ MARK.A. HAGEr Assistant Attorney General UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MAP 1- r 2004 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEP ARA TE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comes now Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, and for its supplement to its Response to Court Order dated March 17, 2004, states: ADE is and was unable to respond definitively to questions 3, 4, and 5 of the Court's Order dated March 17, 2004. ADE believes it lacks sufficient specific facts regarding any particular attorney-client relationship to respond definitively to these three questions. It appears from the Court's questions that the principal concern is that, if there was an attorney-client relationship between an attorney in the case and an employee of ODM, could confidential information have been divulged by that employee to that attorney. If during the attorney-client relationship the ODM employee divulged information to the attorney concerning ODM's or the Court's opinion or contemplated course of action on a subject relevant to this desegregation litigation, then ADE would certainly contend this was improper or, at the very least, created an appearance of impropriety. However, if the attorney-client relationship had nothing to do with this desegregation litigation and if no confidential information was disclosed, then ADE might conclude the relationship was proper. It appears to ADE that there could be circumstances where an attorney-client relationship between an employee of ODM, which is an arm of the Court, and a lawyer or a member of lawyer's firm representing a party in this case could be appropriate. For example, if an ODM employee requested services for an adoption, a will, or a criminal matter from one of these lawyers or their firm, ADE would not think this attorney-client relationship improper. ADE can also imagine, however, various situations that would run the gamut between these two extremes that might create an appearance of impropriety that the Court would want the ODM and its employees to avoid. In conclusion, separate defendant would want to know many more facts before it could opine on whether any particular relationship between an employee of ODM and an attorney in this case was improper or not. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General R, #94127 Assistant Attorney Ge ral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 2 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 ;;)b day of March 2004, addressed to : Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 MarkA. ~eier 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER Comes the law firm of Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. , counsel for the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and in response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004 states as follows: 1. The law fi rm of Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. has co nducted a conflicts search regarding its representation of those individuals listed by Ms. Ann Marshall as having worked for the Office of Desegreation Monitoring in the email of March 19, 2004 from Ms. Ann Marshall , copy attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. has not represented any of the individuals listed in Exhibit 1. 3. Mr. Gene Jones was previously the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for the NLRSD during the pendency of this litigation and while Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones , P.A. was representing the NLRSD. However, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. has never represented Mr. Jones individually. 4. In addition , all attorneys at Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. have been asked if they have any memory of any conversation with one of the listed individuals regarding any legal matter regardless of how casual the discussion. No attorney has any present memory of any such discussion occurring . By: 2 Respectfully Submitted , pN \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. --- NW. JONES, #7 -083 425 West Capitol Avenu Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 \"Ann Marshall\" \u0026lt;asbrown@aristotle.ne t\u0026gt; 03/19/2004 11 : 19 AM To: \u0026lt;sjones@jlj .com\u0026gt; cc: Subject: FW: judge wilson's order Hello , Steve. Below are the e-mail exchanges I ' ve had with Chris and Sam re Judge Wilson ' s most recen o rders . I don ' t want to leave you out . At the very bottom is the list of those individuals who have worked for ODM, to the best of our knowledge. Als o , as I pointed out , all of us have at one time worked for ADE, LRSD, NLRSD , or PCSSD . Please let me know if you need any further information, and I ' l l be glad to do what I can. Ann -----Original Message----- From: Ann Marshall [m3ilt o :asbrown@aristotle . net} Sent : Friday , March 19, 20 0 4 10:47 AM To: Chris Heller Cc: mjones@wlj . com Subject : RE : judge wilson ' s order Sam , below is the lis t I sent Chris yesterday. For both of yo u , Chris and Sam , the complete name o f t he person whose last name I couldn ' t recall is Theresa Bradley, who wo rked as a receptionist in the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor . The name in the list below that reads \"Jackie Bates \" is actually \"Ja c kie Banks , \" who was also a receptionist and is deceased . In reply to your que s tion this morning , Sam, about Gene Jon es ' previous position: he was re ti red when I hired him in 1995. He had mos t recently been assis ta n t supe rin t endent for instruction in the NLRSD. Befor e that , he was dire c t o r o f secondary education and assistant superintende n t for instruction in PCSSD. He was also an associate director for instru c t ion at ADE and once director of t he Metropolitan Education Servi ces Center As a matter of fa c , every employee of t his o ffice , including me, at one time worked for ei t her ADE , PCSSD, LRSD, or NLRSD . Hope this info helps . I f you need more, just holler . Ann -----Original Me s sage -- - -- From: Chris Hel l e r [mailt~ : HELLER@fec .net] Sent : Thursday, March Jo , L004 6 :42 PM To: Alan Bryan; Ale;,:andra l r rah ; Amanda Ros e ; Angelia Chamberlin; Donald Ba con; J.C . Bake r; Darin 8a1.ron ; Tom Baxt e r; Bryan Duke; Robert Beac h ; Joe Bell; Paul Benha m; Bra ndon Ha rrison ; Lee Brown ; Bruce Tidwell ; Larry Bur~s ; Jim Buttry; Carol1n Wall a ce; Jim Clark; Allison Cornwell; Kevin Cra s s ; Coleman Wes:brou~ ; Qsrar Davis; Betty Demory; Walter Ebel; John Echol s ; Byron Ei sema n; r~: -~ Sardne r; Greg Mc Kee; Dave Graf; Will Gri f f in ; Jame s Ha rr is ; C~r:s H~l ler; Jason Hendren ; Dan Herrington; Fra n Hic ~man ; J o seph Hurst ; ~i-- ~ Hut chison; Jonann Con iglio ; Jamie J ones ; Joseph McKay; Jeff Moo r e ; Joey Nichols ; John Peiserich ; jpmsec ; James Smith ; Jay Taylor ; Kimber l y Dickerson ; Khayyam Eddings ; Karen Halbert; Kristen Rowlands; ScotL ~a~~~ste r ; H. T . Larzelere ; Chris Lawson ; Tom Leg ge tt ; Harry Li ght ; ' .. y:, ~\"' .\"o:!nson; Lindsey Mit c ham; Lois Dundee; Diane Mackey ; Phil Ma l c om; Mar - ~~ s~it h; Michelle At or; Marvin Childers; EXHIBIT ii Martin Kasten ; Mike Moore; Michael Moyers; Elizabeth Murray; Wyck Nisbet; Jane Oberste; Ellen Owens ; William PATTON ; Cliff Plunkett ; Ryan Bowman; Robert Smith; Shep RUSSELL ; James Saxton; Steven Brooks; Sarah Cotton; Robert Shafer ; James Simpson; Sam Macheak ; Laura Smith ; Carla Spainhour ; William Sutton; Tim Ezell; Tonia Jones; Scott Tucker ; Fred URSERY; William Waddell ; Guy Wade ; Dewey Watson ; David Wilson ; Wayne Young Cc: fendleyl@alltel . net ; asbrown@aristotle . net Subject : judge wilson ' s order lawyers - judge wilson has required that all lawyers in the pulaski county school desegregation case answer , among others , the fo l lowing question : \"do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the office of desegregation monitoring ( ' employee ' is to be construed broadly regardless of job description ' )? \" the current and forrmer odm employees i ' ve identified so far are : ann marshall (formerly ann brown) , gene jones, horace smith , polly ramer , margie powell , linda ~ryant, connie hickman, bob morgan , bill mooney , skip marshall , melissa gulden , arma hart , jackie bates and prentice dupins . in o r der to properly respond to j. wilson ' s order, i need to know about any communication with any of these people regarding any legal matter , whether or not you believe it amounted to \"representation \" . thanks . ch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, doe hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid , this 26th day of March, 2004, addressed to the following : Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 -2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol , Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, L YoN\u0026amp; JoNEs,P.A. HiECEi~VfED Offices I n: Conway, Arkansas Nashville, Tennessee Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier (501) 375-1 027 March 26, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: MAR 2 f: 2004 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Response to the March 17, 2004 Court Order which is being filed with the Court today. SWJ:tl Enclosure Sincerely, ~9~ MAR 3 0 2004 JAMES W. l\\.!ic:COf~L :.\\CK, CLERK By- -------,=--- DEP CLER!( THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 30, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Gene Jones Associate Monitor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRlCT OF ARKAl'fSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRlCT NO. 1, et aL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et aL KATHERINE K.i~GHT, et aL 4:82CV00866 RECEIVED MAR 01 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDAl~S INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 17, 2004 I entered an order directing the lawyers to provide information and give me opinions with respect to representation, or potential representation, of members of the ODM by lawyers representing a party in this lawsuit. It appears that each party agrees that it would be improper, in almost all instances, for a party to represent a member of the ODM Accordingly, the parties and their lawyers are directed to notify the Court immediately if a lawyer for a party undertakes to represent a member of the ODM briefly or for the long haul. \"Representation\" is to be construed broadly as is set forth in the order ofMarch 17, 2004. Incidentally, judges are prohibited from rendering \"advisory\" opinions; on th~ other hand lawyers probably spend ninety percent of their time rendering advisory opinions to their clients and courts.  r_lr IT IS SO ORDERED this ti day of March, 2004. United States District Judge 852 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of 'Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-422 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2004, 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. SamuelJones, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna A Lawson s'Ponvi ii e MaryJane Rebick Lillie Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland 4.rkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 March 31, 2004 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED APR - 1 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, , - ( ~ ( ' I M4\u0026lt; Jt,;j-t,_ cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, 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, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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 March 31, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    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_1476","title":"Report: ''The Redesign of Harris Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special 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":["2004-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School buildings","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''The Redesign of Harris Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special 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/1476"],"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":["178 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1140","title":"Little Rock School District Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-03-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Compliance Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1140"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nIN' THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERIN\"E KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 : 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAIN'TIFF DEFENDANTS IN'TER VENO RS IN'TER VENO RS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD 's Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(3) maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment --- -e .,tM it,~ \"? plan. ~W,\u0026lt;1 Pl/AM 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessmen1. plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant\nDennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance \u0026lt;f' Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- ti' approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 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 March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HElSCHEL H. fl.JOA Y (1'22-1\"4) WIWAM tL SlJTTON, P.A. BYI.OH M.. EISEMAN. JL, P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BUTT1.Y, P.A. fl.EDERJCX S. URSEllY, P.A OSCAl. E. DAVIS. JL. P.A. JAMES C. CLAll. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN D!Wl!Y WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LAJ.J.Y 'W. BUllS, P.A. A. WYCll.lFP NISBET, Jl.., P.A. JAMES EDWAJ:D HAIJUS, P.A J. PtoWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHEU\u0026gt; lUSSE.LL Ill. P.A DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTEIL P.A. 1.JCHAI.D D. TAYLOa.. P.A. JOSEPH B. KUUT. JI.., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEH MUllAY, P.A. CHR.ISTOPHER HELLEl. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBEI.T S. SHAFER. P.A. WIU.IAM M. GltJFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOl.E. P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY, , .A. WAL TEI. M. EBEL Ill, P.A UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WlLLIA.M A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTEl. P.A. I.OBEI.T 8. BEActl JL, P.A. J. UE Bl.OWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAK.ER.. JL. P.A. H.AllY A. LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCl.