{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_161","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports","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":["2012-04-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports"],"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/161"],"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\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA April 17, 2012 I. Call to Order II. Reading of the Minutes of December 13, 2011 III. Executive Director's Report IV. A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires A. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report - Review of Final Draft B. Discussion and Review of Format for Stipulation Magnet Schools Annual Principal Reports C. Set Next Meeting Date IV. Adjournment ' MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES December 13, 2011 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday December 13, 2011. Members Present: Guest: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Margie Powell, Monitor - ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of October 25, 2011. Joy Springer made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, after a correction of a date was made, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the minutes were approved as presented. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She called the Committee's attention to items in correspondence, with the first item being an e-mail to a parent requesting information about the application process for a magnet school. Copies of the e-mail were given to MRC members for their information, but no action was required by the MRC. An e-mail was sent to Diane Barksdale, Principal of Carver Magnet, acknowledging Carver's participation in the LEGO Education Showcase Grant to be held at Barnes and oble in North Little Rock on ovember 12, 2011. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. A copy of the Court Order from Judge D. P. Marshall, Jr., which transmitted the Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget to all parties in the case to request their response if they have any objections to the budget, was given to MRC members. No action was required of the MRC. Ms. Creer sent an e-mail to Diane Barksdale, Principal of Carver Magnet, to tell her how wonderful the LEGO event was at Barnes and Noble in November. Copies of the e-mail were given to MRC members for their perusal. A memorandum was sent to all Magnet Marketing University members (Magnet Marketing Team) to remind them of the upcoming Magnet Fair at Park Plaza on January 21, 2012. Copies of the memorandum were given to MRC members for their information. An e-mail was sent to Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Consultant for the Interdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Report, in response to her request for a list of MRC members. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC. A series of e-mails between Donna Creer and Suellen Vann, Communications Director for the Arkansas School Boards Association, regarding Ms. Creer's attendance at the ASBA Conference during a session entitled \"Using Data to Drive Student Success.\" Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Bills in the amount of $3,372.04 were presented for payment. Ms. Creer provided a recap of the expenses, and Oliver Dillingham made a motion to pay the bills. Danny Reed seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting were given to MRC members. Ms. Creer provided a recap of the articles. With regard to a recruitment update, Ms. Creer informed the MRC members that several activities are already in progress. She reported that Carver Magnet's LEGO program at Barnes and Noble was a tremendous success and had a great turnout. Magnet Fair will be held on January 21, 2012, at Park Plaza Mall. A component is being added for positive points. Some former magnet school students will speak about their time in a magnet school, and plans are to put their comments on video so it can be on the schools' websites. Plans are also being made to make an ongoing commercial that will appear on the district's website. The MRC Office is working with Little Rock School District to make sure that the LRSD newsletter will be covering magnet schools. Ms. Creer had sent an e-mail to the Stipulation magnet schools requesting updated, accurate information about the Math Science options available to students. Responses by some of the schools were provided to MRC members for their information. -2- An e-mail was received from the LRSD Student Registration Office providing information about available seats for the second semester. Joy Springer asked if PCS SD and NLRSD filled all their seats. Ms. Creer said that is the reason they are having a meeting for semester updates right now. Margie Powell, ODM Monitor, noted that her office has a new enrollment report for NLRSD. A new brochure from Parkview Magnet was received in the MRC Office via e-mail. Copies were provided to MRC members for their information. Ms. Creer reported that there are no changes in the Stipulation Magnet Schools personnel at this rime. Dr. Mitchell did inform the MRC members, though, that Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal at Gibbs Magnet, may be filling a few positions. Ms. Creer asked if any MRC members had a chance to read at any of the schools during Reading Day. She went to Williams Magnet and is going to try to put some information on Facebook, etc. A draft of the Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report was given to MRC members for their review. A conference call was then placed to Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus to discuss the report with her. Questions included:  Research  Magnet Schools Effect on Disparity  Ten-Year Review  Student Retention/Exit  Parents' Perception  Number of Free and Reduced Lunch. Several questions were brought forth to Dr. Dreyfus. The first one was if the district's policy was followed as the evaluation was being done. Ms. Springer also asked what the questions are that are being answered in this report. Dr. Dreyfus said that she looked for information if these schools are maintaining their role with regard to diversity in the schools. Are the schools able to meet state standards on core subjects? How are the schools maintaining their core goals of a magnet school? What are their strategies for doing that and do they have strategies for accomplishing this? How are they handling the challenges and how are they addressing them? Ms. Springer noted that she understood this and, as a member of the Joshua Intervnors, she wants to know the impact on African-American achievement. Ms. Springer then asked about the research questions. She asked Dr. Dreyfus if the questions to parents, students and teachers address the questions she asked? Dr. Dreyfus said that she used the climate survey PRE used for the district. -3- I !~ I I More questions were presented to Dr. Dreyfus with regard to disparity. Dr. Dreyfus said that she could go back over the last five years to find out that the data is accurate. Dr. Mitchell said that she would like for that to be done. Dr. Dreyfus said that she will use the same subgroups that LRSD uses with their accountability plan. It was agreed by consensus that the MRC's primary subgroup is Black and White. Oliver Dillingham also noted that numbers are important. Ms. Springer also asked about Pages 6-9 where Dr. Dreyfus talks about perception. Was there any reason why this information is lumped into one area and not broken down by schools? Dr. Dreyfus noted that it was determined by how many students answered the questions. She requested two years back to see if the year was represented. Dr. Mitchell said that next year, the sampling will be much better. LRSD is doing something different to make sure that they get better responses. Mr. Dillingham called attention to Page 7. He asked if the percentage was for magnet schools? Dr. Clowers said another column is needed. People looking at the report can then see that it would add up to 100%. Dr. Mitchell thanked Dr. Dreyfus for her participation in the conference call, and said that the MRC will be looking forward to the completed report. A discussion was held with regard to a raise in salary for the Donna Creer and Sandra Luehrs. Bobby Acklin made a motion that the MRC determine an average of the three school districts and approve a raise in salary. Joy Springer seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Joy Springer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 a.m. -4- ! 17011)\n!- . . Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: Dr. Jerry Guess, Superintendent - PCSSD Dr. Morris Holmes, Superintendent - LRSD FROM: Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Education Commissioner -ADE Mr. Ken Kirspel,~erintendent - NLRSD Donna Grady Cr ecutive Director SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Review C mmittee MAGNET SCHOOL FAIR 2012-January 21, 2012 January 11, 2012 Thank you for your support of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program. Your involvement in the program helps ensure its continued success. The 17th Annual Magnet School Fair will be held on Saturday, January 21, 2012, at Park Plaza Mall, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. This memorandum comes to cordially invite you to attend. We welcome you to visit any, or all, of the magnet school booths staffed by school administrators, staff, parents, students and volunteers. They are prepared to answer questions about their school's program. Throughout the day, magnet school student performance groups will showcase at the stage area in front of the Men's Department entrance to Dillard's. We invite you to attend and to speak to the Magnet Fair attendees if you so desire. If you would like to briefly (3-5 minutes) address the Magnet Fair attendees, please have someone in your office contact Sandy at 758-0156. Once again, thank you. We look forward to seeing you at the 17th Annual Magnet School Fair on Saturday, January 21, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. DGC:sl cc: Dr. Sadie Mitchell - LRSD MRC Rep Bobby Acklin - NLRSD MRC Rep Dr. Robert Clowers - PCSSD MRC Rep Oliver Dillingham - ADE MRC Rep Danny Reed - ADE MRC Rep \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Tonya Click- LRSD Student Registration Office Deana Eggleston - LRSD Student Registration Office Maria Garcia - LRSD Student Registration Office Alisha Long - LRSD Student Registration Office Michelle Oliver - PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Dr. Debbie Price - LRSD Student Registration Office Yolanda Richards - PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Tameka White - NLRSD Desegregation Office Donna Grady Cre~tive Director Magnet Review Committee Magnet Fair Volunteers January 11, 2012 It's that time of the year again! The Magnet Fair is just around the corner and, of course, the Magnet Review Committee needs help!! The 1 ih Annual Magnet School Fair is scheduled for SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., in Park Plaza Mall. Any volunteer time you could provide for that day to help us man the \"Magnet School Information Booth\" would REALLY be appreciated. Please let Sandy know when you might be able to share a few hours of that Saturday. We really rely on your expertise. Thank you for your help. We appreciate each and every one of you. DGC:sl cc: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Desegregation Office Dr. Brenda Bowles, PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Dr. Frederick Fields, LRSDE Student Registration Office \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Tonya Click- LRSD Deana Eggleston - LRSD Maria Garcia - LRSD Michelle Oliver - PCSSD Dr. Debbie Price - LRSD Yolanda Richards - PCS SD Tameka White - N~~ Donna Grady Cret/f,Necutive Director Magnet Review Committee A Magnet Fair Thank You January 25, 2012 THANK YOU VERY MUCH for spending a portion of ( or most of) your Saturday helping parents and students learn more about magnet school enrollment! Everything you did to help make our Annual Magnet School Fair a success is greatly appreciated. We know it is hard to give us precious Saturday time. Thanks for doing such a great job of talking to potential magnet school parents seeking school enrollment information. We commend you for your service and willingness to participate. Thanks, too, for making sure that the parents who visit, call and e-mail your office know of their opportunity to enroll their children in a magnet school. It is good to have coworkers who share your passion to fill all magnet school seats. Please know that we appreciate you. DGC:sl cc: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Brenda Bowles, PCSSD Dr. Frederick Fields, LRSD \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} January 27, 2012 Ms. Melissa Griffith Assistant General Manager Specialty Retail 6000 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Melissa, Thanks to you and your staff for assisting us in the planning, production and presentation of this year's annual Magnet School Fair. I appreciate the time spent helping us to make things happen. You guys went \"above and beyond the call of duty,\" making sure that we had everything for a successful Fair. Having thoughtful, community-minded staff and management at Park Plaza helped us achieve success. The Park Plaza management and staff has a commitment to service, a passion for people and productivity, and we appreciate you! We particularly enjoyed seeing your daughter participate in Booker's performance. She is a very talented child, and you should be very proud. Please feel free to call our office or any of our schools if you need us. Again, thanks! s 1 ~ onna G ady Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee DGC:sl \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Marketing University Class (aka Magnet Fair Steering Committee Memb~ Donna Grady Cre~~ecutive Director - Magnet Review Committee A MAGNET FAIR THANK YOU! January 27, 2012 Thanks for playing your part to help make the Annual Magnet School Fair a success. We appreciate the work, service and passion of our dedicated Magnet Fair team! We got great media coverage which assures the calls, visits, and applications \"keep on coming!