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. Pl.ICE C. GAkDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONfS, P.A DAVID D. lr'IUON. P.A. JEFPJl.EY H. MOOR.I., P.A. DAVID M. Gll.A.F, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER  00 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 93 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-21  7 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703..4811 TELEPHONE 470.-HS..2011 FAX 479--ISV52147 2011 HORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.-782 211H FAX 170,-7822911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 722Ql RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJ..LA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN' C. FENDLEY. Jl.., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A FR.AH C. HICKMAN. P.A BETIY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CUfl'OllD W. PLUNKETT, P.A DANIELL. KEIJUNGTON, P.A MARVIN L CHILDEJ..s [.. COLEMAN' WESTBR.OOK.. JR.. ALLISON J. COkHWEU EUEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HfMDR.EN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICH.A.EL E. r..A.JJaY KEU Y MUR..PKY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCXA Y AU:XANDllA A. In.AH JAY T. TAYLOR M.UTIN A. LUTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUX.E JOSEPH G NlCHOU ROBUT T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. UEU. T. MICHELU ATOk KAIEN S. HALBERT SAlAH M. COTTON PHJLIP 8. MONTGOMERY lklSTEN S l.JGGINS Al.AH G. BRY A\u0026gt;I LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN lHAYYAM M. !J\u0026gt;DJNGS JOtof F. PEISlllCH AMANDA CA.PPS lOSE Bl.ANDON J. HAU..ISOH o, C'OUNll.l B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. K. T. LAllUl.E. P.A. JOlffi C. EOfOU. P .A A.D MCAWSTEl JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL so1 .. no-nn FAX 501 .. 24-lSJ.41 fendleyClec.net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. i.. EXHIBIT I A All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation ... \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to talce account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the / District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In adpition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations \\ with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The J primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will I - All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its Ero grams. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ulhmately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementarv Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,\nLiteracy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ..  EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary\\ math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the . ) elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilizec'1 to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study' and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ) 2002-03   The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam.    Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) ( revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4 th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School) Improvement as a result of the audit findings.  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to 1 ead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculwn resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in ( probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. (  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. r Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results ofthis alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. , Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra L and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus  District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8  TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers  Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12  District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiYing trninill-g.s -  Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations\n Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The r.l 1 ~ following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: \\l.Y o Strategies for Teaching Geometry  Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\n The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. sV These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC (.,.,IJJVK.l--t results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra  The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of wealmess for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom.  Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 7 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities\n Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high J schools\n Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-.s!1arteLtest..for 6th grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide prof'essTo\"nal development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\n Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers/ vlt,\n..,  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the t1n-vti,,...-/ Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\n Continued end-of-quarter tests\n 6 th -8 th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing rogram was the weak comRone_!_lt oft~ literacy instructional prQg[am. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. -T-w-el-ve schools chose to participate in the pniiect to begin.in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the sc oo s to o ow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:  Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan.  ( Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examinin their data and using it to make ro am modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a p an or working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content ar~a reading.a.nd...writing. In addition to the professional de~being o ere on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given tl:Je DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, .and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation\nfirst grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading~ -, fluency test\nand second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. IV\"/ The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. / The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide l/,W-,e,1.w -\"\"\" professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. ~ Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\". I 11 Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Corners Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Corners, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. 4 C ao.c 1--y:,s Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area ofliteracy. !y 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACTAAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with achers (approximate! 75 all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 I. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and -focus on op.timuro results _were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom mstruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ...  EXHIBIT l E. mechanics and usage areas..whi)e the writing in content areas i eaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification ofliteracy program in terms oftest preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending docwnent. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculwn: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement oflower-achieving students .. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. }  SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest ( _ preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instru~ion based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going f' 1. ~r and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACT AAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content.\n7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. ~-.. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) I 0. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for hi gh school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January, 2004 ~ . Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools / Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 ( Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Jl/4 i ct -t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 1: 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2.7 .1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 . 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD's Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(3) maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant\nDennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 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 March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 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 A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 1010 W. Third Street , Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HEJlSCHEL H. FklDAY (1,22-1\"') WILLIAM H. SlTTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.., P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BlTTTI.Y, P.A. PREDERJCX. S. UISEltY, P.A. OSCAI. E. DAVIS. Jk., P.A. JAMES C. CLARI.. JR.., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGOETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LADY W. BUU.S, P.A. A. WYCK.LIPF NISBET, JIL, P.A. JAMES EDWAJlD HAll.lS, P.A. J. PHIWP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILL.JAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. aJOLUD D. TAYLOI.. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUIST, JI. .. , P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUllAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER HELLEIL P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOllE, P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill. P.A. UVIN A. CR.ASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. Jlt., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H.ARJlY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCK.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GAkDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFfR.EY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www .frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703\u0026lt;'811 TELEPHONE 479-GUS.2011 FAX \"79-GU52147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870.782 28U8 FAX 870-.782 2918 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlL.A GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, Jlt... P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. It.. CHRJSTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FR.AN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIELL. HER.JUNGTON, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOl... JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL MICKA.ELE. ~EY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCOY ALEXANDRA A. lf'll.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MAJlTIN A. ~TEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUE.E JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBEJ.T T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTIIY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR UJ..EN S. KALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHlUP B. MONTGOMERY I.RJSTEN S. l.JGGJNS Al...A}r,I G. BIYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN I.HA YY AM M. E.DDl'NGS JOKN f . PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BJ.ANDON J. HAR.JUSON orcowsv.. B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. H. T. LAIZELE..l.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOtOLS, P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTU. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.U2J FAX S012'4SS41 fenclltyQfec.net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A ' All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation ... \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2. 7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division oflnstruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-Rl. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation SUIVeys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the ''Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ..  EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made ac\na result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ~ EXHIBIT l~ 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results ofthis analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Bench.mark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings.  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel- author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns's materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 61\\ 8th , Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus  District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8  TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers  Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12  District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings  Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations\n Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry  Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\n The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra  The agendas for horizontal team meetings ( each grade/subject level 6th grade - Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom.  Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities\n Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools\n Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\n Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings ( one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\n Continued end-of-quarter tests\n 6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:  Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan.  Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ..  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation\nfirst grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test\nand second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools wh\u0026lt;\nn the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\". Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, talcing turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT f f_ mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools, based on ACTAAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03 . 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation of reading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April- May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograqi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 CREP Center for Research in Educational Por~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION Steven M. Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterb1nsky Center for Research In Educational Policy Un1vers1ty of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 November 2003 ~  EXHIBIT I E Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Executive Summary The present report provides the results from a study of the different literacy programs used in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). After expending substantial effort and resources to improve the reacting ability of students in the district, administrators at LRSD wanted to examine the effectiveness of the clifferent programs used within the district for literacy instruction. To facilitate this examination, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis was employed to provide an independent, third party evaluation. The evaluation methodology and data analysis were oriented around the following research questions: 1. What are teacher perceptions of and reactions to the different literacy programs? 2. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, clid African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? 3. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? 4. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? 5. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for clifferent test instruments? 6. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the elementary schools, school composition variables (i.e., school poverty and percentage of African American students enrolled), and the achievement of African American students? Method The evaluation design was based on both quantitative student achievement data as well as qualitative data from K-12 faculty members who are responsible for literacy instruction. The primary data sources were (a) a questionnaire completed by teachers, (b) focus groups conducted with faculty members representing different literacy programs in the district, and (c) student achievement data including the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. During the 2002-2003 school year, two CREP researchers conducted seven focus groups at the Neighborhood Resource Center using a structured interview guide. Each focus group was approximately one-hour in duration. Teachers signed a permission form to be interviewed and were given assurance that their comments would be confidential and anonymous. The sessions were audiotape-recorded and supplemented with the researchers' hand-written notes. The Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaires were printed and shipped to LRSD personnel. The district staff members clisseminated the questionnaires to the individual schools along with instructions for completing and returning the forms to the district. After the district staff received the completed forms, they were sent to CREP for analysis. Similarly, district Pagel of 47 personnel assembled the student achievement data into an electronic format. The data files were then sent to CREP researchers for analysis. The focus group and surveys were analyzed thematically and descriptively, respectively. A synthesis was then developed to highlight findings by literacy program and grade level (e.g., elementary and secondary) as provided by the district. The achievement methodology and analysis is discussed in the achievement section below. Results Teacher Focus Groups and Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire A synthesis of themes and related findings from the seven focus groups and teacher questionnaire is provided in \"bulleted\" format for a concise overview. The reader is encouraged to examine the full report for detailed findings. Most Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Professional development (PD) when received  New materials  Emergent literacy/readiness skills for Kindergarten  Positive impact on student writing  Literacy Coaches (in RR program)  Providing instruction at students' level Most Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Positive Impact on student writing  Paired reading (instructional strategy)  Portfolios and interactive journals Least Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Inconsistent implementation across and within schools  Texts not aligned with SAT-9  Some leveled texts and vocabulary are not appropriate  Transient student population is problematic  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Least Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Gaps in training that is offered to teachers  Lack of consistency in literacy instruction and programs (across and within schools)  Lack of teacher support from non-literacy subject areas  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Teacher support for the Programs (Elementary)  Level of support varies across schools (and within schools) Page 2 of 47  Support for ELLA and Effective Literacy is high because the\n- fit well with what teachers were already doing or moving toward anyway  SFA is most polarized (love or hate the program) Teacher support (Secondary)  Generally positive attitudes, but not much support from non-literacy teachers District support (Elementary)  Lack of consistency for teachers to attend training (substitutes\navailability of training)  District provides materials, but could also use teacher aides in the classroom District support (Secondary)  Literacy coaches would be beneficial  Need to use district time set aside for inservices to plan a more comprehensive literacy approach Professional Development (Elementary)  Quality of professional development received has been mixed, but teachers are generally positive  Literacy Coach (providing leadership and training) has been beneficial  General consensus that there is a lack of ongoing training (or opportunity to attend recommended/mandated number of days) Professional Development (Secondary)  Quality of professional development received has been mixed  Would like more training  Teachers do not see training sessions as tying together. Not sure what \"big picture\" literacy plan is Classroom Changes (Elementary)  Positive impact on Kindergarten students  More emphasis on student writing  Students are learning reading strategies  There has been some return to traditional instructional practices Classroom Changes (Secondary)  More cooperative learning (with mixed results)  Special Education teachers assist students in classes (instead of pullout program) Impact on Students (Elementary)  Learned better cooperation skills  Increased confidence in reading  Students are learning reading strategies Page 3 of 47 Impact on Students (Secondary)  There is some increased motivation to read  Assessments and leveled readers are creating more success and confidence for students  Students are writing more often Impact on Teachers (Elementary)  Negative impact on time and stamina  Additional instructional strategies and materials have been beneficial  Increased sharing of ideas Impact on Teachers (Secondary)  Increased sharing of strategies  Focus on bringing lower performing students to proficiency level  High school teachers had lower levels of agreement on all survey items (comparatively) Student Achievement Data The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of African American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District. The five achievement oriented research questions (#2 - #5 above) were used to guide the methodology and analyses. Methodology Subjects of the study included all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the Little Rock School District during the 2002-2003 school year for whom 2003 Literacy Benchmark or 2003 SAT-9 scores were available. This included a total of 11,934 students, of whom 23.4% were Caucasian, 68.2% were African-American, and 48.5% were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Three measures were used to assess literacy: the Literacy Benchmark scale score (Grades 4, 6, and 8), and the SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and SAT-9 Language subscale score (both Grades 5, 7, and 10). Analyses District-wide achievement effects. The basic analytic model used to gauge district-wide achievement effects was a 2 (free lunch status) X 2 (gender) X 2 (African-American, nonAfrican American) analysis of variance (ANOVA). This basic model was adapted to each grade level to reflect: (a) the availability of achievement data from the prior year, in which case a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOV A) was used\n(b) the specific 2003 outcome data that were available at each grade level (either Literacy Benchmark scores or SAT9 scores)\nand (c) the number of outcome variables. School composition and program effects. For elementary schools, information was available regarding specific literacy programs being implemented in the schools. For 5th grade, a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was performed to examine relationships between Page 4 of 47 school composition factors (aggregate poverty, mean achievement at pretest. and percentage African American enrollment), school literacy programs, and student achievement. Longitudinal cohort performance on Benchmark Examinations. For fourth and eighth grades, three consecutive years of Literacy Benchmark Performance Level data were available. The percentage of African American students scoring in Below Basic, Basic, Proficient. and Advanced categories was computed for each year from 2001 to 2003 to provide a basis for examining overall trends in performance across time. Elementary Level Results Below, conclusions and results based on analyses performed on fourth and fifth grade data are presented by research question. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students.  The academic gains on literacy tests were lower for African American students than for other students. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  Although there was a significant relationship between African American status and student achievement, the proportion of variance in academic performance attributable to African American status was very low-4.6% for fourth grade, and 5.7% for fifth grade. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy examination improved dramatically between 2001 and 2003, with nearly half performing at a \"Below Basic\" level in 2001, compared to only one-fifth in 2003. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school, school composition variables, and the achievement of African American students?  No significant relationship was observed between the type of literacy program implemented and the achievement of African American students.  The percentage of African American students enrolled in a school did not predict overall achievement or the achievement of African American students.  School poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, had a negative effect on the achievement gains of students. Page 5 of 47 Secondary Level Results The secondary conclusions and results by research question are as follows: After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement. did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  The absolute level of achievement of African American students was substantially lower than that of other students of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status.  Generally, the gains in academic achievement of African American students were similar to those of other students in grades 6 to 11. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  When data on prior achievement were available, the proportion of variance in 2003 achievement attributable to African American status was quite low at the secondary level, ranging from 0% to 5%. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American 8th graders on the Literacy Benchmark exam improved substantially and consistently between 2001 and 2003, with the percentage scoring \"Below Basic\" dropping from 48.5% to 34.5%, and the percentage scoring \"Proficient\" increasing from 14.9% to 23.9%. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments?  From the 5th to the 8th grade cohort, the achievement gains of African American students became more similar to those of other students, and for some subgroups surpassed those of other students in 8th grade.  