\" Thanks for ALL that you do. The magnet school booths, performance groups, and \"give-aways\" were all top notch. The attitude and information the booth staff/volunteers provided was AWESOME! Some ofus who have done this before might think it's old hat, but every chance we have to share magnet school information with a new/potential magnet parent is an opportunity to let magnets stand out. You make it happen at your magnet campus, at the Magnet Fair, and everywhere you are! Thanks to your work, we are ready to offer excellent magnet school education to the hundreds of students who will complete applications during the early registration period, and the many others who will apply before August, 2012. Once again, thank you for everything. We appreciate you and, if you need anything from our office, please do not hesitate to contact us. DGC:sl cc: Magnet Principal \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" 1. Capital Business Machines MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID April 17, 2012 {Monthly Billing for MRC's Maintenance Agreement for the MRC Copier) 2. Wardell Laster, Jr. {Services Rendered to Print Application and Enrollment Forms) 3. Staples Advantage (Supplies for the MRC Office) 4. Sam's Club {Membership Renewal for the MRC Office) 5. American Home Life {MRC's Communications Expense for December, 2011) 6. Magnet Schools of America (MRC's Membership Renewal for 2011-12) 7. Kid's Directory (Advertising in January, 2012) 8. J. L. Designs {Services Rendered to Design Flyer for Magnet School Recruitment) 9. Clarence Thornton (Services Rendered to Provide Sound and Equipment for Magnet Fair) 10. Central Arkansas Newspapers (Advertising in the North Little Rock Times) 11. Capital Business Machines {Monthly Billing for MRC's Office Copier Maintenance Contract) 12. Park Plaza Mall (Facilities Charge for Magnet Fair at Park Plaza Mall) 63.72 1,725.00 174.54 70.00 182.50 225.00 515.00 35.00 1,100.00 46.50 70.20 500.00 13. Wardell Laster, Jr. (Services Rendered to Print Labels and Brochures for Magnet School Recruitment) 14. TB Productions (Services Rendered to Complete Video Recording at Magnet Fair) 15. Fastsigns (Services Rendered to Create Banner for Early Enrollment) 16. Compsys (Services Rendered to Remotely Repair MRC Office Computer) 17. El Latino (Advertising in the 1/19/12 Issue) 18. Sunbelt Convention Services (Services Rendered to Provide Set-Up for Magnet Fair 2012) 19. Allegra Print \u0026amp; Imaging (Supplies for the MRC Office) 20. American Home Life (MRC's Communications Expense for January, 2012) 21. Leader Publishing, Inc. (Advertising in January, 2012 for Magnet Fair and Enrollment) 22. Kid's Directory (Advertising in the February, 2012 Issue) 23. El Latino (Advertising in the 1/26/12 Issue) 24. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Advertising for Magnet Fair and Early Enrollment) 25. Mass Enthusiasm (Down payment for Services to Create New Website for MRC) 26. Capital Business Machines (Monthly Billing for M RC's Copier Maintenance Contract) 27. Central Arkansas Newspapers (Advertising in the North Little Rock Times for Enrollment and Magnet Fair) 230.00 350.00 79.21 48.28 350.00 1,619.51 219.70 182.50 340.80 275.00 350.00 1,110.62 866.66 70.20 501.00 28. Compsys 144.85 (Services Rendered to Correct Web Hosting Problem) 29. ARKNSPRA 25.00 (Membership for Donna Creer for 2011-12) 30. Staples Advantage 105.87 (Supplies for the MRC Office) 31. Leader Publishing, Inc. 113.60 (Advertising During Enrollment Period) 32. American Home Life 182.50 (MRC's Communications Expense for February, 2012) 33. Central Arkansas Newspapers 309.00 (Advertising in the North Little Rock Times and Jacksonville Patriot) 34. Capital Business Machines 70.20 {Monthly Billing for MRC's Copier Maintenance Agreement) 35. American Home Life 182.50 {MRC's Communications Expense for March, 2012) 36. AireArk, Inc. 65.90 (Services Renders for Two Months to Host MRC's Website and E-Mail) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID $ 12,500.36 Keep funding desegregation, state ordered To h~t school aid, hearing riecessaryU,. S.j udgess ay CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSADS EMOC~T-GAZETIE The state must continue to pay millions of dollars in desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County school systems - which use the funds for magnet schools, employee benefits and other operating expenses - as a result of a federal appeals court decision Wednesday. '1f the State wishes to obtain relief from its funding obligations, there must be a formal evidentiary hearing on the issue,\" a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Louis said 'We express no opinion on what the outcome of such a hearing should be,\" the court added in the 29-page order. The panel also concluded that the North Little Rock School District is entitled to unitary status and release from decades of federal court mohitoring of its operations. The Pulaski County Special School District, on the other hand, will remain under court supervision. As a result, the Pulaski County Special district will be the only one of the three Pulaski County districts to remain under court supervision, although all three districts remain parties in the 29-year-old school desegregation lawsuit The Llttle Rock district was declared unitary by a federal district court in 2007, a decision affirmed by the 8th Circuit in 2009. Wednesday's ruling, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender of St. Louis, assures, at least for now, that Little Rock's magnet schools and a student-transfer program among the three school districts continues without the threat of lost funding. The decision of the threejudge panel - which included Michael Melloy of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Roger Wollman of Sioux Falls, S.D. - follows on the heels-of a Sept 19 hear- See SCHOOLPSa,g e3 A Schools  Continued from Page 1 A ing on various challenges to U.S. District Judge Brian Miller's May 19 order. The May order called for immediately terminating all of the state desegregation aid except for funds for the majority-tominority interdistrict student transfer program. Miller had directed the districts to show why the funding for the student-transfer program, shouldn't be end~d as well. He stepped down from the desegregation case last summer, and U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. is now the presiding judge in the case. The three Pulaski County districts receive as much as $70 million a year, with about $38 million going to the Little Rock district, the state's largest with about 25,000 students. The state pays the money as the result of a 1989 financial agreement with the state, the districts and other parties in the case. The order to immediately end the state funding had been put on hold, or \"stayed,\" by the 8th Circuit at the request of the districts until the appeals court could hold the September hearing and issue a decision. FILINGM OTIONIM PROPER The 8th Circuit concluded Wednesday that the state \"'7' represented by the Arkansas attorney general's office in support of Miller's ruling - did not make a proper motion to the court to end the state aid. The appeals court said Miller did not hold a court hearing on the issue or prepare the typical findings of fact and conclusions of law used to support a ruling. \"The state has long made known its view that such funding will become unnecessary after all three districts are declared fully unitary,\" the order said.  \"However, the state has not yet moved f9r relief from its funding obligations, and the scheduling order for the 2010 hearings on NLRSD's and PCSSD's petitions for declaration of unitary status did not provide for the presentation of any evidence regarding such relief.\" Additionally, the 8th Circuit panel noted that the state participated in the 2010 court hearings on unitary status but objected when questions were raised about its role, saying that its responsibilities in the case were not the subject of the hearings. Miller, however, released t~e s~ate from _the funding obligations, saymg that it was necessary to avoid \"an absurd outcome\" in which the districts would continue to 'receive state funding as long as they fail to meet the desegregation requirements. In his May ord1,r, Miller called the districts \"wise mules that have learned how to eat the carrot and sit down on the job.\" The 8th Circuit opinion said the judge's frustration was understandable and his \"conclusions regarding the perverse incentives created by the State's funding may well have some merit. Nevertheless, notice and a formal hearing are req,uired before the court terminates a constitutional violator's desegregation obligations.\" The 8th Circuit acknowledged that the issue of curtailing state funding was raised in documents submitted to the District Court and during a short status conference of the parties and the district judge in September 2009, but that was not sufficient \"We have rejected the notion that such other avenues may substitute for a formal evidentiary hearing,\" Grue.nder wrote.  \"[T]he briefings and status hearing referred to by the State in this case cannot be cobbled together to form an 'adequate record,' particularly in the absence of detailed findings by the district court.\" Representatives of the Llttle Rock and North Llttle Rock dis- tricts were pleased with the 8th Circuit order. Steve Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock ciistrict said the parties are back to where they started on the matter of state funding. \"Nobody has yet made an actual motion,\" Jones said. \"We all understand it's the 800-pound gorilla on the horizon. Everyo~e knows it's coming but at this point there is nothing before the court on which the court can act to terminate funding.\" Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, called the ordei\"important\" and good for magnet schools. Like Jones, Heller noted that because the funding order was ''vacated\" by the appeals court rather_ th~ \"remanded\" back to the DJStnct Court, there is no existing funding issue on which a court can act to end the funding. Heller also said that the 8th Circuit decision provides guidance on any future effort to end the state funding. The order specifically labels the state as a \"constitutional violator,\" he said. The order then directs that in order for a constitutional violator to be released from it's obligations it must show both good faith compliance with its desegregation obligations and eliminate the vestiges of segregation caused by its unconstitutional conduct.  State leaders said they looked forward to continuing efforts to end the long-running case. PAYMENTNSO TP ERPETUAL Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said in a prepared statement that the state \"continues to move positively toward ending this litigation and taking the courts out of the classrooms of Pulaski County.\" , He said the taxpayer-funded desegregation payments are not perpetual. ''Today, I renew a call to the parties in this case to come together for a meaningful discussion about what is best for the children of these school districts and the taxpayers of this state,\" he said. Asked whether he will file a motion for a hearing on stopping state payments, a spokesman for McDaniel said, \"We have not made that decision at this time. As the attorney general said, he sees this as another opportun.j.ty to btjng all parties together.''\nMatt DeCample, a spokesman for Gov. Mike Beebe, said the governor appreciated the 8th Circuit's quick decision, which will aid state officials in addressing issues at the school district level The state Department of Education took over the Pulaski County Special district last June, replacing the superintendent and dissolving the School Board because of financial mismanagement. \"We'll. continue to work with the attorney general's office as that office crafts what comes next,\" DeCample said. \"We recognize that there are more steps to go through but I think our argument is going to remain the same.'' Damon Hewitt, a New Yorkbased attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. which helps represent black students in the case, said: ''Today's opinion should send a clear message to school districts throughout the country that compliance with desegregation orders is not optional. Both the courts and communities will hold these districts to both the letter and spirit of the law.\" State Rep. John Walker, DLittle Rock, an attorney who also represents the black students known as the Joshua intervenors in the case, said he was pleased with the ruling on the state funding but disappointed that the appeals court ruled in favor of releasing the North Little Rock school system from court monitoring. He has asked Marshall, the disq:ict judge, to review the testimony given Miller earlier and arrive at a di,fferent conclusion regarding the North Little Roe~ district's eligibility for full uru-tary status. . ''We will be back before the court of appeals on those,\" Walker said.' . NORTHLI TTLER OCK Miller had found that the North Little Rock district met the requirements of its desegregation plan in most areas - including student discipline and achievement - but failed to adequately document its efforts to recruit black teachers. Miller directed that the district do that documentation for two more years. The 8th Circuit panel reversed Miller's ruling. \"While the goal of documenting compliance over t:in:ie is a laudable one, the district court abused its discretion by imposing new data collection and reporting requirements with respect to staff recruitment that were not agreed to by the parties in the 1992 Plan,\" the appeals court opinion states. The 8th Circuit found that the North Little Rock district's efforts constituted a good faith effort. It also found the remnants c\n\u0026gt;vr estiges of a segregated school system had been eliminated to the extent practicable. That was shown by the fact that the percentage .of black teachers in the district - now 16.7 percent - exceeded that in the labor market. About 9 percent of the certified educators in the state are black. The appeals court directed the district judge to declare the district unitary and released from court monitoring. , \"Itis a matter of real significance and pride to-North Little Rock that they will be unitary and o~t of court supervision,\" said Jones, t\nlie ,district's attorney. North Little Rock Superintendent Ken Kirspel said there is likely to be less documentation and panPrwork required of district officials, who will no longer have to prove their efforts to the courts. But he said little else will change in the way the district does business. \"Our attitude is not going to change. We are going to ke,ep doing things as we have been doing, which is acting in the best interest of kids,\" Kirspel said. PULASKCIO UNTSYP ECIAL The 8th Circuit affirmed Miller's finding that the Pulaski County Speci\n district failed to meet its, obligations in regard to student assignment, .e,.dvanced Placement and gifted educati\u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;n, discipline, school facilities, scholarships, special education, ~taffing, student achievement and monitoring. The appeals court-rejected arguments that the. district had better.desegregation outcomeS: in sorheofsthose areas than othe, custr}cts :that have been declared unitacy - ~ven though it had .failed to carry out the relevant'prov.isions of its Desegregation Plan 2000. Repeatedly the court wrote: \"PCSSD has done nothing to demonstrate to the public and the parents and students of the once disfavored race that it intends to honor its commitment in good faith.\" Charters get 'slice' of school lawsuit Judgeli mitsr olei n desegregatiocna se ' CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZETIE Charter schools in Pulaski County received permission Thursday to intervene in the long-running school desegregation lawsuit to fight Little Rock School District efforts to put limits on them. U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. said in a -15-page order that he \"welcomes the chartc:r schools' participation in one important slice of the case.\" But the judge denied the open-enrollment charter school group's request to challenge the constitutionality of the 1989 fmancial settlement between the state and school districts, along with the operation of magnet schools in Little Rock and the long-standing majority-to-minority interdistrict student transfer. program. \"They [the charter schools] may intervene to oppose that part of the LRSD/Joshua motion dealing with them,\" Marshall wrot~. The Joshua intervenors, who joined the Little Rock district in the dispute, are black students in the three Pulaski County districts. \"The case will benefit from the charter schools' participation on the motion to enforce. \"Their participation, however, is limited to opposing that motion. The charter schools' proposed constitutional offensive against the 1989 Settlement Agreement and related Stipulations comes too late in the case. It would unfairly prejudice the other parties, and lielatedly refocus the litigation at a newcomer's insistence, to bring these new constitutional issues front and center now. \"[T)he Court rejects their effort to lead an eleventh- hour reorientation of this long-running dispute.\" In May 2010, the Little Rock district filed a motion contending that the state Board of Education gave unconditional approval to the establishment of taxpayersupported, independently operated charter schools in Pulaski County without regard to the effect the charter schools would have on desegregation efforts in the three Pulaski County school districts. The district said that See CHARTEPRa,g e 3A Arkansas Democrat azette Charter  Continued from Page 1 A the charter schools - of which there are a dozen in the county - draw students who would otherwise choose to attend magnet schools or participate in the majorityto- minority transfer program, both of which are intended to promote racial desegrega-tion. ' The district further argued that more affluent, higherachieving students move to charter schools, leaving the districts with greater concentrations of high-need stucJ,ents and fewer resources to serve them. No action was taken on the Lit\"Je Rock district's 2010 complaint fqr more. than a year while the court and parties dealt with other issues in the 29-year-old' federal lawsuit, but Marshall in August set up a schedule for the parties to collect evidence and present arguments: In September, a team uf attorneys headed by former Rep. Mike Wilson, D-Jacksonville, and Jess Askew III of Little Rock filed the motion to intervene on behalf of the charter schools. The charter schools' at-torneys argued thtt the 1989 financial settlement, the magnet schools and the majority- to-minor-. ity interdis- Askew trict student transfer pro-, gram - all elements of the desegregation lawsuit - are , unconstitutional and unenforceable because of their reliance on racial quotas for assigning students to schools and because there were no time limits on the use of those quotas. ' The charter schools' 'attorneys urged that the 1989 multimillion-dollar settlement between the state and the districts \"be terminated and extinguished in its en-tirety.\" . The Little Rock district opposed the participation and arguments of the charter school group. The state - represented by the Arkansas attorney general's office - did not file a response in support or in opposition to the proposed intervention. \"Today's decision is very good news for the charter schools,\" Askew said in an e-mail message Thursday. \"They will be permitted to defend themselves and their contracts. That is what the charter schools sought. \"The charter schools seek to drive fundamental change that will enhance public education optios and outcomes for children and to break away from failed and outmoded thinking. LRSD and the Joshua intervenors wanted to.complain about the charter schqols but did' not want them in the case to have their own voice.','. As for Marshall's decision to not allow the charter group to delve into the constitutionality of the 1989 settlement and other agreements in the case, Askew said the constitutionality issues \"will not go away.\" Askew pointed to a part of Marshall's order in which the judge said he believes tlie constitutional- / ity of the agreements will be \"adequately 'ventilated soon by the current parties.\" Askew said: \"This is a significant development in the case. The fact that, in 2011,' LRSD is assigning children to magnet school seats based on race is troubling, to say the least, and demands close scrutiny, regardless of the tortured path that led to this point. This is the basic issue raised   FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2011  3A by the 2007 [U.S. Supreme mit their written legal brief Court decision restricting in the case by Feb. 10. The race-based assignments], and state's brief is due March 12 the charter schools were the and Marshall suggested that first to highlight this issue.\" the charter intervenors join C h r i s with the state in preparing Heller, an at- . that written argument. torney for the A court hearing is set Little Rock for March 29 to determine district, said whether an evidentiary hearThursday that ing will be necessary. Marshall's de- Marsh a 11 cision \"seems con c I u de d fair.\" in his order Heller That's be- Thu r s d a y cause \"the charter schools will not be allowed to raise new issues but only argue against a'remedy that could change the way they operate,\" he added. Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for the attorney general's of- . flee, said Thursday that the state attorneys in the case were reviewing Marshall's order and didn't have a comment on it. 1n the order, Marshall gave the charter school intervenors until Jan. 15 to revise their complaint to omit the constitutional challenges and to respond to the Little Rock district's motion to enforce the 1989 settlement in regard to the establishment of charter schools. The Little Rock district and Joshua intervenors must sub-that the charter school intervenors have standing to par- Marshall ticipate in the 1 case because the Little Rock district and Joshua intervenors seek to limit enrollment at the charter schools and the charter group's re'l}lest was timely. But.it was \"untimely\". on the constitutional issues because. the other parties.in the case had made the agreements \"decades ago\" and the agreements are guiding the case. The judge added that the charter schools are not the party to raise the constitutional issues because ultimately the charter schools may not have standing to remain in the case. The judge also concluded that the charterschools are not entitled to intervene \"as a right\" because their interests are adequately represented by the state of Arkansas. The schools do, however, have \"permission\" to intervene, the \"judge said, partly in case he is wrong about the adequacy of the state's representation and because the -charter schooi group's participation \"will give the court the benefit of these intervenors' important views.\" \"The Court therefore exercises its discretion to give the charter schools a limited, though important, role so this case will keep moving forward fairly and efficiently,\" M arsh!\u0026gt;.!w! rote. Appeals Court: Arkansas Can't Stop Desegregation Payments - ArkansasBusiness.com Registerf or arkansasbusiness.corIn Site Help I ContactA BPG arkansas Arkansas, Business Page 1 business.com SearchA rkansasBusiness.coj men terk e.ywordh.se re i .,?~ Sign up for daily updates from the ArkansasB usiness newsroom! i enter your email I m q:Jfijj\\j ?i)ttt '\"\"i,nr\n.,~ Tthls:1)' l\"il'M'' Agriculture 8\nPoultry Architecture Banking 8\nFinance Business Services Construction Education Energy Government fr Politic!\u0026gt; Health Care Insurance Investments Legal Manufacturing Media 8\nMarketing Nonprofits Public Companies Real Estate Restaurants \u0026amp; Food Retail Small Business Technology 8\nTelecom Tourism Transportation lt4iFIAC rmm\nm, mmB rmm lliiJE Tuesday. January 03, 2012 1:13:1'1 PM education Recommend Twe,et O , 0 Appeals Court: Arkansas Can't Stop Desegregation Payments By The AssociatedP ress 12/28/201112:16:35 PM LITTLE ROCK -- A federal appeals court has ruled that the state can't stop providing desegregation money to Little Rock-area school districts Change font size\n~1 ptU'lt r.,rtll1~ir ~ ~ [~ .~:~M\nrticle without a separate hearing and a judge's order. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes months after U.S. District Judge Brian Miller ordered an end to most of the payments, calling them counterproductive. The districts appealed to the appeals court, which heard the case in September. The state has been spending about $38 million per year to help finance magnet schools that help keep a racial balance in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. Wednesday's ruling vacates Millers order and keeps the money flowing until the matter is resolved in a separate court proceeding. (Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten, broadcast or distributed.) Subscribe To Arkansas Business Nominate Arkansas llusiness 40 Under 40 Submit A Whi~:.per Submit Calendar Event Vote For Best Of Business Follow @ArkBusiness On Twitter Subscribe To N\\VA BusinesJso urnal 1/1/7()1? Education otebook CYNTHIA HOWELL AND EVIE BLAD ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE Ex-chiesfe eking post in Louisiana Charles Hopson, the former superintendent of the Pulaski County Special School District, is now one of 43 candii dates for the superintendent's position in the 43,300-student East Baton Rouge Parish, La., school system. Hopson had headed the Pulaski County Special district for almost one year when Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell and the Arkansas Department of Education took control of the fiscally distressed district. The school board was dissolved and Hopson was immediately dismissed. Two years remained on his contract. . A state-appointed school district chief was named to manage the district. Hopson filed a federal lawsuit last August against Kimbrell, Gov. Mike Beebe and Pulaski County Special's current superintendent, Jerry Guess, challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas statutes that grant, or have been interpreted to grant, the Education Department the authority to \"disavow\" contracts with superintendents and teachets. The lawsuit, which is still pending, also accused the defendants of ending Hopson's contract without a fair hearing or due process and without just compensation. Officiahl ealing from heart attack Gene Whilhoit, a former director of the Arkansas Department of Education in the mid-1990s and now the executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, is recovering from a heart attack that he suffered on Christmas Eve, according to State EdWatch, a blog sponsored by the national Education Week newspaper. Wilhoit, 68, has told state education chiefs that he expects to make a full recovery and return to work within a couple of months. The Council of Chief State School Officers, to which Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell belongs, has been a leader in promoting the development and implementation of the national Common Core State Standards in math and English/language arts. The organization has also been at the forefront in working with Congress to re-craft the terms of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the No Child Left Behind Act. of Marketing and Advertising, will serve as acting dean, replacing former Dean Tony Chelte, Chancellor Joel Anderson wrote in a note to faculty. ''After much consideration I have concluded that a change in leadership of the College of Business would serve the interests of the college,\" Anderson wrote. UALR spokesman Judy Williams would not say why Anderson had removed Chelte, calling it a \"personnel issue.\" Wayland previously served as interim dean of the business college from 2007 to 2009. Chelte's salary as dean was $188,850. UAr anked5 3rd in best-valuleis t Kiplinger'sP ersonalF inance named the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville 53rd on its 100 Best Values in Public Colleges list. The organization compiles the list by ranking more than 500 public institutions in quality measures sudi as graduation rates and cost measures such as financial aid availability and total student expenses. The UA is the only Arkansas college or university on the list, released Jan. 3. Students at the Fayetteville The chancellor of the Uni- university graduate with an versity of Arkansas at Little average debt of $21,562\nacRock has replaced the school's  cording to Kiplinge(s.  business dean, he said Friday. Businesdse an at UALRre placed Jane Wayland, currently chairman of the Department New countys Chootli mesu rged Districtp roposese arliers tartf or elementaryp upilsi n 2012-13 CYNTHIA HQWELL switch from the current bell for middle and high schools said. The late start time also ARKANSAS DE!v!OCRAT-GAZETIE schedule in the state's third- would range from 3:30 p.m. makes it difficult for parents Pulaski County Special largest district of about 17,600 to 3:55 p.m. to see their children off to bus School District leaders are students.   .   Elementary school start stops in the morning before proposing a change in the In genera( elenientary times are now 8:2S a.m. to they leave for work. ' start and dismissal times for schools would start between 8:30 a.m., and secondary \"It was a fine-idea to have schools in 2012-13 to aJl:ay the 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 .a.m. next schools start about 7:30 a.m., tried this, but we really.think conce'rns of som'e i,arents school-year, with'seconc!ary .\nan arrarigement,that has been this new,schedule would be and save money in the c:1),sh- schools beginning between  a corn\n:ern t6 pru-ents, Super- to the advantage of parents, strappeq dil\\tzict. / ~ {'?~ 8\": 10 a.m. and 8:35 a.m., ac- intendent JerrGyu ess said. particularly to the elementary : If th'fj:,r'oposai-i~ i~pl~\n' :cording to th(, p~6posal put Many parents who start parents,\" _he said. meJ.?-t,e.de,l ementary\n~c,R'.\u0026lt;i\u0026amp;($oVut. lf or publi\u0026lt;.:c 9nsideration. work at 8 a.m. have to drop :pelaymg _the s_econdary would'.,have',ead{er'.'.~'irii/' , Elementary, dismissal off their eleme.ntary children school startm~ times _also ing times' th~,.~p'i\nIR. c_(a,}~_fitrn esw ould.',' IJI).gef rom 2:30 at school at 7:45 a:m, but cla.ss ! ~~:~~_. e_~~fic1~:,1h rr Sat1\nand high schools,_wh:,i1j.).~a:g... m. t~3 P!Jl.\nt~d dismissal doesn't start uritil 8:25, Gue~s , ...._ ..~~e~. T~~T~ Tl~-~~ age 7B Start time  Continued from Page i B \"They are starting as early at 7:30 a.m. Is it better to start . early, or is it better to start late? I havea 10th-grader that I'm raising, and it is hard as the dickens to get him up,\" he said. Guess acknowledged that some people like the system as it is, and he doesn't discount those opinions, \"but this does gives l\\S a chance to satisfy a lot of concerns and be more efficient in our bus system operation at the same time.