The gap in achievement gains was greater on the SAT9 than on the Literacy Benchmark examination. Presumably, the Literacy Benchmark examination is more closely aligned to the mandated curriculum than is the SAT9, which is intentionally designed to be insensitive to curricular differences. Summary and Conclusions The Little Rock School District is commended for the emphasis given to increasing literacy in all schools in the district and not just those in the lowest performing strata. The state and local initiatives in literacy for early learners, including ELLA and Effective Literacy, are well grounded in current research of best practice. In addition, the Reading Recovery and Success for All models are among the best researched and proven programs in the nation for lower-performing students. Impressions from interviews and survey data, however, are that Page 6 of 47 these programs are often perceived as separate and discrete entities instead of integral to a district comprehensive literacy program. Teachers describe themselves or their schools as \"doing\" ELLA or Success for All and only the certified tutors 'doing\"' Reading Recovery. Middle and high school teachers' comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they have had as English teachers. Thus, it is recommended that the district's plan, or \"big picture\" of literacy, be developed and presented to teachers in a format that communicates how each program. school. grade level, and teacher contributes to and accomplishes literacy goals. The professional development in basic literacy has been well received and represents an enormous accomplishment for the district. Management and delivery of the professional development, however, needs to be made more consistent and available to teachers. The primary concerns voiced by teachers were scheduling problems, inadequate space and availability of training for the numbers of teachers needing to be trained, retraining for teachers who change grade levels, training for new teachers, and obtaining qualified substitutes for teachers while they attend training. The impressions of professional development communicated by upper grade teachers and those who were not implementing special \"programs\" were that professional development has been minimal, targeted to current \"hot\" topics (e.g., portfolios), and inconsistent in quality. Teachers' perceptions of the impact of literacy programs were extremely mixed. Writing and composition were literacy areas that all teachers agreed had been emphasized and improved in their schools and classrooms as a consequence of literacy initiatives in the district. Some of the positive comments relative to ELLA had more to do with the materials teachers had received as a part of the training than the new ideas they had been provided. During the focus groups, the most impressive level of agreement that teachers voiced was by teachers who had Reading Recovery teachers as Literacy Coaches in their schools. The concept of highly trained Literacy Coaches being placed in and available to all elementary schools is a national issue presently and it is recommended that the district find ways to support this concept not only in elementary schools with large at-risk populations, but in all schools in the district. Regarding student achievement, substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in LRSD. However, the differences in academic gains tend to be smaller at higher grade levels. The three-year trend in Literacy Benchmark scores shows substantial, sustained improvement in the academic achievement of African American students between 2001 and 2003. African American status of the student, as well as the percentage of African American students enrolled in a school, explain only small amounts of variance in student outcomes compared to prior achievement. No\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","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":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"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":["82 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\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 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 March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc 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 Ms. Ann Marshall 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 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 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 _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM 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 - - - - - - - ------------------~    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_138","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":["2004-03","2004-04"],"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/138"],"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.\nTOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Lillie Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna -Lawson Bentonville MaryJane Rebick Liule Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland 4rkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Lutle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 March 31, 2004 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.stale.ar.us RECEIVED APR - 1 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~4.~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR - 1 200\\ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, 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, 2004, 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. SamuelJones,m 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, 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, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 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 March 31, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 On February 29, 2004, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 03/04 were as follows: LRSD - $33,871 , 179 NLRSD - $17,865,960 PCSSD - $32,434,059 The allotments of State Equalization FundinQ calculated for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $53,226,139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 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, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 29, 2004 for FY 03/04, 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 March 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 29, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LASO based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 29, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, totaled $7,919,519. Allotment calculated for FY 03/04 was $12,459,153 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 March 31, 2004 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, 2003 were: LRSD - $2,312,167 NLRSD - $1,802,672 PCSSD - $6,094,855 The allotments calculated for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4, 192,396 NLRSD - $3,832,804 PCSSD - $11,854,856 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, 2004 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, 2004 In January 2003, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 02/03 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. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 In September 2003, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $3,835,562.00 NLRSD - $742,399.62 PCSSD - $2,252,050.92 In September 2003, General Finance made the first 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 2003, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $1,243,841.33 NLRSD - $263,000.00 PCSSD - $727,406.63 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 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, 2004 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. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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. 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, 2004 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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. 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. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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, 2004 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 March 31, 2004 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. T. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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, 2004 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. 10 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 , 2004 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. 11 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 AD E'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. 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, 2004 (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. 18 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, 2004 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, 2004 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 19 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, 2004 The information tor 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, 2004 The information tor 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, 2004 The information tor this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education tor repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 The information tor this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 20 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, 2004 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. 21 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, 2004 (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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 25 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, 2004 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, 2004 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, 2004 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 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 Edcation 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. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2004 (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. 36 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, 2004 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. 37 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, 2004 (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. 38 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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 inseNice 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, 2004 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 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 41 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, 2004 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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; SeNices. 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 PilotTests. 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 seNices 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on 'The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training. On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1064","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":["2004-03"],"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--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/1064"],"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 MAR 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting MARCH2004 \"D (/J! --,m c::c cc:: ~ ~ ..... r-ril J ~:l O,,,,m,, J~ Z=E Om m r-n 0 I: m \u0026gt;~  \"D \"c:':0,,, \"D ..... :\"'!(! n:,\n, =Im \u0026gt;n :::!8 Oz ~~ z \"' I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING March 25, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - Baseline Elementary Choir Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School - Eleanor Cox Southwest Produce - Kay Moore Metropolitan Careet \u0026amp; Technical Center - Mike Peterson Pulaski Technical College - Larry Lewallen Williams Traditional Magnet School - Mary Menking \u0026amp; Anne Pattillo AARP - Maria Diaz C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. First Tee Golf \u0026amp; Life Skills Program - Tony Hourston E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 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 n-,:, ,). l.,.\n,m:..0. ,..._ -, 31: Oz o\u0026gt; e:~ m-,,\n:o C: -z\non o,...- c\u0026lt;5 r-z nu, \u0026gt; F= n a,\n.,:.. m\u0026gt; ~~\nom ,..\n:o u, u,\nz om :1:C C: nn =I\u0026gt; ,:\n-\u0026lt; mi5 zz u, Regular Board Meeting March 25, 2004 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 02-26-04 Special Meeting - 03-11-04 B. Personnel Changes C. Ratification of PN Agreement* D. Salary Adjustments, 2003-04 school year* E. Student Calendar - 2004-05* VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: A. Submission of 2004 Carol M. White P. E. Program Proposal VII. SCHOOL SERVICES: A. Naming of Facilities - - Mabelvale Magnet Middle School VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report/ Annual Audit Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT * Requires Suspension of the Rules I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME STUDENT PERFORMANCE 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. FIRSTTEE PRESENTATION E. LR CTA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 25, 2004 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~J Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Baseline Elementary School and Southwest Produce Metropolitan Career - Technical Center and Pulaski Technical College Williams Traditional Magnet School and AARP ~ .n..\"..' a, C: C: 0 g!\nll m\"\"' ....  C:\"' ~!!5  Z -\u0026lt;Ii: mm .z.. . !=' n 0 z !!l ::a C: n... . lz5 ::a m ~ !'\"  C: 0 :::\n0 ill ~ ~ ~ BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Partnership Agreement between Baseline Elementary and Soutwest Produce Southwest Produce is willing to: Make food/ice donations for special events Make food donations to help needy families, if needed Sponsor one or more students for Job Shadowing Kay Moore will mentor a female student and will visit with said student at least once a month at Baseline Be willing for students to make a fieldtrip to the store in the line of academic study or career education Participate in our annual community service project by donating or getting food items at cost Display student work in the business Baseline Elementary is willing to: Provide a calendar of events and invite employees to appropriate school functions Provide appropriate tokens of appreciation for partnership Help with a special project, such as a clean-up day or other 3623 Baseline Road  Phone (501) 447-3700 Fax (501) 447-3701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Partnership Between Pulaski Technical College and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Pulaski Technical College as a partner in education under the Career Links articulation agreement an advertise this agreement on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Pulaski Technical College as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Pulaski Technical College in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify qualified students who meet the the requirements outlined in the Career Links agreement and recommend the for this program. 5. Arrange field trips for students and/or parents to tour Pulaski Technical College coordinated through the Tech/Prep Coordinator. 6. Provide a display for Pulaski Technical College to recruit potential students and parents to review during Open House, Parent or Advisory Board Day and Job Fair. Pulaski Technical College will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on the Advisory Council to Metropolitan Career and Technical Center's various programs in order to provide guidance and strategic planning support regarding the enhancement of the school's curriculum, recruitment policies and the marketing of programs. 2. Provide technical credit toward a degree area for students at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center who meet the career links qualifications. 3. Provide an opportunity for field trips and visiting the campus. 4. Provide assistance with the annual Skills USA Competition in Hot Springs 5. Provide assistance with Open House at Metropolitan Career and Technical center. !=' (') 0 z !!l\na ~... cz5 fl:l ~ !'T1 \u0026gt; C: C ~ ill\na m c8 ~ WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE AARP Arkansas and Williams Traditional Magnet School Partnership Establishment The AARP Foundation leads positive social change to help people 50 and over age with independence, dignity and purpose. The Arkansas State Office and Information Center are both located in Little Rock. All AARP chapters are non-government, non-partisan, non-profit community service organizations that are open to all local AARP members. The AARP offers many programs, services, and many other subjects of interest to their members and their families. There are numerous employees who have a wide range of interests, talents, experiences, and ideas, and possibly will be willing to share these for the benefit of students at Williams Magnet School. Williams Traditional Magnet School is a tri-district magnet school operating in Pulaski County as a part of the LRSD. There is a staff of approximately 40 and a student enrollment of approximately 460. Despite all of the help afforded by the three school districts whose children attend, the school is always in need of additional resources in connection with the education provided to students. The staff at Williams Magnet School completed a school needs assessment to determine needed services and resources for the 2003-04 school year. The Partnership Council will use this information to match resources and needs throughout the school year. Activities will be coordinated through the AARP team leader and the Williams Magnet School team leader. The Partnership Council will attend an initial conference, and will then meet as the need arises to assess the effectiveness of the Partnership. Communication will be open and constant. *Proposed plan of activities for the 2003-04 school year: AARP Grandparent's Day Activities Student incentives/awards for Grandparent's Day Grandparent seminars/classes Provide educational resources Assembly guests Wjljiams Magnet School Student/reacher participation in AARP programs Promote ongoing recognition and appreciation Send monthly newsletters Art work Participate in contests Choir performance 7301 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-7100  Fax (501) 447-7101 Little Rock , Arkansas 72207 DATE: TO: FROM: '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 Board of Directors Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Office~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman,\nj\nSUBJECT: March 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects Please note that I am showing that the construction projects at Mabelvale Magnet Middle, Mann Magnet Middle and Williams Magnet Elementary are still under construction. In reality, these projects are complete except for some details that have not been completed. As an example, the area north of the replacement school at Mann is free of the portable classrooms and a parking lot is now under construction. Work on landscaping, drainage and drives at Mabelvale are nearing completion. There is still some odds and ends type work at Williams. All three (3) projects should be completed by the April 22nd Board meeting. The work for asbestos abatement and microbial remediation of Mitchell Elementary will be bid on April ?1h. When a contract is awarded, the contractor will have 60 calendar days from the time the Notice To Proceed is issued to complete the work. The drawings for renovating the building will be completed this summer. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !..J.,' m\n%J ~ zz m rn ~ i!5 m en !.\".,' z ~ ~ m mE .z... . :-r, ..... mn ::c C: iB m~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Jul-04 Brady Addition/renovation --- ~ 73,62_1 __ Aug-04 Central Renovation - Interior -- $10,200,266 - AJ:!_g-05 --- -- ~nbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023-- -- Dec-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 May-04 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851.~- - Mar-04 I-Partial Replacement -- ----,- Mann $11 ,500,000 May-04 McClellan Classroom Addition ~. 155,62_2 __ Jul-04 Parkview -- Addition $2,121,226 - Jun-04 f- - --- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 Aug_:_Qi ~ski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,0-41 ___ Aug-04 Southwest Addition t $2,000,00-0 -- Aug-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation - Addition/Renovation - Phase II I $3,679,000 __ Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild --- ---- $5,300,000 Jul-04 -- -- -- Williams Renovation $2,106,4~ Mar-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING / SUMMER W04 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I !::st. L\nompIeuon Date Central Reflecting Pond 50000 38203 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area - --\n-- $225,000 ~ ug-04 Mitchell Building Remediation --- $165,000 - May-04 ~ -- --+--- Mitchell Renovation $2,377,493 Auo-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown -- ~ 8,525 _ Booker Roof Unknown - --- Booker ADA Rest rooms TBD Unknown - Carver Media Center Expansion Unknown -Un-kn-own Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown -- -Chi-cot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm ___J13, 134--+-- Unknown --- -- --- floverdale Elementary Addition Unknown U-nk-no-wn Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD 1 -- Unkn-own Fair Park Addition Unknown Unknown - --- Remodel - $1,400,000 - Forest Heights Unknown --- --- GarJand Remodel Unknown Unknown ~yer Springs Roof Repair $161 ,752 Unknown -- --- Gibbs Addition Unknown Unknown -- - --- --- Henderson Lockers $80,876 Unknown Mablevale Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD-- Unknown McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown --- - --- -- Meadowcliff Addition Unknown Unknown -- Pulaski Hgts._MS _ Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Renovation -- - Rightsell -- -- -- --- $2,494,00Q_ 38930 ~hington Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $640,0~ Aug-05 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade --- TBD Unknown - TB~ --- Western Hills ADA Rest rooms Un-kno-wn Woodruff Parkinq addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t::st. 1,.\nompIe11on Date Administration Asbestos abatement - $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system_ $55,000 Aug-03 -- - Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 - Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,1 60 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting -- I ~2,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm I $18,250 Aug-02 --- Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system I Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement ' $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 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 I Mar-02 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,5[3 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central Parking Student parking $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 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,ooo I Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 ---- -- Clove-rda-le- El-em. -- Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 $189,743 I -- Cloverdale MS ~rgy efficient lighting Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Dodd 1 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 I Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm I $12,000 I Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Apr-02 - I Fair Park - Energy efficient lighting I $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park .Asbestos abatement-ceiling I $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair -- Energy efficient lighting I $277,594 Apr-01 -J. A. Fair Press box I $10,784 Nov-00 -J. A-. Fair - Security cameras I $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs I $391,871 Aug-03 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC ! $485,258 I Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking I $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park - 'Energy efficient lighting I $119,788 I May-01 Fulbright - Energy efficient lighting I $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbrig_b,!_ ~ergy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot I $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs I $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin i Renovation I $2,511,736 Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation : $11,770 Jul-01 2 '.Tl .... m n % C: ~ m !JI ~ m\n,:, is z z ,m... n ~ z G) m en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date 1-H..,.a.-cll_ ________ __.._M,...a~j_or_r_e_nov.,.a._ti_on_\u0026amp;_a_ddition $8,637,709 Sep-03 ,_H_a_ll ________ A_s_b_e_st_os abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting__ -----,- $42,931 Jul-01 1-H_a_ll ________ Energy efficient lighting _ _ $296,707 Apr-01 1-H..,.a.-cll_ ________l_n fra_s_tr_u_cture improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Intercom ----,------==-~------ _ F_eb-_01 Hall Security cameras ____ $10,600 Jun-01 ,_H_e_n_d_e_r-s~o~n~~~~~~~~~~~~-=-E~n~e-=r-gy~e- f-fi1cientlighting __-_ -_- _:-_ $193,6_7_9__ Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 1-c.H.,.e._n_d,-ers_on _____+ -A- s~b-e-st'-0-'--s' -abatement Phase I $500\n0~ Aug-01 Henderson - -- Asbestos abatement Phase2 $250,00-_0+_ --~-g--~0-2 , IRC Energy efficient lighting ___ ___ $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement ____ $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson ==--Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm -- ___ $1]30~0-00___ Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot ___ $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. - - Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 ~g-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units --- ~00,0~(J...0.,___ Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement _____ --+-- $107,000 Aug-02 'Energy efficient lighting___ ---,-- $106,598 - ~02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,7~ Aug-01 1_-a_~n_n_ _______~ A--sJ\np:_\nh-a'---l_t w.ac.lk_ -s'--- ___ -----The total $1_ 8 million f--- Dec-01 Mann _Walkway canopies ---.jis what has been Dec-01 Mann  Boiler replacement used so far on the __ Oct-01 Mann Fencing projects listed __ Sep-01 Mann _ Partial demolition/portable classroo~ completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 _Ju_l-_0_3 _McClellan __ Irrigation System $14,750  Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,30_0===-=---J-un_-_0_1, McClellan __ Energy efficient lighting ____ $303,614 May-01 McClella_n_ - _ Stadium stands repair ___ _ -~- $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom __ $46,0_0_0__ Feb-02 McDermott __ Energy efficient lighting --- , $79~.4,...1.,..1,,.-+--_ Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 Aug-02 Meadow_c_liff------+~F-ire-'---a--,l.a..-rm---'---'----------\"----'--.$.,..1-6~,-1-7--5-----J--u~I--0-1I -----------+------- -------------~------- Meadowcliff Meado_w_c.l,,i.f-f -- Metroe9I~ Metropol~ Metropolitan Mitchell --- -- Mitchell --- Mitchell Oakhurst Asbestos abatement ! $253,412 Aug-02 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 Replace cooling tower -----~ $37,203 Dec-00 Replace shop vent system __ ~0.000 May-01 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting -- ---,- - $103,642 1 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation __ $16.~ Jul-01 ! Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 HVAC renovation , $237,2ll._L Aug-01 ,_O_tte_r C_re_e_k___ _ __ Energy monitoring system installation $10,6_9_5__ May-01 Otter Creek ---~E_nergy efficient lighting 1 $81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement 1 $10,000 Aug-02 Otter Creek --- ~Parking lot I $138,029 . Aug-02 _Otte_r Creek ____ 6 classroom addition 1 $888,778 __ O_c_t-_0_2 IP arking Improvements I __$c -c1,_4-2-~,5..4..,~1_ ___A_ ,.u.~g~-0,--3,-1 HVAC controls I $210,000 Jun-02 Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Roof replacement I $273,877 Sep-01 Parkview 1Exteriorlights 1 $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview ---\nHVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls -~- $301,938 Aug-01 Locker replacement ____ $12_0,~000~--- Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting , - ~15,000 Jun-01 Parkview Parkview 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move plat ground $17,000 Dec-02 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting I $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting i $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC I $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 Aug-02 Romine Ast\n\u0026gt;estos abatement I $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $3,534,675 Mar-03 Security/Transportation Bus cameras I $22,500 -- Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement I $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof I $690,000 -- Oct-03 Southwe-st -- Energy efficient lighting --- $168,719 Jan-02 -- Southwest - Drainage / street widening $250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation I ~ 4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment ~ alarm-- --- ~ --$- 9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 - Technology Upgrade I Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry 'Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Security cameras I $8,000  Jun-01 Wakefield - -- Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington - -- Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington 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 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Jul-01 Williams -- 'Parking expansions I $183,717 Dec-03 Williams - Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion I $1,263,876 Feb-04 -Wilson - Parking Expansion $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Auo-02 4 .?.,' m ~ !S z z ,m.. n $\nz C) m \"' 0.., z ~ ill m 31: zm ..... !'