\" The district was classified by the state as fiscally distressed last spring. In June, state Department of Education officials took over the district, dismissing the superintendent and disbanding the School Board because of continued financial concerns. State Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell appointed Guess to head the district until local control is reinstated or the state Education Board takes other action against the district. Kimbrell serves as the district's School Board. Derek Scott, the district's chief operations officer, said the district could save a minimum of $500,000 if the new schedule is instituted. The savings would result from combining routes, reducing staff through attrition and retiring at least 20 buses, depending on transportation needs in the new school year. Currently the district has a fleet of about 375 buses, Scott said. Deborah Roush, a spokesman for the district, said district leaders wanted to give the public ample time to react to the possible schedule change. \"We know some would celebrate this news, and for others it will mean the need to make scheduling changes. That's why it was critical to begin discussions about this as soon as possible,\" Roush said. Roush said parents with questions or comments may contact the district at (501) 234-2038 or send the district a message about the plan via a contact form on the district's ,web site: pcssd.org. The district's current bell schedule has been in place since September 2010. The schedule was the end result of months of disae:reement between the district and the Pulaski Association of Classroom T~achers on school-day schedulmg and other issues. The schedule resulted in the purchas\"e of39 additional buses - bought used from the Memphis area - and the hiring of as many as 50 drivers. Initially, district leaders instituted a restructured teacher workday in which elementary teachers' 45-minute planning time was incorporated into the students' school day, rather than before or after the student day. That resulted in a longer student class day. State law requires that teacher preparation time be built into the student day unless that is waived in contract negotiations between a district and its teachers, as it had been in the Pulaski County district. But in early 2010, the district's School Board voted to end its recognition of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers as a represent~ tive of the employees, making the change'in teacher preparation time and student class day necessary to conform to state law. Individual teachers and the teachers' association sued the Pulaski County Special district and some School Board members over the altered schedule, contending that the restructured day violated the terms of the teachers' contract. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox ultimately voided the School Board votes that ended recognition of the teacher union and directed that the district recognize the existing teacher contract that put the 45-minute planning periods before and after the elementary school day. Then-Superintendent Charles Hopsqn attempted to retain the n~w start and stop times for schools., arguing that the longer school day was beneficial to students.  Just before a court hearing in the teachers' legal challenge to the altered bell schedule, an agreement was reached that created the current start and dismissal times. As a result of the agreedupon schedule, the elementary and secondary schools were dismissing at close to the same times in the afternoon _,_ about 3 p.m. That prevented the district from staggering the use of its buses !n the afternoon and making 1t necessary to acquire addition\ni l h11sPs. Educationno tebook CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETTE Firmt o helps tate seek law leeway The Arkansas Department of Education has contracted with EducationCounsel of Washington, D.C., for help in crafting a proposal to the U.S. Department of Education for flexibility in complying with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. In September, as efforts in Cong~ess to alter the law stalled, the federal Education Department invited states to propose waivers to the law - including the provision that calls for 100 percent of students to score at prbficient or advanced levels on. state mathematics and literacy tests by 2013-14. To that end, the state has set minimum annual student achievement requirements for schools. Schools in which the student body as a whole or subgroups of students fail to meet the annual requirements are labeled as needing improvement and penalized. The Arkansas Education Department in November and December held forums around the state to solicit ideas for revisions to the state's system for holding schools accountable. Education Counsel is a law, policy, strategy and advocacy organization that works to improve education systems, close achievement gaps and expand student access to educational opportunities. State officials hope to take a draft proposal to Dallas at the end of this month for rev. iew by the_ Council of Chief State School Officers and submit the state proposal to the federal Education Department by a Feb. 21 deadline. Districat ddss ite for registrations A change has been made this year in one of the locations for the Little Rock School District's annual reg- I istration for students who will be new to the district in 2012-13o r who want to attend schools other than their attendance- zone schools. The registration period is Jan. 23 through Feb. 3. As in the past, parents may register theii: children in kindergarten.through 12th grades at their attendancezone schools or at the schools they would like to attend. Additionally, in the first week of registration, which is Jan. 23-27, parents may register their children who will be in prekindergarten through high school at a site being used by the district for the first time this year - St. Mark Baptist Church, 5722 W. 12th St. The hours for registration will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. During the second week of registration, Jan. 30 through Feb. 3, parents may register at the district's Student Registration Office, ,501 Sherman St., near East Capitol Avenue and Interstate 30. The St. Mark site is being used this year because it is larger and more centrally located than the district's Student Registration Office. Communications chief to resign Tiffany Hoffman, the Little Rock School District's director of communications for the past five years, is resigning from the job effective March 1. Hoffman, who is a former district teacher, said she is taking a position with a local real estate company. Little Rock Superintendent Morris Holmes announced the resignation at a School Board meeting Thursday night in which he asked the School Board members to provide him with ideas about commu11ications and public relations for the_s tate's largest school system.  FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 2012  3B Judge sides with state on school data : EVIE BLAD ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A federal judge refused Thursday to require the Arkansas Department of Education to provide some information requested by attorneys for the Little Rock School District to prepare for a hearing in the decades-long Pulaski County school-desegregation lawsuit. The Arkansas attorney general's office, the district and an intervening party representing black students in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts are preparing for a March hearing regarding the impact of charter schools on enforcement of a 1989 settlement agreement in the case. U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. said information that the state provided was adequate for the hearing, which was scheduled to determine if the issue merits consideration by the court. He said he may require the state to provide the requested information later if the issue goes to trial. \"While the data that has been provided is not perfect, it is substantial,\" Marshall said. \"I believe it is adequate for the parties to argue to the court on whether or not the matter should proceed.\" The state provided data showing numbers of students who transferred from Little Rock schools to charter schools in Pulaski County and what percentages of them were of certain races, and academic and income levels.  Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, said that information was sorted in a way that makes it difficult to track patterns involving race, academic achievement and poverty. The data lacked \"linking information\" that would allow researchers to identify one student by multiple characteristics. -\\. I More information Desegregatiofnil es arkansasonline.com/desegdocs/ Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson said providing that level of detail could put the state at risk of violating the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Such a violation could put millions of dollars of federal funding that the state receives annually in jeopardy, he said. \"As you increase the level of detail about students, you increase the likelihood of identifying those students,\" Richardson said. Heller said court precedent showed that such information could be provided under a court order without violating the privacy act. The district would be willing to sign a protection order, agreeing not to use the data to determine the names of individual students, he said. Marshall said the state was likely being \"overly cautious and hypersensitive\" about.providing the information, which does not include students' names or addresses. \"If we have this fight on the merits eventually, th.is may well come out another way,\" he said. The Little Rock district and the Joshua intervenors, repre-senting the black students in the desegregation case, contend that the state gave unconditional approval to the establishment of taxpayersupported, independently operated charter schools in Pulaski County without regard to the effect the charter schools wo'L)ld have on desegregation efforts in the three districts. They have argued that the charter schools - of which there are about a dozen in the county - draw students who would otherwise choose to attend magnet schools or participate in the majority- to-minority transfer program,. both of which are intended to promote racial desegregation. The district further argued that more affluent, higherachieving students move to charter schools, leaving the districts with greater concentrations of high-need students and fewer resources to serve them. Auditors again cite districtf or bank.lags CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKAN~ASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE Auditors cited the North Little Rock School District for failing for the fourth consecutive year to reconcile school district accounts and bank statements in a timely manner. However, the audit also noted that since the June 30 end of the audited fiscal year, school district officials are reconciling accounts as required. \"We recommend that the district take steps to resolve any reconciling differences and continue preparing future reconciliations in a timely manner,\" the.Hudson, Cisne \u0026amp; Co. audit said. ' The North Little Rock School Board on Thursday approved the district's 2010-11 audit. The district's failure in 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 to do regular bank reconciliations through01.1tth e year resulted in the 9,000-student district being classified by the state Board of E?ucation last May as \"fiscally distressed.\" School districts in the state's fiscal-distress. program must develop and carry out a stateapproved financial improvement plan, and they are subject to state supervision of all fman- ' cial practices, including district spending. Denise Drennan began woJk July 1 as the North Little Rock distric\nt's chief financial officer. At that point Drennan and her staff could not correct the earlier reporting on the bank statements. \"The [fiscal] year was already complete,\" Drennan said in an interview after the board vote Thursday. \"Even though we went back and looked at those statements for accuracy we still couldn't change the time that they were turned in. So we kne~ we \"':ere going to have an audit fmding for timely reconciliation of bank statements.\" Drennan said that while the auditors were preparing the 2010-11 audit in October and November, they could see c_hanges in the district's operations. 'We had already implemented a lot of new procedures,\" Drennan said. \"Our bank statements are being tu~ned in by the 10th of the month like they are supposed to be. They are accurate. The auditors could see tl\niose changes.\" In each of the first six months of the 2012 fiscal year the variance between bank and district accounts has remained at a constant $98,128.75. \"In our detail for the month we can get to zero, but we still have the $98,000 that carries forward:' Drennan said. She said she anticipates that the state Department of Education will eventually authorize correcting the district's financial records to elii\nninate the longstanding variance. Countys chool ~ct puts7 8 projectso n fix-upl ist EVIE BLAD ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE Leaders of the Pulaski County Special School District presented Thursday a list of an estimated $7 million in facilities projects designed to keep the district's buildings \"dry, safe and warm.\" The district will prioritize the 78 projects \"through the desegregation lens\" to en,sure it applies greater emphasis on Projects  Continued from Page 18 facilities in majority-black and poor areas, Chief Operating Officer Derek Scott said. Work on the six-year plan will start in the next few months, with about $2 million to $3 million of projects completed in the first year, he said. The list, which includes repairing roofs, adding security lighting and replacing heating systems, is dwarfed in comparison to a $104 million construction plan supported by ,former Superintendent Charles Hopson last year. That plan, which called for new construction, aggressive rehabilitation and consolidation of several campuses, was shelved indefinitely when the state took control of the fiscally distressed district in June, dissolving its board and removing Hopson, said state-appointed Superintendent Jerry Guess. The previous plan was \"not supported by the current financial situation of the district,\" he said. Exercising authority under school-finance laws, the state took control of the district after several audits turned up problems and after public infighting among School Board members. and achievement. But tixin_gfa cilities to the court's satisfaction will likely require additional funding through a voter-approved tax increase, he said. Arkansas Department of Education employees quickly discovered the district had spent nearly $7 million more than it took in the previotis year. That.led to cost-cutting and careful.spending, Guess said. \"What we're trying to do right now is take care of the buildings that we have,\" he said.' See PROJECTPSa,g e 68 At therneeting, Scott showed slides of deteriorating roofs, poorly draining sidewalks and crumbling metal exterior doors with holes that let sunlight peek into buildings. Rizelle Aaron, an officer in the Jacksonville chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, asked Scott how the funds would be targeted to \"predominantly minority areas.\" Federal judges in the decades- long Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit, which also involves the Little Rock and North Little Rock districts, have cited greater facilities spending in majority-white and afiluent parts of the county district when they refused to declare it unitary, or desegregated, in the area of.facilities. \"Given the state of the economy right now, I don't think we can get voters to approve that,\" Guess said. Scott said the list of projects would be fulfilled with schools in areas targeted in the desegregation rulings receiving top priority.  \"Right now, we're fiscally constrained,\" he said. ''But we're going to do what we can with what we have.\" State law requires school districts to file annual facilities plans with the Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation Division. Those plans must first be reviewed in public hearings, like the one held Thursday, and approved by the district's school board. Under state controL Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell will review the documents in place of a school board, Scott said. Teachers and parents attending Thursday's hearing listed additional facilities needs, citing warped and missing ceiling tiles, faulty heating systems and lack of exterior lights on some buildings. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis last month upheld a lower court's ruling that denied unitary status to the county district in nine areas, including facilities. Guess said Thursday that he believes the district can quickly remedy problems in other areas, such as student assignme!lt Replacing a 40-year-old roof at the Fuller Middle School main building will be the first project, he said Other projects include resolving drainage issues at several buildings, adding awnings, replacing sewer pipes in some facilities and remodeling bathrooms. The projects will be funded through the district's facilities fund, which has about $3 million, Scott said. Guess said the district has worked to trim el(:penses by. changing its fringe benefits plan, reworking its bell sch~dule for students and negotiating new contracts with some suppliers. - Districrt egistration set for new students ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE will register at the Pulaski New student registration County Special School Disfor the 2012-13 school year trict administration buildin the Pulaski County Spe- ing, 925 E. Dixon Road\nLittle cial School District is set for Rock. Monday through Feb. 3. Students who want to The registration period attend magnet schools or is for pre-kindergarten, kin- participate in other types dergarten and any other stu- of school-choice progr\nims, dents who will be first-time inclu.ding the majority-tostudents in the Pulaski Coun- minority interdistrict stuty Special district, which en- dent transfer program or an compasses Maumelle, Sher- academic specialty program, wot\u0026gt;d, Jacksonville, parts of also must sign up at the diswest Little Rock and w'est trict's administration buildPulaski County, and south- ing. Permission to participate east Pulaski County. in school-choice programs is To aid parents in making granted on a first-come, firstdecisions about schools for served basis. their children, the district is To register a student, hosting an open house at all parents or guardians need schools in the district from to present identification for 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Thursday. the child, such as a birth cerParents may use that time to tificate or a registrar statetour schools and meet school ment, baptismal certificate, personnel. passport, affidavit or military Locations for registration identification. vary according to the stu- Also necessary are the  dentt's grade level and other child's previous school re-acp o rs.i ,\n\"d t' kinde cor d s, rm muruz atlo n recor d s, re-NM' erg~.r\ne n, _,\n-::a. transcript or last report garten and elementary pupils    are supposed to register at card, and Social Se':ur~ty the schools they will attend. ~a.rd. H~wever, the d1st~1ct Registration for mic!dle will assign an alternative and high school students will number to any student whose be held at regional registra- paren_ts choos~ not to reveal tion hubs as follows a Soc1al,Secunty number.  Students who will attend Address verification also Jacksonville and Sherwood is necessary in the form of area middle and high schools a curre~t utility bill, a Little will register at Sylvan Hills Rock Air Force Base housMiddle School,.10001 John- ing verific\nation form, homeson St., Sherwood. purchase closing papers or  Students who will attend home lease agreements. Robinson ar{d Maumelle area More information about middle and high schools will Pulaski County Special register at Maumelle High School District schools and School, lOQ Victory Lane, the registration procedures Maumelle. is available by calling the  S'tudents who will aftend district's Office of Equity Fuller Middle School and and Pupil Services at (501) Mills University High School 234-2020. Open~ nrollment 1begins Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEPHEBN. THORNTON Victoria Williams, 3, plays as her mother, Jessica Williams, signs her up for the Little Rock School District's 4-year-old program Monday at St. Mark Baptist Church, 5722 W. 12th St. Enrollment shifts next Monday to the Student Registration Office at 501 Sherman St. Registration under way for NLRschools ARKANSASD EMOCRATGAZETI\"E Registration is under way for students who will be new to the North Little Rock School District in the 2012-13 school year. To register children in the North Little Rock district, parents must present proof of residence at their neighborhood school. Additionally, parents of North Little Rock students who want to attend specialprogram magnet schools in Little Rock School District must apply by Feb. 3 at the North Little Rock School District's administration building, 2700 N. Poplar St. Students who live in the Pulaski County Special School District but want to enroll in the North Little Rock School District through the majority-to-minority interdistrict school-transfer program should complete an application at the administration building in the district in which they reside. The majority-to-minority transfer program allows students who live in a Pulaski County district in which their race is predominant to transfer to a district where their race is in the minority. Students who live outside the district but want to attend North Little Rock schbols through school-choice programs other than the majority- to-minority program must register at the North Little Rock district's administration building. Children who will be 5 on or before Aug. 1 this year are eligible to attend kindergarten for the 2012-13 school year.  2B  WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012  Sclioorle gistratioin NLR.  ! ' , I  Arkansas Democr\nit-Ga,z~tte/RICK McFARLAND The North Little Rock School District's director of student affairs, Fran Jackson (right), display~ a map while helping Matf.a~d Jennifer Reed register their son, Jack, 4, for kindergarten as his sister Georgia, 2, sits patiently. Registration in the district runs through Feb.-3. Educationno tebook CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Reimbursements soughitn lawsuit The Little Rock School District and black students known as the Joshua intervenors are seeking reimbursement for legal fees and costs in their successful challenge last year of a court order that would have ended most state desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County school districts. The Little Rock district filed a petition in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Louis seeking nearly $95,000 from the state, Chris Heller, an attorney for the district, notified the Little Rock School Board late last week. The state had defended U.S. District Judge Brian Miller's May 2011 order to immediately end most of the $70 million a year in state desegregation aid to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court on Dec. 28 negated Miller's order, saying that if the state wished to obtain relief from its funding obligations there had to be an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Heller and Clay Fendley, who represented the district on the appeal, routinely discount their hourly fees for their work for the district. But they petitioned the 8th Circuit for their standard rates of $300 and $160 an hour. 'The rates charged to LRSD for th~ appeal were $200 and $120, respectively,\" Heller told the board. \"Clay and I have agreed, however, that all fees awarded by the Eighth Circuit should go to LRSD and not to compensate us for the difference between our regular rates and our discmunted rates.\" Heller said attorneys for the Joshua intervenors, who successfully defended Miller's ruling that the Pulaski County Special School District had failed to comply with its desegregation plan, have petitioned the court for more than $366,000 in fees and costs. Reporitn cludes data on absences Morris Holmes, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, ha~ begun regularly updating the School Board on the progress the district is making toward meeting its goals of raisipg student achievement. The resulting quarterly report is a big one, 348 pages, chock-full of2010 and 2011 data - including teacher absenteeism and stu~ent absences and tardies - information that previously hasn't always been as timely or easy to put a finger on. There were 6,046 schoolbased certified-employee absences for illness in th.e second quarter this year that ended in December. That was 265 more days than the 5,781a bsences f?r illness in the second quarter m the 2010-11s chool year. A total of 711.5 personal leave days were taken by teachers and principals in the second quarter of this school year. That's up from the 603.5 personal leave days taken in the same time period last year. The number of absences for professional leave dec~d from 2,053 in the second quarter in the previous school year as compared with 1,460.5 in the second quarter that just ended. As for the district's 25,027 students, an average of 1,256 students were absent ~ach day in the second nine-week quarter of the school year. In that same period, there were 12,497 students who were tardy to school a total of36,358 times. The quarterly report also includ\\!S grade-by-grade and school-by-school test results, as well as numbers of students in gifted education, special education and English-languagelearning programs. Data on student enrollment in foreign language, art and Advanced Placement courses is included, as are data on how many students qualify for subsidized school meals and how many 1 students were disciplined so far this year as compared with 1,.,.,... Theaa nnounces scholarshwipi ns The Thea Foundation of North Little Rock has announced the winners of its 2012 Performing Arts Scholarship Competition in which 77 high school seniors competed Jan. 7 for scholarships. John Hatfield ofRussellville High School won first place and a scholarship of $4,000. Mary-Katelin Ward, North Little Rock High School, won second place and a $3,500 scholarship. Stacy Hawking, North Little Rock High School, received third-place honors and a $3,000 scholarship. Sara Williams, a homeschooled student from Roland, won fourth place and a $2,500 award. Meredith Short, North Little Rock High School, placed fifth\nDominic Smith of Rogers Heritage High was sixth\nElizabeth Wheeler, a home-schooled student from Alexander was seventh\nWalter Dodd, Little Rock Parkview Magnet High\nwas eighth\nDylan Worth, Cabot High, was ninth\nand Ashley Tramel, Russellville High, was 10th. Each of the fiftb-throughlOth- place winners received $2,000 awards. Hono~able mention awards went to Robert Brave, Little Rock Central High\nChacall Charles, Little Rock Central High\nGrace Dyer, Rogers High\nTaylor Jacob, Joe T. Robinson High\nJenna O'Dell, Farmington High\nand Michael Roberson, Little Rock Catholic High School for Boys. District piles up fiscal distress Statef urtherc itesc ountys chools . CY:}!\"THIA,}J:QWELL i_r~figul_ari5\\u~~.s,.~ _oy~redb y 'ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE stl#tanq private aui:hts. The Arkaqsas P!'!par.t- The district, which has al-ment of Education is recom- ready lpst its locally elected mending that the Pulaski School Board and its boardCounty Special School Dis- hired superintendent, is in trict be classified as fiscally jeopardy of being merged .distressed because of a $5.5 with one or more other million drop in the. district's school systems if it cannot financial reserves between fix its financial problems. the beginning and end of the Bill Goff, the Pulaski 2010-ll school year. County Special district's The agency recomrnenda- chief financial officer, said tion to the Arkansas Board of the district will very likely Education is unprecedented  have to cut at least $7 million because the school system in 17penses for the coming is already in the state's fiscal 2012-13 school year. distress program and actu- He characterized the ally under state control. The state's latest recommendastate classified the district as tion as a call for the district fiscally distressed in March to add to a plan it prepared 2011 for a different reason last year in response to its - financial management See PCSSDP,a ge 3A PCSSD al times that were last used throughout the district in 2009-10. That change would  Continued from Page 1A save about $500,000, offiinitial placement in the state's cials estimate. A new schoolfiscal distress program. bell schedule would require \"We will have to revise our fewer bus routes and buses financ::ial imprqvemen't plan as well.a.sfewer.payments to to ~l)_()w,.tiowwew ill:remedy employees for before- and our de.dining balances\n\"' said after-school supervision qf Goff. sjf1ents.-'  ..     Thit is necessary, he said, . Additionally, the 'district to build.up 'the district's year- has restructured its employend b~Iahies while accom- ee fringe benefit package in a modating some new but nee- way that will save the district essary costs such as replacing money, Go.ess ~aid'. buses.  And district administrators The state Education Board and leaders of th'e teachers is to act on the department's and support ~ervice employee latest recommendation for unions haye agreed to no genfiscal distress at its meeting eral raises for this school year, at 9 a.m. Monday. although eligible employees .Jerry Guess, the district's are rec::eiving a step inerease state-appointed superinten- fortheir additionalyear of _dent, notified the Education  work experience. . .  Department that the state's -- Gue.ss s'aid the dis,trict is third-largest_ district ~on't pi~mii,n'g. touse rdoney in oppose the state's rriove to, its building fun:d toCrehcivate expand the list of problems about a dozen schools:  ithl disfrict must correct. He  :''[n cl:oing Hiat work, we will\nchowever, attend'Mon- believe'thatwill increase ef-  d.a . _ r,,\nIsw.e. .i_llb~tein e~r.. ed.p.'..,'.L.: a,.rt.'a..:.t-..f,.,.e.i\nd ency .iri some of those \" rn , l:iJ~gs arid:th\n:i.i:wilSl !Vues meeting to address the' state  costs,\" he said: \"We are hopBoard with a statement of ing that by doing those renowhat has been done, as well as vation projects we will entice my proposal for future action, the community to continue to to remove PCSSD from its attend our schools and perfiscal distress status,\" Guess haps return' some kids who wrote last week to Kathleen are not in our schools back Crain, interim assistantcom- to our schools.