\" \u0026gt; C 0 ~ ~ \"' ill c8 ::!l :,-, ..... Ill :::c .C. , ~ m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS March 25, 2004 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the fifty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. 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. !II \"0 m\no is z z m rn $= z C) m \"' fl \"0 z ~ ~ m\ni:: m z -\u0026lt; Audit Report - March 2004 Page 2 of2 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. 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 infom1ation 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: March 25, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Technology training projects are continuing. UALR Cyberteacher summer program applicants have been selected and will participate for 6 weeks in June and July. District-wide professional development for teachers will take place on May 3 and will emphasize technology integration.  E-rate applications for 2004-2005 were all filed on or before the deadline of February 4. LRSD filed for approximately $1. 7 million in discounts on telecommunications services, LAN electronics, and video systems. We currently have outstanding applications for 3 different years for which we have received no notification. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical February 26, 2004 - March 25, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. !J:l \"ti m\n,::, is z z ,m... (\") ~ z c\n, m U\u0026gt; !\"' \"ti z ~ ~ m ~ zm ..... !=' ~ s\n:\n,::, -\u0026lt;  l: C: 5!l ~ zm ..... U\u0026gt; !\" 5!l C: C zm ..... (\") j!: zm ~ DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education ~everly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. r.,\u0026gt;, z ~ ~ m\ns:: .zm.. . !\" ~ = C mz... . n .\u0026gt;.... mz ~\nc Personnel Changes Page 2 March 25, 2004 NAME Cheatham, Mary Jane Reason: Retired Wold, Donald Reason: Contract Ended Andrews, Ashley Beggs, Melinda Brown, Carleton Brown, V erlyn POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Math II 8-21-73 6-21 SOUTHWEST 3-3-04 TCH925 1-6-03 66-13 CURR/INSTR. 3-1-04 ADN12 New Certified Emplovees Elem ill 2-16-04 1-01 BALE TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-19 CENTRAL TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-01 CENTRAL TCH925 Tutor 1-10 1-10 FAJRPARK TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 54700.00 52248.00 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 25554.23 annual 11845.45 prorated 30553.00 annual 14162.59 prorated 34714.00 annual 11752.14 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 March 25, 2004 NAME Cain, Mary Carter, Arrel Crossley, Demetria Dyer, Julie Farrar, Neoma Green, Michele Harder, Melanie POSITION SCHOOL ElemV GEYER SPRINGS Spec. Ed. ALC Math TCH925 Elem IV STEPHENS Elem III CHICOT Elem IV BALE Physical Science FAIR START DATE END DATE 1-20-04 2-9-04 2-13-04 1-22-04 2-16-04 2-23-04 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-06 SPE925 1-04 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 annual 13251.73 prorated 30630.00 annual 11964.84 prorated 29409.00 annual 10875.20 prorated 29609.00 annual 13416.58 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 26546.00 annual 8986.93 prorated 14447.00 annual 6696.79 prorated \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;' !\n~ Z::c ~..,,,8.... !JI: en 31::m 31::\na:I en~ Cm a, en ~ ~ r\u0026gt; \"D z \u0026gt; C)\na:, m m\nI: .zm.. . !=' en \u0026gt; \u0026gt;\na:, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ~ C: e..n.. m31:: z... . en 'e.\".n.. C: C .mz.. . (\") ,\u0026gt;.... mz ~\na:, Personnel Changes Page 4 March 25, 2004 NAME Harrison, Kenneth Home, Wanda King, Carmelita Kuhn, Scarlett Larry,Betty Lockhart, Kelly POSITION SCHOOL Geometry HALL Special Ed HENDERSON English FAIR Elem ill STEPHENS Typing START DATE END DATE 1-22-04 2-17-04 2-23-04 1-26-04 2-5-04 MABELV ALE MID. Algebra 2-16-04 PUL. HGTS. MID. SALARY CLASS 4-18 TCH925 1-04 SPE925 4-06 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 46889.00 annual 21246.53 prorated 28588.00 annual 10273.81 prorated 35633.00 annual 12063.25 prorated 29609.00 annual 14033.43 prorated 19095.62 annual 7658.14 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 March 25, 2004 NAME McDaniel, Yvonne Miller, Owyla Muhammad, Khaleelah Neumeier, Cynthia Olivares, Lizete Parr, Patricia Smith, Michelle POSITION SCHOOL Elem ill CLOVERDALE EL. Special Ed MANN Elem IV STEPHENS Elem II MCDERMOTT Spanish CENTRAL ElemV FAIR.PARK Elem II MCDERMOT START DATE END DATE 1-14-04 3-2-04 1-14-04 1-5-04 1-6-04 2-9-04 1-5-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-03 SPE925 1-02 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 4-14 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 28359.00 annual 8714.48 prorated 27056.00 annual 13809.83 prorated 31651.00 annual 16320.05 prorated 27567.00 annual 14070.66 prorated 42805.00 annual 16720.70 prorated 26546.00 annual 13687.78 prorated  ~~  ' !\n~ Z::,: ~8 'TII'\"\" !I:\"'\n1:m ~~ Cm CD v, ~ !.,\",' z  C) ~ m !I: mz --\n!=' ~ s\n:\na -\u0026lt;  0 \u0026lt;- C: \"--'\n!I: mz --\n\"' rn \"--'\nC: 0 mz --\n0 ,.... m z 0 \na Personnel Changes Page 6 March 25, 2004 NAME Treat, Heather Watkins, Cindy Williams, Frank Wise, Marshalette Withers, Aaron ONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Elem I CHICOT Spanish DUNBAR Music START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-14-04 1-20-04 MABELV ALE EL. English 1-12-04 HENDERSON Music 1-5-04 ROMINE Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-16 TCH925 6-08 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 11060.83 prorated 40839.00 annual 19568.69 prorated 39461.00 annual 19524.97 prorated 32595.00 annual 15957.57 prorated 28588.00 annual 14398.52 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 March 25, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Em(?lovees Bradford, Ollie Instr. Aide 8-24-81 1-10 Reason: Retired BALE 3-1-04 INA925 Carter, Danny Instr. Aide 2-10-97 2-01 Reason: None Given WASHINGTON 3-12-04 INA925 Graham, Linda Child Nutrition 1-7-04 3-01 Reason: Personal BALE 2-16-04 FSH550 Holloway, Jack Labor Driver 5-25-01 40-04 Reason: None Given FACILITY SERV. 3-9-04 MAINT. Holmes, Gloria Care 12-23-02 3-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Homer, Bobbie Instr. Aide 9-7-93 1-04 Reaspn: Deceased BALE 2-25-04 INA185 Johnson, Eloyce Care 9-3-02 1-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Lambert, Danielle Care 10-6-03 2-01 Reason: None Given CARE 2-13-04 CARE Lee, Charlotte Care 5-1-00 1-11 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Miles, Janet Care 9-9-02 3-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 14067.00 15916.00 8130.00 18384.00 7.68 12163.00 6.97 6.97 7.53 7.68 \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;\" ~~ Z::c ~..,,8.. 31: en 31:m ~~ Cm CD en ~\nc -\u0026lt; p z\"0 \u0026gt; C)\nc m m :I: zm --\u0026lt; ~ en \u0026gt; \u0026gt;\nc -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c0. .. C: en --\u0026lt; 31: zm e--n\u0026lt; !\" en --\u0026lt; C: 0 zm --\u0026lt; n ,\u0026gt;.... mz C \u0026gt;\nc Personnel Changes Page 8 March 25, 2004 NAME Ray, Dwight Reason: Personal Ricks, Anjanette Reason: None Given Ridgel, Richard Reason: None Given Simmons, Lakisha Reason: None Given Smittie, Carol Reason: None Given Todd, Freeman Reason: None Given Warren, Alfred Reason: None Given Watson, Izora Reason: None Given White, Gloria Reason: Deceased Whittington, Sherkeyer Reason: None Given Williams, Henrietta Reason: None Given POSITION SCHOOL Custodian FOREST PARK Care CARE Custodian None Given Care CARE Care CARE Care CARE Instr. Aide STEPHENS Child Nutrition MANN Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 9-6-04 1-30-04 3-17-03 1-21-04 1-6-03 1-15-04 10-6-03 1-20-04 12-8-03 1-20-04 11-17-03 2-2-04 9-10-03 2-27-04 8-12-03 2-23-04 8-19-03 CHILD NUTRITION 2-23-04 Care 12-2-02 CARE 1-21-04 Custodian 12-15-97 BASELINE 2-24-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-05 CARE 1-02 CUS12 1-03 CARE 1-14 CARE 1-03 CARE 1-04 INA925 3-01 FSH550 2-01 FSMEAL 3-17 CARE 1-07 CUS!2 ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 6.68 13955.00 6.43 7.93 6.43 12163.00 8130.00 11593.00 9.15 16736.00 Personnel Changes Page 9 March 25, 2004 NAME Williams, Carla Reason: None Given Wilson, Carolyn Reason: Personal Belcher, Aretha Carlock, Phillip Davis, Reshaunda Frizzell, Jennifer Gardner, Gayle POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Instr. Aide PUL. HGTS. MID. START DATE END DATE 9-2-03 1-20-04 8-31-87 2-18-04 SALARY CLASS 2-05 CARE 1-05 INA185 New Non-Certified Employees Clerical 3-3-04 39-12 SOUTHWEST CLKl0 Instr. Aide 2-18-04 1-06 MABELV ALE MID. INA925 Custodian 2-26-04 1-01 HALL CUS925 Instr. Aide 2-28-04 1-07 ROCKEFELLER INA12 Media Clerical 3-3-04 31-16 PARKVIEW CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 7.22 12481.00 23304.00 annual 7117.48 prorated 12798.00 annual 4565.77 prorated 5313.00 annual 1732.50 prorated 16931.00 annual 6051.93 prorated 20676.00 annual 6378.77 prorated \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;  !\n!ll Z::i:: .~....8... !11:en 31:m 31:::C en~ Cm CD en ~ ~ f..l, z ~ :m:c m I: zm ..... !::\u0026gt; ~ s\n: ::c -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c0.. .. C: e...n.. ll: mz ..... en !'\" .e..n.. C: 0 mz ..... n ,\u0026gt;... mz 0 :\u0026gt;:c Personnel Changes Page 10 March 25, 2004 NAME Germany, Lisa Howard, Vince Hyder, Keyonna Johnson, Loma Lenzie, Diann Nichols, Sherrie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 CLOVERDALE MID. Custodian 2-26-04 HALL Custodian 2-24-04 FOREST PARK Clerical 3-9-04 FAIR Instr. Aide 3-8-04 FOREST HGTS. Instr. Aide 2-23-04 MITCHELL SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-01 CUS925 1-01 CUS925 44-11 CLK12 1-06 INA925 1-05 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 3465.25 prorated 5313.00 annual 1732.50 prorated 5164.50 annual 1740.21 prorated 26256.00 annual 9049.94 prorated 13166.00 annual 3771.88 prorated 12481.00 annual 4790.01 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 March 25, 2004 NAME McIntosh, Felicia Patterson, Gary Peaster, Pearlie Swagerty, Gail POSITION SCHOOL Secretary FEDERAL PROG. Instr. Aide ROCKEFELLER Child Nutrition BASELINE Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT START DATE END DATE 3-15-04 2-2-04 1-30-04 2-9-04 Non-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 49-09 AN12 1-07 INA12 7-01 FSH650 3-01 FSH550 Lucas, Chester Regular Security to District Wide Security Robertson, Andrew Regular Security to School Based Supervisor Non-Certified Transfer NONE ANNUAL SALARY 28716.00 annual 9042.48 prorated 16931.00 annual 7348.77 prorated 9606.00 annual 4146.85 prorated 8130.00 annual 3243.11 prorated .,_ z~ - '= ~ Z::c .~.,,8.. S:\u0026lt;n s:m s:\na \"'~ Cm ID \u0026lt;n ~ f) .., z ~ ~ m ms: z --\n~ \"\u0026gt;' \na -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c~:: \"--'\ns: zm --\n\"' !\" ~c:: C zm --\n(\"') ~ mz ~ :x, '..1/:l.n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:trieverly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Ratification of Professional egotiated Agreement between the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the LRSD Board of Directors On Friday, March 12, 2004, all components of the Negotiations were concluded as the Executive Director ofLRCTA and the ChiefNegotiator for the LRSD Board of Directors signed the attached tentative agreement. Several other articles were also signed off on with regard to language. I will be glad to answer any questions with regard to negotiations at the special board meeting. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !'\" ~ C C m z --\u0026lt; n ,\u0026gt;... mz ~\n,:, Tentative Agreement Signed with LRCTA and the Board on 3-12-04 1) Salary: a. 2.875% for the 2003-04 school year retroactive to the first of the contract. b. 10% for the 2004-05 school year c. There is no guarantee in this package that additional funds allocated to LRSD because of Act 59 and/or changes in the Lakeview Court Settlement will be added to the teacher salary schedule. 2) Article 10: a) Insurance: 1. $253 for the 2003-04 school year for the remaining pay periods in the year. 2. Up to $260 for the 2004-05 school year. 3. Employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu :\u0026gt;fhealth insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. 3) Attendance Incentive: (professional leave and personal leave days are not part of this agreement.) Employees on sabbatical leave, educational leave, leave without pay or taken off payroll for any reason do not qualify for the perfect attendance bonus money outlined in the package proposal ($300, $300, $700). l. Employees who use none of their sick leave days during the first semester will receive a $300 stipend at the end of that semester. 2. Employees who use none of their sick days during the second semester will receive a $300 stipend at the end of that semester. 3. Employees who use none of their sick days during the entire school year will receive an additional perfect attendance stipend of $700. (Total of$1300 for one year of perfect attendance.) 4) Effective for the 2004-05 school year, teachers awarded National Board Certification will receive an annual stipend of$3000. 5) The language tentatively agreed to on March 12, 2004, on Articles 4, 6, 9 and 21 must be agreed to. 6) Two workdays and two record days will be used for staff development. Two record days will be  day in length. 7) Current Contract Language will be used with regard to period pay. ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:~everly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Salary Adjustments for all other Employee Groups for 2003-04 The Administration is making the following recommendations for all other employee groups for the 2003-04 school year: A) B) The same salary raise as negotiated for teachers of 2.875% for 2003-04 retroactive to July I, 2003 The same insurance benefit of $253 per month on health insurance for the 2003- 04 school year beginning with the April I, 2004, pay period. C) All employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu of health insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. The Administration will be making recommendations with regard to future negotiations and salaries for the 2004-05 school year for all remaining employee groups at a later date. 810 \\'(/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001\n,\u0026gt;s \"Cl . m\u0026gt; C) 0 ~~ .z..,i Zen \"tlm \"0'\"~'\ngm en en ~ \u0026gt; ,~.