\" missioner for fiscal and ad- The district .would likely ministrative services at the receive an increase in state Education Department. aid for any growth in s~dent \"We are looking at a lot enrollment.  of things for the new year,\" Enrollment is 17,637 this Guess said in an interview year, a 136-student inqease Monday about possible cost- over the previous year. Over saving measures. the long term the district's Those measures include enrollment has decreased, the possibility of returning to falling from 21,871 in 1988-89 school opening and dismiss- to 18,710 in 2000-01. Guess also welcomed what could be a warmer-than-average winter this year as away to save tens of thousands of dollars in utility costs. \"We need some things to break our way,\" he said. Guess said he and Goff are continuing this week to consider other options. \"We are spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to approach these issues in the most reasonable and equitable way possible.\" Adding to the reasons why the Pulaski County Special district is in fiscal distress won't buy the district any more time to correct its financial deficiencies, Seth Blomeley, a spokesman for the Education Department, said Monday. The district now has a little more than a year left to comply with what will be its revised financial improvement plan. The district's revised plan will be subject to state approval. A district in the state's fiscal distress program, by Jaw, has no more than two years to correct its financial problems. The state board must consolidate, annex or reconstitute any school district that fails to remove itself from the fiscal distress classification within the two-year window, uniess the state board finds that there are extenuating circumstances at play beyond the control of the school districts. The Education Department can take over a fiscally distressed district at any time before the two years expires if the agency staff determines that the district is not making TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2012  3A satisfactory progress. ders in excess of the district's ' Indeed, the department policy of $1,000 per vendor  took over the county district per month. last June, dismissing Charles At the time, state officials Hopson, who had been su- thought the district had suffiperintendent for just about cient reserve funds. But after a year, and dissolving the the state took over the district seven-member school board. last June, state officials deterGuess was appointed super- mined that the district had intendent by Arkansas Edu- drawn from its reserves. cation Commissioner Tom Goff said Monday .that Kimbrell. Kimbrell serves as the district's legal balances the district's school board. dropped from $9.5 million to Last month, Kimbrell called $4 million by the end of last on state lawmakers to amend year. Legal balances are those the state's fiscal distr.ess law to that the district has discretion aliow tb~--statetc' i hold on to on ho:w to\"s pend and are not contro'I.ofajo~~~cooldistrict earmarked for specific purfor ..u p:tq fj.\\r(!y e:s. Kimbrell poses. s~ld tw9\n.years is not always The district is benefiting enough.time for a community this school year from a oneto:- be re1dy to choose school time, $15.4 million windfall boarcL~e.mb~rs who can man-. in operating funds, which is age dismctfmances: and select the result of a change in.state a cap~ble sperinte~qent.  . law on the ~ccounting for lo- Th~\nJtuli\\ski Goiin\n-t~yp e- cal property'tax revem.ie,to dal qidtrictJ i.its'p l'ii.c\n'_eind the district. . fiscahdistress-fn 2011. after As a resuit of that ~barige, State'f)iv.i~ion ofLegisiative Arkansas s~hool districts no Audit:w.vi'stigationsihito the 101:ger defer tax revenue redistricfcjtedinternal control ce1ved befor~ June 30 to the d~fici('iri:ci1'etlh a:leta to'::rru.ir, ' next school year. . a~pr~:bt-i~fion' of.:'iqre tli'~n: \\\u0026gt; 9o_ff hafsaid that the. a,c$ 400,000'in cine department,, com:itmg change g~ve t~e ~uexcess pay to a former SU- laski ~ounty Special d1stnct perintendent, and unallowed more time to get current-year expense reimbursements to reve~ue an~ current year exadministrators and School pend1tures m sync. Board mernl:iers. State aiidi-tors also found failure in the district to follow purchasing policies and poor oversight of overtime compensation: Additionally, private auditors cited the district in fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for failing to put controls in place for reconciling bank statements in a timely manner, failing to document funding sources for employee pay, and issuing blanket purchase or- Countys choold istrictt o cut 77 jobs ' .  CYNTHIA HOWELL ' ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETrE ' The Pulaski County Special School District will reduce its staff by 77 positions through attrition and layoffs, and it will seek concessions in benefits and working conditions from employee unions in an effort to cut a total of $13 million for the 2012-13s chool year. Superintendent Jerry Guess and Bill Goff, the chief financial officer in the 17,000- student district, announced  the budget-cutting plans at an Arkansas Board of Education meeting Monday in which thestate board added declining year-end balances to the reasons why the district is classified as fiscally distressed. As part 9f the fiscal distress  program\n, th(! district's expenditures'are subject to state Department of Education approval. The district has the remainder of this year and tpe coming school year to right its financial problems or the state board must take action, such as merging the district with one or more other districts. ' The state board initially classified the district as fiscally distressed in March 2011 because of financial mismanagement of pubHc funds uncovered by state and private audits. After the state Department of Eduqation took control pf the district last June by dissolving the School Board and See PCSSDP, age6 A Pesso  Continued from Page 1 A dismissing the board-hired superintendent, officials determined  that the district's legal balances in 2010-11 had dropped from $9.5 million to $4 million by the end of the year. Legal balances are funds that a district generally has discretion on how to spend, and are not earmarked for specific purposes. Guess told the board the district has identified more than $6 million in cuts but needs to reduce $7 million in employee benefits that are in excess of those required by the state to take effect iri 2012-13. Most employees in the district are represented by either the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers or the Pulaski Association of Support Staff. Guess told the Education Board he would notify the unions today that the district will request reopening negotiations on those contracts. \"Our goal is to first convince the union that the situation ... is critieal and it does exist and that it will be fatal to the continued existence of the district if those conditions are not corrected,\" said Guess, who was appointed in late June to head the district by state Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell. Kimbrell serves in the role as the district's School Board. \"I do not want to approach these negotiations with an attitude of not succeeding or in a threatening posture,\" Guess said. But he also said: \"What I will do if we do not succeed, suffice it to say that I do have a plan for unilateral implementation of the district's last, best and final offer to the unions during these negotiations.\" Pressed by state board members to elaborate, Guess only said he was committed to reaching an agreement and to having a productive 2012-13 school year for students. Goff told the board that without budget cuts, the district - which has a $170 million budget and more than 2,800 employees - would exceed revenue by $13,633,277 in th~ coming school year. The district has identified $6,667,680 in reductions, including the elimination of 77 positions through retirements and resignations or, if necessary, a reduction-in-force to save a projected $3.85pilllion. Those would includ~ teaching, administrative ahd support staff positions. Another $775,328 will be saved by not filling positions already vacant. To offset eliminated jobs, the district would fill classes to the maximum number of students permitted by state standards. Other identified cuts include a $1.5 million change , in the employee's insurance i\n,p.ckage, as well I\\S a new copier machine contract, and a change in the opening and dismissal times for schools. Goff has identified $14.85 million in benefits that are not required by the state and could be cut from the contract with the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. Another $1.4 million in benefits also could be cut from the district's contract with the, Pulaski Association of Sup-i port Staff, he said. ( Provisions in the emploriee contracts that could be cut include reducing the teacher work year from 192 to 190 days at a savings of $795,000, restricting the payment of teachers for noninstructional duties such as bus and recess duty at a savings of $642,752, and discontinuing the salary credits to teachers for professional groyVth classes given in the district, a savings of $2.8 million. . Other contracted benefits subject to cuts include $669,678 in \"severance\" pay to teachers who retire, $135,032 in stipends'to 37 teachers who earned-certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and $996,137 in longevity pay to 556 teachers and administrators who have reached the top of the salary s.chedule. The district would save nearly $3 million by contributing only the state-required $131 per month to employee health insurance versus $272.80 per month now paid to 1,747 covered employees. Another $1.4 million could b~ !ealized by cutting dental, v1s1on and disability insurance. Additional benefits now provided in the teachers' contract that are subject to possible cuts dea,1w ith leave time in excess of one sick day for each month of employment. The current leave policies cost the district about $2 million a year in substitute teacher pay. Goff tpld the board that the $7 million in cuts to employee costs are needed to compensate so~e antic~pated increases, mcluding $1.4 million in experience step increases to employees for next year a $2.8 million bus replacenie'.nt  program, a $500,000 increase in workers' compensa:ti,\nm insurance, a $588,000 transfer of funds to the food service program, and a 1 percent fucrease of $1.7 million to the legal balance fund to protect the district in case of emer-  genci~s. Education Board member .~rend_a Gullett of Fayetteville questioned why Guess and the Education Department had to adhere to the employee contracts since the state takeover. \"Why do you have to negotiate with anyone?\" she asked. \"It would be in the best interest of the district to come to an agreement and work together,\" Kimbrell said. \"This pathway is in the best interest of the kids and the school . district.\" Curtaicl harters, LR schoolsu rge District tells U.S. court that state vi9lateds ettlementm, akei t pay CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The state should be stopped from opening or expanding charter schools and forced to pay Pulaski Coun- . ty's three school districts for di~trict students who moved to the independently run charter schools, attorneys for the Little Rock School District and black students known as the Joshua intervenors said Tuesday. In a motion submitted to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr., the attorneys argued that the state - including the Arkansas Department of Education and the state Board of Education - have violated in multiple'ways a 1989 settlement agreement in the long-running Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit. , Chris Heller and Clay Fendley, attorneys for the Little Rock district and Rep. John Walker and Robert Pressman for the Joshua intervenors contend that the violations include state retaliation against the three Pulaski County districts because of the settlement. Those retaliatory acts inSee CHARTERPSa,g e 7A Charters  Continued from Page 1 A elude limiting payments for school bus transportation in the districts, subjecting the three districts.to special fmancial audits and failing to reimburse the Little Rock district for legal fees incurred in the district's successful attainment of unitary status in 2007. \"The State's admissions and other undisputed evidence show significant and continuing State violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement,\" the attorneys wrote. \"None of the facts necessary for the Court to rule in fa\\! Or of LRSD and Joshua are in dispute. LRSD should be granted summary judgment,\" the attorneys said in the filing that totaled more than 1,000 pages, including depositions and reports. Summary judgment is a court order in which a judge decides that there are no disagreements about the facts in a case and that a judge can make a decision without a trial or court hearing. Tuesday's motion comes in the aftermath of the Little Rock School District's May 2010 motion to enforce the settlement agreement in regard to the state-approved establishment of independently run charter schools\"in Pulaski County. The district has argued that the charter scho9ls - of which there are 12 - were approved witho'ut considering the ef fect the schools would have on,magnet schools and the majority-to-minority student transfer program in the three districts.  Those interdistrict student transfer programs are part of the 1989 settlement agreement and are an effort to promote racial desegregation in the three districts.  Attorneys said in Tuesday's filings that 331 Little Rock students moved directly froln magnet schools td, char- More information Schoodl istricttsa keovear nd desegregation arkansasonline.com/dese' gdoc/ ter schools between 2005-06 and 2010-ll, and 20 more Little Rock district students moved from the majority-to-minority student transfer program to charter schools. In August, Marshall directed the district and the Joshua intervenors - who contend that the state failed to meet its obligations to work to improve the achievement of black students in the three districts - to file a joint statement of facts in the case this month. The state, repr:esented by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's office, and the Pulaski County open-enrollment charter schools, have been directed by the court to file their own statement of facts by March 12. Marshall has set a March 29 hearing to decide what steps to take next. Representatives of the attorney general's office and the charter school intervenors said late Tuesday that they had just received the motion for summary judgment and accompanying documents and had not had time to review them. \"I will ... respond in court according to the time frame established. by Judge Marshall,'' said Jess Askew III, an attorney for the charter schools. The Little Rock district and Joshua intervenors told Marshall that state officials had approved charter schools without court approval\nhad failed to identify or develop programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students\nand had \"abandoned\" its responsibility to monitor desegregation and remedia-tion efforts in the district. The attorneys wrote that state officials limited the amount of ai:'d for state school-bus tr'ansportation to the three school districts in - such a way that the districts are reimbursed at a lesser percentage than the state average, a violation of the settlement agreement. They also said that the attorney general and \"other state actors\" including University of Arkansas departments in Fayetteville and \"private persons and entities have engaged in an orchestrated public relations campaign designed to discredit desegregation efforts in Pulaski County generally and LRSD specifically that has created something lik~ the 'hysterical political atmosphere' surrounding desegregation reminiscent of the 1960s.