\n.: i !,\n~ Z\n:c .~., 8,- !sI:: men se:n\"\u0026lt;' ,- \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; -m a:, en ~ !..J,l z ~ C') ,\u0026gt;- en z\u0026gt; z C ~ \u0026gt; C C =l !\" !':l C 0 .zm.. . C') ,\u0026gt;.... zm ~ \"' '54n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: .  ir. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:~everly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Calendar for 2004-05 The attached calendar for the 2004-05 school year is recommended for your approval. I will be glad to answer any questions regarding the calendar at the special board meeting. 810 W farkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .!%.,1 z ~ n ,\u0026gt;.... en \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;.... ~ C :::. MONTH JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY '05 FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Legend M T 2 3 I 2 3 4 I I 2 3 * [] WV LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 2004-2005 w TH F M T w TH F M T w I 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 SD SD SD SD SD WD 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 H I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 SD 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 SD SD 3 4 5 8 9 10 II 12 15 16 17 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 [87] -R H 5 6 7 10 II 12 13 14 17 18 19 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 16 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 16 sv I 4 5 6 7 8 II 12 13 4 5 6 9 10 II 12 13 16 17 18 [1781 # R I 2 3 T 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 1st Day Students H Holiday End Quarter SD Staff Development TH 15 1*9 16 14 18 16 20 17 17 14 19 16 Winter Vacation R Reoord Days (one-half day) F M 16 19 20 23 17 20 15 18 19 22 WV 17 20 21 24 PC 18 21 18 21 15 18 20 23 17 20 sv Spring Vacation TCD Total Contract Days (9.25 teachers) PC Parent Conference WD Non-student Work Day ST DA' Student Days # Last Day Students T w 20 21 24 25 21 22 19 20 H 23 24 WV WV 21 22 25 26 22 23 22 23 19 20 24 25 21 22 For Board Approval # 2 ST TH F M T w TH F DAY :-, I) TCD 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 30 31 9 0 I 5 15 PC 23 24 27 28 29 30 20 1 1 0 21 [43] SD 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 19 0 0 2 21 H H 25 26 29 30 17 3 0 2 19 WV H WV WV WV WV WV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 13 10 0 0 13 27 28 31 19 I 0.5 0 19.5 24 25 28 19 0 I 0 20 [134] SD sv sv sv SV 24 25 28 29 30 31 18 4 0 I 19 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 20 I 0 0 20 H 26 27 30 31 21 I 0 0 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 3 0 0.5 0 3.5 TOTALS 178 21 4 10 192 STUDENTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THE DAYS SHADED ABOVE I 1st Quarter = 43 student days 2nd Quarter = 44 student days 3rd Quarter = 4 7 student days 4th Quarter= 44 student days TOTAL = 178 STUDENT DAYS Student Galendar2004-05 4th Oran 3/22/2004 Date: To: From: Prepared By: Subject: Summary: Objectives: Population: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services \u0026amp; Chair of District Coordinated School Health Committee Mary Paal, Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Annette Scogin, Assistant Director of Athletics Submission of 2004 Carol M. White Physical Education Program Proposal The U. S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, has published the draft guidelines for the 2004 application for grants under the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP). We are currently in the process of preparing for submission of a Physical Education Program proposal and seek Board support and approval. The focus of this grant will be to expand and improve the physical education program in Little Rock School District elementary schools by: 1. hiring a Coordinator of Elementary Physical Education to assure implementation of the Arkansas Department of Education Physical Education Standards. 2. providing equipment to enable students to participate actively in physical education activities\nand 3. provide staff and teacher training and education in order to make progress toward meeting State Standards for physical education. 4. implement the \"Nifty Nutrition Education\" program with elementary students. All students and staff in Elementary Schools. Duration: Three-year period: July 2004 - June 2007 Projected Request: $ 627,000.00 over the three-year period .?.,l z \u0026gt;z C')\n,\n\nVI \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;- ~ C =I March 25, 2004 Page2 Other Agencies: Arkansas Parks and Recreation Extension Services of Arkansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock University of Central Arkansas Recommendations: We recommend approval for submission of the 2004 PEP proposal\nprovide support by adoption of the PEP resolution Attachments: None TO: FROM: SUBJECT: '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 Board of Directors Morris L Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent aming of Facilities - Mabelvale Magnet Middle School The faculty, staff, parents, and students of Mabelvale Magnet Middle School have submitted a request to name the library in honor of Mr. Carl Martin, a lifetime resident of Mabelvale who serves as the local historian for Mabelvale students. The request and supporting documents are submitted in accordance with Policy FF: aming of Facilities. The administration recommends approval. 810 \\'C l\\Iarkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .!J.,l z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt;,- ~ C =I Adopted: May 27, 1999 Cross Reference: Naming and Renaming Facilities Form NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School I propose that the 10811 Mabe/vale West Roa~ Mabe/vale/ AR 72103 be named the \"Carl Martin Librarv// I. Biographical Data: Carl Martin, a lifetime resident of Mabelvale, has served as the local historian for Mabelvale students. His great-grandparents settled this area in 1826 when they bought 1,300 acres of land. (See attached Biographical Data) II. The Nominee's significant contribution is his donation of \"local history\" to Mabelvale students. As a 93-year member of this community, Mr. Martin is well-known and very respected by the people of the community. He loves our students and enjoys sharing his \"stories\" with them. He has worked for many years to preserve the history of the Little Rock area. He plans to donate two columns from the old Little Rock Carnegie Library to our school. (See attached Significant Contribution) 111. I believe the facility should be named for this person because of the Martin families ties to the community and to the school. Carl Martin has spent a lifetime dedicated to the preservation of the history of the \"Mabelvale Community\". (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. 4 Background History on \"The Martin Projecr' During the 2001-2002 school year, our Builders Club met to discuss various service projects for our club. At this same time, Ms. Kathey Farley was looking for a project for the East Lab to research. Locating and recording data from an area cemetery was a project that intrigued Ms. Farley. After brainstorming with many teachers, Ms. Farley contacted Joyce Swinney, a teacher and longtime area resident, who told her about Mr. Clif Morehart, the caretaker of the Martin Cemetery. As Mr. Morehart visited our school to tutor reading students for Ms. Beckie Jones's English classes, we were able to visit with him frequently about Mabelvale's history. Ms. Farley asked Mr. Morehart to speak to her East Lab classes about the cemetery and the community. We shared information with Ms. Farley about a research project on Mabelvale that we had completed with some classes several years ago. As Ms. Pam Wallace and I worked on an Arkansas Heritage \"Living History\" grant, the pieces started falling into place. We decided to work with Ms. Farley's East Classes on a special project to interview Mr. Carl Martin, whose family had lived in this area for over 150 years. Ms. Farley's East Lab students and the Builders Club students could work on a living history project. However, the project was \"too large\" for our time constraints. Even though we didn't get the Arkansas Heritage grant, Ms. Wallace and I felt that the \"living history\" project was important. Mrs. Farley's East students took pictures and started transcribing the interviews. Throughout the year, we visited Mr. Martin, got to know his wife, Lorene, and fell in love with both of them. Our students were amazing-they were so interested in learning about Mr. Martin's rooster, the Little Rock City Jail keys, and the Andrew Carnegie columns. We learned about the town of Mabelvale, and even about the red clay that the school is built on. It didn't matter what topic we asked about, Mr. Martin had an answer. He was versed on everything. He loved our kids, and they felt it. After each visit, he always hugged them as if he had known :tiem forever. Some of our sixth graders visited Mr. Martin, and the next year they started asking us if they could go back to see him. On September 25, 2003, representatives of the Builder's Club presented a plaque to Mr. Martin to thank him for his years of service to Mabelvale schools. When we gave him the plaque, he was very touched. We were also very touched and amazed at what an impression this project has had on our students. After spending the past three school years on this project, we knew that it was only fitting to honor our local historian with a unique gift since our school sits in the middle of the Martin\" homestead. The community of Mabelvale has a \"rich heritage\" and closeness. To honor the Martin Family and this community, we are requesting permission to name the Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School Library the \"Carl Martin Library\". When the new library is finished, we plan to have an Open House to dedicate the facility as the Carl Martin Library. We will have a portrait of Mr. Martin to display in an area of the library with other items collected from the community. Mr. Martin has agreed to donate two columns from the old Carnegie Library to our school. We plan to have a plaque placed on them to tell of their historical significance to the state. We will invite the community to the Open House and dedication of the Library. We will ask our Partners-In-Education to assist us with the celebration. .!%.,' z ~ 0 ,\u0026gt;- ,e,n. zz ,C,.: ,- ~ C =I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: March 25, 2004 Board of Education FROM: ~Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School J.A. Fair Magnet High School Forest Park Elementary School Forest Park Elementary School Forest Park Elementary School Item G.E refrigerator, valued at $200.00, for use in the teacher's lounge 156 backboards, valued at $1,000.00, for use by students in all-school science fair Mr. Jeffrey Carson Mr. David Rainey of SmurfitStone Container Corporation New iron fencing at east, Forest Park PT A north and part of the west playground perimeters valued at $19,850.00 Stonework surrounding Forest Park PT A both play equipment areas at east and west sides valued at $17,867.00 Multipondo play Forest Park PT A equipment and installation valued at $2,798.35 !.X.,I z \u0026gt; ~ ,\u0026gt;.... \"' \u0026gt;z z C: -,:. \u0026gt; C: C =i Board of Education March 25, 2004 Page2 School/Department Gibbs Elementary Magnet School Jefferson Elementary School Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Rightsell Academy Item Donor $2,500.00 check to be Ms. Susan M. Wixon applied toward the installation of a sprinkler system Six (6) DVD players Jefferson PTA and one (1) DVDNCR combo player. The estimated value of all donated items is $775.00. Four (4) iMac computers Mr. Patrick R. Carrington w/separate components, four (4) Epson color printers and miscellaneous computer supplies to Parkview's Journalism Department. The total value of all donated items is $3,035 .00. 15 Dell P2/300 computers Acxiom Corporation w/separate components. The estimated value of all donated items is $1,000.00. It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Cheryl A. Carson, Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property March 2, 2004 Jeffrey Carson wishes to donate a G.E. refrigerator, model number TBX18TAZGRWH, for use in the Teacher's Lounge at Booker Arts Magnet School. The refrigerator is valued at $200.00. Mr. Carson's address is 4115 Ridge Road, North Little Rock, AR, 72116. I respectfully request that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. .!.I,I z ~ n \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C .\u0026gt;.... \u0026gt; C C ::::\nTO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. Fair Magnet High School Science \u0026amp; Technology Systems 13420 David O. Dodd Roaa Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Telephone (501) 447-1700 Fax (501) 447-1701 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement e:\\\\_,. Cassandra Norman, Principal February 5, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Davin Rainey, Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., P. 0 . Box 4790, Little Rock, Arkansas 72214, has generously donated 156 backboards with a value of $1 ,000 for use by our students in our all school science fair. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. A School of the Little Rock School District TO: \u0026lt;'1rf ,FROM: vv-DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director Theresa Ketcher, Principal of Forest Park School February 5, 2004 Donations These donations have been made to Forest Park School. See attachment It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. /pl .!J.,I z ~ n \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C C =l December 1, 2003 Theresa Ketcher, Principal Forest Park Elementary 16 N. Tyler Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mrs. Ketcher, The Forest Park PT A is pleased to list the following items donated for playground improvements during the 2002-2003 school year: New iron fencing at east, north and part of the west playground perimeters valued at $19,850.00. Stonework surrounding both play equipment areas at east and west sides, $17,867.00. Multipondo play equipment and installation, $2798.35. The precast caps installed on the stonework surrounds were donated by Arkansas Precast and are valued at $22,000.00. (This donation was approved in the Feb. 2003 Board meeting.) Forest Park continues to provide a great learning environment and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to our school in this way. Sincerely, / /21,\n// t\n.