\" The 1960s reference is from a 1985 court decision in the case. The attorneys asked that the state Board of Education be enjoined from approving any new open-enrollment charter schools or increasing the size of the schools unless court approval is granted to do so. The state also should be directed to retroactively pay the three Pulaski Coupty school districts the .state aid the districts would have re-ceived had charter school students participated in the majority-to-minority student transfer program, the attor-neys said.  Additionally, they said, the Arl\u0026lt;aJ1saDs epartment of Education should be directed to identify programs, policies or procedures designed to remediate the racial achievement disparity that exists between black and white students in Pulaski County district schools. The state agency should further be directed to develop a .revised plan for monitoring the remediation of that disparity, the. attorneys said. The attorneys also asked that the state be prevented from enforc\ning a state law that authorized.\"forensic\" audits of the three districts and that the state be precluded from consolidating, annexing or reconstituting the three Pulaski County districts unless authorized by the federal court. The potential for such consolidation exists because both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special districts have been placed in the state's fiscal distress program and must correct financial problems identified by the state within l years or forced by the state to merge with one or more other districts. Lawmakersu rgep ush to end desegregatiocna se ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE I Two state lawmakers have proposed a resolution for the Arkansas House of Representatives and Arkansas Senate to offer their \"full support\" for ~he governor and attorney general to take \"every lawful and responsible action\" within their authority to seek and litigate for a court order bringing an immediate end to the Pulaski County school desegregation case and the settlement agreement involving the state. State Sen. Gilbert Baker, RConway, and Rep. Tim Summers, R-Bentonville, filed a resolution for the Legislature to consider in the fiscal session. Since the 1988-89 school year, the state has paid more than $1 billion in total and about $70 million a year in desegregarion funding to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, according to the resolution. Baker said he proposed it to show that Gov. Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel \"have the support of the Legislature behind , them as they move forward\" trying to settle the case. \"There is a pretty strong view across Arkansas that it is time to deal with that case,\" Baker said. As a result of the order from a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis, desegregation efforts by the Pulaski County Special district will continue to be monitored by the federal courts for the foreseeable future.  The Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been released from court supervision in the 29-year-old lawsuit. All three districts, however, remain parties in the lawsuit and receive about $70 million a year in state desegregation aid that other districts in the state do not get. ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZE'ITE a-periocdl assd ay focuso fs essions The Little Rock School District is hosting a series of informational meetings this month for parents of upper-elementary and middle-school pupils regarding a proposal to establish an eight-period class day in the district's seven middle schools. The change would begin in the 2012-13s chool year. Most of the middle schools currently operate on a college- style block schedule in which students alternate between four 90-minute classes one day and four 90-minute classes in other subjects the next day. The revised schedule would be made up of eight 44-minute classes every day. The district has arranged the schedule so that district officials can meet with parents from up to two schools at a time. On Monday, a session will be held at Forest Heights Middle School for parents of pupils who attend or will attend Forest Heights or Pulaski Heights middle schools. The session will be from 5:30 to7 p.m. A second session is planned for 5:30 to 7 p.m. Tuesday at Dunbar Middle School for the parents of current or future pupils at Dunbar and Horace Mann Magnet middle schools. A final session is planned from 5:15 to 6:45 p.m. Feb. 27 at Henderson Middle School for the parents of current and future Henderson pupils. Current middle-school parents and parents of children in third, fourth and fifth grades are encouraged to attend the meeting at their closest neighborhood school. School Board members will attend the sessions. A session was held Thursday for parents of Cloverdale and Mabelvale middle-school pupils. Educationno tebook Thea competition winnerrse vealed The Thea Foundation has announced the winners of its 2012 Visual Arts Scholarship Competition for high school seniors and its Visual Arts Competition for high school juniors. to Anna Britton, Harding Academy\nAmber Ivey, Cabot High\nMykel Rodriguez, Conway High\nAshley Swindle, Jonesboro High\nMadison Teague, Harding Academy\nHeather Watson, Jacksonville High\nand Kathryn Wells, Bauxite High. The junior winners each received $100. They were: Jacob Schlag, North Little Rock High\nand Ashley Trieschmann, Hot Springs High. The artwork of the winning students will be on display in the Thea Foundation gallery through March 23 at 401 Main St. in North Little Rock. A total of 160 high school seniors competed for a combined total of $25,000 in scholarships. A total of 64 high school juniors competed for a total of $1,000 in cash prizes. The artworks of any medium were based on the theme, \"Happy Remembrances of the Holiday Season,\" taken from Thea Kay Leopoulos' journal entry titled \"Christmas.\" The winning seniors were Tulsi Patel, Morrilton High, first place, $4,000\nValeria Chavez, El Dorado High, second place, $3,500\nMichaela Osborne, Bentonville High, third place, $3,000\nDerek Schultz, North Little Rock High, fourth place, $2,500\nAustin Benson, Morrilton High, fifth place, $2,000\nKatie Connelly, El Dorado High, sixth place, $2,000\nCole Harken, Morrilton High, seventh place, $2,000\nDarren Waddles, Mountain View High, eighth place, $2,000\nHaley Martin, Lake Hamilton High, ninth place, $2,000\nEun Ha, Little Rock Central High, 10th place, $2,000. t:Honorable mentid'\\s went Districtosf fered Emmanuelle Esters, North transitioninhge lp Little Rock High, first place\nJamie Freeman, Cabot High, The Arkansas Public second place\nChris Graham, School Resource Center is ofBen ton High, third place\nfering its member school disSergio Garcia, North Little tricts assistance in transitionRock High, fourth place\ning from Arkansas education Rebecca Richmond, North standards to the new 1ComLittle Rock High, fifth place\nmon Core State Standards in Holly Roomsburg, El Dorado math and English/language High, sixth place\nMacKenzie arts. Thompson, Little Rock Cen- The pilot initiative, Achievtral High, seventh place\nAn- ing by Changing, is funded gela Eichhorn, Harding Acad- with a grant from the Wale my, eighth place\nMorgan ton Family Foundation and Thompson, Paris High, ninth through fees paid bv the 26 place\nand Rebekah Cooley, schools that were selected to Paris High, 10th place. try the program. Additional Honorable mentions went schools will be added in the t~ Mic_helle ~allantine, F_lip- fall for the program, which is pm ~1gh\n:r1ffa1\n1yC ollm~, designed to provide teachers Sheridan High\nDianna Godi- , with research-based stratenez, North Little Rock Higi_: I gies for teaching from the new and more rigorous standards. The Achieving by Changing program is being carried out through the use of regional hubs. Each hub is matched with an Achieving by Changing coach who will teach the strategies, provide on-site support and monitor each school's progress. Keepingey eso nt he ball ,_,,\n.~~~,/i!\u0026gt;~~r .- ~\n,..,.,,.,\n1,\n,,.,. . ' \nA...,\ns~sOem~rat-07G,\nj\nAigiGK'.r.,cF.A:Al!ANO w,~~~-~\"\"-:\n-.r~\n. ,,, ... 1  t!\n:-1  ~.......... - _ .~ Geese' Ausl?je\nthe Harlem Globetrotters star, shows o~ his skills Wednesday for fifth-graders, including Syqney Kellam (l~ft) and Audrey Hall, at Williams Magnet Elementary in Little Rock. Talksb etweend_i strictu, nionss hort,n ot so sweet CYNTHIA HOWELL  ARKANSDAESM OCRAT-GAZETTE Contract negotiations between leaders of the Pulaski County Special School District and its two employee unions ended Wednesday almost as soon as they began, leaving unanswered the question of how the district will cut $13.6 million from its 2012-13b udget. the Pulaski Association of employee salaries and insurClassroom Teachers, said the ance benefits for next year district's contract negotiating before discussing potential team \"walke'd out\" of the con- budget cuts. district since July, declined could resume,although nothWednesday to talk specifi- ing is scheduled. cally about the.brief negotia- \"I don't know what is gotions session, citing terms in,_ ing to happen next,\" Guess the district's contract with said. 'Tm trying to act very teachers prohibiting the dis- responsibly and very carecussion with media_ of con- ftilly to make sure that whattract proposals or the status ever steps we take next. are of bargaining before an,im- defensible, appropriate and tract talks within a half-hour \"We gave a proposal that of their start. addresses the budget by not The district's team left, Nix increasing it\n'' Nix said. \"Jney said, after she and representa- refused to sign it unless we tives of the Pulas_ki Associa- 1 agreed to open the entire tion of Support Staff repeated contract. That's not going to the assertions that they made happen.\" passe is declared. made with integrity.\" Guess said neither side de- Guess and Bill Goff, chief Marty Nix, president of in earlier letters that agree- Jerry Guess, superintenments had to be reached on dent 'of the 17,000-student dared an impasse Wednes- financial officei: in the district day, meaning the negotiatioru\nSee TALKSP,a ge 9A Talks  Continued from Page 1 A - which is operating under state control and without an elected school board - told the Arkansas Board of Education on Feb.13 that the district needed to cut $13.6 million in the coming year to balance the district's $170 million budget. The district leaders told the Education Board that they had already identified about $6.6 million in cuts, including the elimination of some 77 jobs through attrition or layoffs, but needed contract concessions from employee groups to save another $7 million. \u0026lt;\noff said there is about $14 million in benefits and costs in the teachers' contract and abo4t $1.4 million in the sup-port staff contract in excess of what is ,,, required by state law for school district employees. Some of those additional benefits include a 192- Goff day work year for teachers as opposed to 190 days required by law, pay for lunch and bus duty, and a $272.80 monthly contribution per employee for health insurance as compared with the $131 required by law. Guess told state officials that failure to convince the unions of the district's financial problems and to resolve the problems would be \"fatal\" to the district's continued existence. He also said he had a plan for \"unilateral implementation of the district's last, best and final offer to the union\" that he was prepared to carry out if the negotiations are not successful. The employee associations Wednesday proposed to the district's negotiating team :, that there be no acrossthe- board pay raises and no increase in employee health insurance payments for the . coming school Nix year, Nix said. The district's team refused to accept that proposal without an agreement from the employees to reopen their entire contracts that are otherwise due to expire in 2015. The employee groups refused to reopen the entire agreements. \"We'll address a lot of the budget concerns, but we are not going to agree to open the contract to do it,\" Nix said, adding that most of the terms in the 172-page teacher contract don't deal with monetary issues. \"I've said it everywhere: We will address their budget concerns once [a revised] contract is implemented,\" Nix said. Any employee concessions or exceptions to the terms of the contract produced in the budget talks could be enacted through a signed \"memorandum of understanding\" between the employee groups and the district, she said. Such memoranda have been used routinely, she said, the most recent one dealing with a change for next year in class scheduling at some of the secondary schools. Guess said he has told the union leaders that \"We have to be able to discuss all of the negotiated agreement.\" That's necessary, he said, if the district is to ensure that students are well-served academically next year and if the budget changes are going to be softened for as many employees as possible. Nix and Emry Chesterfield, president of the Pulaski As_sociation of Support Staff, said Wednesday afternoon that they were uncertain what would happen next but that their organizations were willing to continue talks with the district leaders. ''.Anytime, anyplace,\" Chesterfield said. He said the district's use of two outside attorneys and a c!onsultant on its negotiating team at a time when the district is in financial trouble was objectionable. The attorneys earn $175 to $20d an hour. Guess responded in a separate interview, \"My imperative is to do this well. I want all of the advice I can get. \"I think this is a very, very complicated process, and I think experienced people should be consulted to be sure that the course we pursue is the right course and pursued the right way.