~ /\nV ----- e.. l ('0f/, '\" L Ellen Yearyl,Past Prtsident, PT A (2002-2003) GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL TO: FROM: DATE: I \\ T E 12 \\ .\\ T I O \\ .\\ I. HDI [6 Mr. Darrall Paradis, Director of Procurement Jfl'Felicia Hobbs, Principal February 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Donation Ms Susan M. Wixon very graciously donated a check in the amount of$2,500.00 to Gibbs Magnet School. The donation goes toward the installation of a sprinkler system here at Gibbs. We sincerely appreciate this donation. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. FH:kt ' .. 11 15 West 1 6'\" Street Phone 447-4900  Little Rock . Arkansas 72202 /.~ /'' ,~1'.\\,  ,.,, \\ JEFFERSON E LEMENTARY SCHOOL February 27, 2004 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: f.f Roberta Mannon, Principal Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School: Six DVD players and one DVDNCR combo player - total value approximately $775.00. The Jefferson PTA donated these items. Mailing address for the PTA is Jefferson School. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with LRSD Board policies. 2600 N. McKinley Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 - Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2501 BARROW ROAD Date: To: From: Subject: PHONE 228-3000 February 10, 2004 Darral Paradis, Director LRSD Procurement Department Dr. Linda Brown, Principal '/fr Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Computer Equipment Donation Ll'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 Mr. Patrick R. Carrington recently donated several items of computer equipment to Parkview' s Journalism Department. Please reference the attached list. We, at Parkview, would like to say a very hearty Thank You to Mr.Carrigan! Your support is appreciated more than we can express. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. .. ,!l,:l z \u0026gt;z 0 ,... u,\n:\nzz C: ,\u0026gt;... \u0026gt; C: C =l DONATION(S) TO PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Judith Murray Class: Journalism _________ _ January 22, 2004 from Patrick R. Carrington/ 26 Talais Drive/ LR/ Ar./ 72223 501.821.0114 MacOvation, Inc. 1 . ) iMac ( completely functional) (iMac A) Revision A-233 mHz / Serial # XA8464N5EUL / RAM 128 MB 4 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $550 2.) Plastic riser platform for iMac: Revision A VALUE: $ 35 3.) Computer Skins: iMac \u0026amp; Keyboard Designer Covers X3 VALUE: $12 X 5 = $60 4.) iMac (ethernet disabled by lightening strike) (iMac B) Revision C-350 mHz / Serial # YMO35ASV-JWQ-ff09 / RAM 640 MB 7 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel I MaclinkPlusDeluxe Stuffit Expander 8.0.2 VALUE: $650 5.) Epson Color 740i Printer Serial # BUY1389723 Includes USB cable \u0026amp; printer cartridges VALUE: $120 6.) iMac (completely functional) (iMac C) Revision C-350 mHz / Serial # YM0320Z9JWQ / RAM 640 MB 7 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX 0fvord, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $650 7.) Epson Black Printer Cartridge for Epson 7 40 S020189 VALUE: $25 8.) Epson Color Photo 850 Printer w/ new black ink cartridge. Serial# AZN1123175 Model P930-A VALUE: $150 9.) Epson Color Stylus 820 Printer Serial# EKEK038614 Model P330-A VALUE: $125 1 O.) Epson 740i Stylus Color Printer Serial# BUY1137914 VALUE: $120 11.) iMac (completely functional) (iMac D) Revision A-233 mHz /Serial# XA834FJUDFN / RAM 288 MB 4 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $550 Total Value of Donation: $3,035.00 !..II, z ~ C'l \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C \u0026gt;,.... \u0026gt; C 0 =I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal  i Rightsell Academy February 17, 2004 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated 15-P2-300 Dell workstations and 15 \"13\" monitors. The estimated value is $1000.00. Acxiom 301 Industrial Blvd Conway, AR 72032 Contact Person: Jerry Adams (501) 342-2480 It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you for you consideration. Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education Mark Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Don Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Annual Audit Report You have received under separate cover a copy of the annual audit of the District's financial condition as prepared by Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas, Certified Public Accountants. As required by Arkansas law, the board must take action to approve the audit prior to submission to the state. The administration recommends approval of the audit at this time. bjg Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fu: (501) 447-1158 DATE: March 25, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY,Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending February 29, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NI A  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the February 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 29, 2004 -- APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 02/28/03 COLLECTED 2003/04 02/29/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57 ,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681 ,497 96.76% ~DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 8,432,483 105.41% 10,100,000 10,264,896 101 .63% 4 0% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 205,072 109.66% 210,000 ~DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 235,596 69.29% 380,000 239,896 63.13% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 119,016 43.28% 200,000 106,666 53.33% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 175,342 109.59% 240,000 178,086 74.20% TOTAL 97,432,000 66,827,036 68.59% 98,607,800 66,6TT,103 67.62% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 17,215 71 .73% 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 17,215 71.73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 35,239,580 64.23% 53,226,139 34,286,616 64.42% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 4,566,701 60.17% 8,300,000 4,048,584 48.78% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 833,381 62.19% 1,400,000 828,403 59.17% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% 1,675,000 821,175 49.03% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 205,407 75.14% 273,358 202,301 74.01% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,804,317 55.26% 3,900,000 1,842,110 47.23% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 377,991 37.57% 920,337 403,283 43.82% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 285,245 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 64,573 9.93% 360,000 236,541 65.71% TOTAL 75,441,106 47,246,763 62.63% 74,776,187 44,465,585 59.46% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 175,922 15.62% 1,350,000 135,093 10.01% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 730,735 21.42% 3,752,430 679,236 18.10% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 114,821,750 65.13% 177,157,418 111,833,518 63.13% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 10,731 ,261 42.66% 24,075,790 12,036,503 49.99% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% 4,000,000 2,427,292 60.68% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 10,408,214 41 .52% 24,689,351 10,464,842 42.39% TOTAL 54,198,923 23,221,951 42.85% 52,765,141 24,928,637 47.24% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 138,043,700 59.89% 229,922,559 136,762,155 59.48% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 29, 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 02/28/03 EXPENDED 2003/04 02/29/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 59,903,522 59.39% 100,684,982 55,047,173 54.67% BENEFITS 24,838,361 15,085,593 60.74% 26,483,772 14,377,965 54.29% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 11,960,581 60.42% 19,719,297 11,745,812 59.57% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 4,756,586 56.98% 8,185,459 5,873,557 71 .76% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 860,152 53.19% 1,575,580 707,894 44.93% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,918,81 1 34.30% 8,384,567 2,982,417 35.57% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191,763 100.77% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 107,698,817 61.13% 177,131,999 102,926,581 58.11% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,1 48,726 10,208,019 39.04% 26,056,193 10,284,905 39.47% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 1,976,084 49.65% 4,000,000 2,563,705 64.09% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 13,302,996 53.07% 24,689,351 12,438,947 50.38% TOTAL 55,194,668 25,487,100 46.18% 54,745,544 25,287,557 46.19% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 133,185,917 57.56% 231,877,543 128,214,138 55.29% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,857,782 (1,954,984) 8,548,016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (619,709) 1,578,177 3,199,660 OPERATING 8,675,891 15,680,583 9,052,274 17,933,792 TOTAL 9,325,586 15,060,875 10,630,451 21,133,452 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 pROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 02-29-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501 .92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 68,753.26 51,049.11 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 246,791 .00 10,880,842.34 6,516,266.11 1,464,227.95 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 7,963.49 25,000.00 9,310.48 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 2,108,630.36 2,381,883.52 408,932.43 2,086,394.22 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 13,032,781 .41 8,695,556.31 9,744,468.87 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 949,213.61 59.53 1,385,746.10 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 2,608,721.36 27,329,116.63 15,645,814.38 14,763,387.29 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (2,608,721.36} 19,465,877.87 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 917,779.02 8,206,555.91 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 918,779.02 (2,608,721.36} 0.00 0.00 29,417,139.77 GRAND TOTAL  ~~z laa ~z ~la zz~ a2 ~ ~z a~~ mi a l:i ~:i aa aa ~m 11~a~a PROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 02-29-04 1 ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,565,851 .80 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 13,342,240.87 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51 ,655,707.04 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11 ,735,611 .78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,759,698.84 I TOTAL I 138,882,176.18\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE I 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 02-29-04 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 68,753.26 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671 ,442.11 10,880,842.34 113,930.47 109,609.73 7,963.49 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661.38 I 7,679.oo I 791 ,385.63\n4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,381 ,883.52 I 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 13,032,781.41 I 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 949,213.61 I 5,852,669.42 I 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 27,329,116.63 I I ENDING ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION THRU 02-29-04 SUBTOTAL 02-29-04 0.00 622,797.44 51 ,049.11 6,516,266.11 34,101 ,623.85 1,464,227.95 25,000.00 256,503.69 9,310.48 0.00 4,861 ,214.57 22,190.56 408,932.43 : 11 ,255,846.65 2,086,394.22 8,695,556.31 41 ,911 ,238.17 9,744,468.87 59.53 10,349,865.68 1,385,746. 10 20,759,698.84 I 15,645,814.38 I 103,359,090.05 I 35,523,086.13 Mnorov Ix , s~~l~l/3H x S)fH\\IW3M ~NISOl:\u0026gt; 'XI Fund Operating Operating Operating Operating Total Food Service Activity Fund Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund 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 Risk Management Loss Fund I ' Purchase ' Date 02-26-04 ' 01-15-04 ' 02-13-04 ' I 12-19-03 I 02-19-04 I 02-17-04 I I I 09-08-03 01-16-04 01-16-04 01-30-04 11-18-03 05-15-03 01-16-04 05-15-03 12-01-03 09-15-03 02-23-04 12-05-03 01-15-04 02-17-04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 I I I Maturity l I Institution I interest Rate j Type Principal I I I Date ' I I TFN Bank of America ' 0.810% Repo I 5,585,000.00 I 03-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,004 ,986.08 I ' ' 03-15-04 Twin City Bank l 1.350% CD 5,010,334.44 I 03-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.400% CD I 9,600,000.00 I 25,200,320.52 I I I I TFN Bank of America 0.720% Repo 945,000.00 I I I I I 945,000.00 I TFN I Bank of America I 0.780% Repo I 1,200,000.00 I I I I I 1,200,000.00 i I ' 03-08-04 I Regions I 1.094% CD I 400,000.00 I 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 I I 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 5,231,393.21 01-31-05 ' Bancorp South 1.850% CD I I I 2,100,244.72 04-15-04 I Bank of the Ozarks I 1.300% I CD I 6,000,000.00 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% I CD 11,000,000.00 06-10-04 Bank of America I 0.910% I Treasury Bills 5,365,126.36 05-14-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD I 9,000,000.00 05-03-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD I 3,060,648.33 03-15-04 ' Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% CD 10,221,001.82 TFN Bank of America 0.810% Repo I 7,000,000.00 I 60,379,348.75 I 06-15-04 Bank of America 1.020% Treasury Bills 668,325.28 I I I 668,325.28 i I I 06-10-04 Bank of America 0.910% I Treasury Bills 252,059.89 I 252,059.89 TFN I Bank of America 0.250% Repo 400,000.00 I ' 400,000.00\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":29,"next_page":30,"prev_page":28,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":336,"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}}]}}