\" Attorneys Allan Roberts qf Camden,the district's chief negptiator, and Jay Bequette of the Bequette \u0026amp; Billingsley law firm in Little Rock, participated in Wednesday's negotiations .. Don Stewart, a former assistant superintendenffor business in the district, was the consultant. He has been assisting the district with financial matters since shortly after the state Department of Education took o.ver the Pulaski County Special district in June because of financial mismanagement issues. The state takeover occurred after the state Education Board classified the district as being in fiscal distress in March 2011. As a result, the district has up to two years to correct the financial issues, which include mismanagement and spending more than it is receiving, before the state board is compelled to take action against it. That could be mej-ging the di_stricJt o_p ne or more other school districts. Besides Stewart and the attorneys, others on the district's negotiating team are: Guess\nGoff\nPaul Brewer, chi~f executive officer/executive director of human resources\nand Linda Remele, deputy superintendent ()f elementary education/chief academic officer. Representatives for the employees include Nix\nChesterfield\nSandra Roy, executive director for both unions\nand chief nego'tii!tors .Deen . Minton for the teachers and Don Clevenger for the sup~ port staff. Letters exchanged between the district and associations set the stage for the dispute Wednesday. The teacher association sent letters last week that proposed Wednesday's meeting, citing Article XVII of the teachers' contract that says the district and teachers agree to annually open negotiations on the salary and insurance provisions. Guess responded with a letter giving the association notice that the district was seeking modification to the  entire conGuess tract under the modification provision, Article I, Section 5. \"The administration  proposes modification of the entire agreement in order to comply with the Arkansas Department of Education fiscal distress 'removal mandate,\" Guess wrote. \"That mandate is that the district negotiate ~Ith PACT changes ln the certified employee compensation package1 set forth in the PACT agree~ ment that will result in substantial economic savings.''. Guess acknowledged in his letter that the contract negotiations \"are going to be regressive.\" - . . The -union -leader,s. wrote Guess,fate Wednesday__: after the meeting - stating that they were \"extremely disappointed\" with the district team leaving the talks.  \"Your chief negotiator gave us a 'take it or leave it' ultimatum. Dr. Guess, we will not be bullied in this process,\" Nix and Chesterfield wrote. The two said the district's refusal to accept union offers that deal with the highest cost items in any district budget in the midst of a budget crisis are \"unconscionable.\" The district has about 2,800 employees. 2 schoolu nions declareim passe in contractta lks PulaskiC ountyd istrict'iss sues now on mediationfa st track CYNTI:!IA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The teacher and support staff unions in the Pulaski County Special School District declared an impasse Friday in the 2012-13c ontract negotiations with district officials. The unions have scheduled federal and state mediators to work with bargaining teams on Tuesday. The declaration of an impasse is the latest development in efforts by the state's third-largest district ofl7,000 students to cut $13.6 million in expenses from its 2012-13 budget. District leaders have said they need employee concessions to balance the budget of about $170 million. Union leaders have said they want to lock in salary and insurance terms for next year at this year's rates before working with district officials on any additional budget matters. \"We believe that media-tion is the most expeditious way to resolve the issues before us,\" Marty Nix, president of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, and Emry Chesterfield, president of the Pulaski Association of Support Staff, wrote Friday to school district Superintendent Jerry Guess in a letter declaring the impasse in contract talks. Guess quickly responded with his own letter: \"I welcome your decision, and we will be agreeable to return to the table.\" . However, Guess added that the district's negotiating team was not consulted about mediation or the date. \"I am unable to confirm all team members for Tuesday and would agree to a meeting on Thursday,\" the superintendent wrote. In the third letter of the day, Nix and Chesterfield held fast to the Tuesday date. \"We understand if all of See PCSSDP,a ge3 A PCSSD  Continued from Page 1 A your team is not able to attend. As you know we have met with you in negotiations when not all of our team was in attendance,\" Nix and Chesterfield wrote. \"The urgency of resolving our differences is of paramount importance\ntherefore we look forward to seeing you on February 28.\" Guess said in an interview that he wants the parties to meet, but he doesn't plan to do it on Tuesday. \"I don't think I can get all of my folks ready for Tuesday,\" he said. \"I will sit down with the leadership of PACT and PASS and we will contact those mediators together and we will find a time when we can all meet. Or, if they don't want to be in the room when I contact them, I'll contact them by mysel I want to work together. I don't know how I can try any harder. \"I didn't know about the impasse,\" he said. \"I didn't know that they had contacted mediators. I didn't know that a meeting was being planned. So, I'm going to have to do the best I can to find a ytay to get us all together.\" The impasse declaration Friday comes in the aftermath of the first and only recent bargaining session that took place Wednesday between the district and the two employee unions. It lasted no more than 30 minutes. The district's negotiating team left the talks when representatives of the employee associations insisted on settling salary and insurance provisions before dealing with the district's call to cut $13.6 million in expenses to balance the 2012-13b udget. The employee associations on Wednesday had proposed locking in the salaries and the district's contributions to employee health-insurance coverage at this year's rates, meaning no across-the-board raises for employees - although step increases for experience presumably would be paid to employees eligible for them. Guess and Chief Financial Officer Bill Goff told the Arkansas Board of Education on Feb.13 that the Pulaski County Special district - which is operating under state control and without an elected school board - had identified nearly $6.7 million in expenses to be cut. Those cuts will include the elimination of 77 jobs through attrition and layoffs, but district leaders said they need concessions from employees to cut an additional $7 million. Goff has said the teachers' existing contract - due to expire in 2015 - provides teachers with about $14 million and support staff with $1.4 million in benefits over and above what is required by state law. For teachers, those extra benefits include a 192-day work year as opposed to a 190-day year that is required by law. Additionally, the district contributes $272.80 a month for employee health insurance versus the $131 a month required by the state. The district also pays teachers for noninstructional duties such as recess and.bus supervision, whereas state law says teachers can do up to an hour of duty a week without additional pay. Nix on Friday, in an interview, said that declaring an impasse was the fastest way to resolving the issues. \"We are going to address the financial needs that they presented to the state Board of Education on Feb. 13,\" she said, reiterating her position from Wednesday. \"But we are not going to give up all of our contract, all of the agreements that we have in there, which it seems like the superintendent wants us to do.\" Nix said it is the associations' intent to address with district leaders all of the potential areas for cost-cutting that Goff listed as being extra in the employee contracts. \"We definitely want to,\" she said, but she added that the associations want to deal with the salaries and insurance issues first. Those two issues are specifically identified in the teacher contract as being subject to annual negotiations. Other parts.of the contract can be opened if there is mutual agreement of the bargaining teams. Nix has suggested that any changes in employee benefits and working conditions made necessary by the _budget problems could be handled through memoranda ofunderstanding. More than half of the district's teachers and support staff mustbe members of their respective associations for the associatio~s to i\nepresent them in contract.talks. Usually, employees pay for their union dues through payroll deductions. District officials reported Friday that there are 1,327 teachers, of whom more than half - 794 - pay dues to the teachers' union through pay-roll deductions.  A total of 423 support staff employees pay dues through payroll deduction to the Pulaski Association of Support Staff, which is slightly less than half of the 851 employees who are eligible to join the association. It couldn't be immediately determined Friday night whether enough J support staff employees are paying dues out of pocket to get the membership number over 50 percent The teachers' contract includes an impasse resolution section. When eitherparty declares an impasse on any unresolved item, both parties agree to contact the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service to request the agency's services. Mediation will commence within five days after a metliator  is appointed or at the earliest convenience of the mediator. A mediator typically goes back and forth between the teams to work out differences. Either team can declare a second impasse, at which time the issues go to a factfinder. The fact-finder listens to what the teams say are their final, best offers and_p repares a written nonbinding opinion on how the matter should be resolved. If no agreement is reached between the parties after factfinding, either team can ask for an impasse hearing before the school board, according to the teachers' contract. Since the Pulaski County Special district was taken over by the state last.June because of financial mismanagement, Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell will serve as the district's school board.  School'districdt elays bargainingm eeting. ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE \"We have contacted the Representatives of the Pu- mediators and look 1for,ward  laski County Special School to seeking you on Thursday,\"  District and the district's teach- Marty Nix, president of the er and support-staff unions teachers' organization, and will meet, with state and ,fed- Emry Chesterfield, president eral mediators Thursday ih a of the support staff association, renewed effort to reach 'agree- wrote to Guess on Monday. : merits aifectmg' employee con- \"We are very hopeful that we tr.ad.s_ andt he school district's can reach a resolution to the . bu~get i 2012-13. } . issues befor~ us, they adde\\i. The mediation session will The unions had declared an be.~in at 10:30 a,Jll, at the Ar-  impasse Friday after a 30~rninkansas Education Association ute J:?argain:ing_sessi\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;nWednesheadquarte~ s. .  . day between the district and \\  The mediation session\nwas the two employee' unions. initjalslcyh eduled for tod~yb ut  ..T ji.e district's neg\u0026lt;\nltiating Pu:faski\nCountyS pecial-School team left the talks when rep)? J'l:rict'S 1\n1perihtend~nJte rry. resenti)t_iveso f the' .employee Guess tpld the Pulaski.As.sq- associations -insisted 6ri setciation of Classroom Te~chers  tling salary an,~ irisun~nce an~it:h e Pulaski Assqc:iatiorio f. provisions,petor~ dealing with ~ilP,poi\nSt taffl ast weel\u0026lt;,t):iatJlis' the 'distriGt'.s crutio ,c ut $l3.6 teamcou ld hot be ready'(o~tfue.: ,.i:nillion~ xpe~~sto balance essiim today.   ( ' j .... './ ,th~f~g-~ budg~t\n'  .''\nH~ sl\\'ggested ~ ..: :rJiuri.djY : ,., /. ~~~.,S1\\$a.rid .~!iif Fihan~fal me.et~g to the ~o~Je?.4.~p  (2f1f,e,1r ?j}Glo\nf -told t~e !}randr~ so, contacteii one,?tIB.f ,,'. kl\\Il5as1 Boar19f ~duf_at1on',on mediatqrs over the weekend.td i ,'.E ebh'l.t3h:a t th,e-.P.hlasletio unty seek/~hange ih the time... _.. ,:$Iii~fat'district ..!...'\nwh1c.his  Le,i!-\\le~of~ ~- e nr9,,$qipl\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;y-ope\na~ii:g un,der state coiiy!1Pl ee .group_ps ut1allyJ11S1steodn and witl\\,o\\.W,iiellle cted sclfool a sessio~ today, but they wrote board - had 'identified l'leiirly tq. Guess \u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;Mn o_nday\n~ aying $6.7 mi!Jion irJ~. jcpenses:too e th\u0026lt;!,t\" git he spirit'6f collabora- ct.' :' \n ,. \":, tiont',th.~-associaij~p.s woi!ld  H owever\ndistric,t .lea,4e'rs mee't ~ith the distric,t. team $aid'th.ey_ neeq cop.ce~!l.i'l\nJ.ns ~cj !Ilediators ,cm the .i{terna- from egipl~yeei to.ht ari:ail.- tiye date.    ., :',, ' , . , - diJJonal' $7 ~qn.     . 4B  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012  Uniformeeds cort Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIKNR AIN Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps student James Sudeen waits in the hallway at Parkview Magnet High School to escort the Little Rock school superintendent and other administrators during a tour of career-technical education classes in the district's high schools Tuesday. Arkansas Democrat ~(f,azette Gettingth e point Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIKNR AIN Tyler Robinson gets a finger stuck Tuesday by University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences nursing student Kathryn Dawson during an optional screening at a health fair for students at Parkview Magnet High School in the Little Rock School District. Sessionsm ediated, but no deal struck 'EVIEBLAD ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The leaders of the Pulaski County Special School District and its employee unions were unable to reach an agreement Thursday after three hours of mediated . discussions about proposed changes designed to help the district trim $7 million from its 2012-13b udget. Staff, which represents em_ ployees ~ the 17,000-student district, met in one room of the Arkansas Education Association headquarters Thursday, discussing proposals with a state and fedt! ral mediator, who met with Guess and an attorney in a separate .room. District, The groups plan to continue~ alks at io,:'30 a.m .. Monday at the district's administration building.  Union leaders and stateappointed Superintendent JE\nrrY Guess described Thursday's talks as \"positive,\" but they wou-ld not discuss the specifics of the negotiations. Union leaders have said they want to lock in salary and insurance terms for next year at this year's rates before considering any other budget matters. Those issues weren't settled Thursday, Nix said. _She would not say if the ~ons held the same position on the matter. .. umons Guess wouldn't speculate about whether another' day of negotiations would yield an agreement among the groups. in talks 3 hours \"We're all going to do the right thing, and I think the presence of mediators have brought us closer to that,\" said Marty Nix, president of the Pulaski Association of Class.room Teachers, the teachers' unibn. \"I think this has been a good day, and we've been talking about important issues,\" he said Thursday. \"But there have been no p_i:oposals and no d,ecisions.\" Nix and Emry Chest~rfield, president of the Pulaski Association of Support The mediators - contracted through the Federal Mediation Conciliation ~aIk s _ its financial situation through I , a state-approved plan within two years, Arkansas law al- .  Continued from Page 1 B lows the state to take further Service - determined when actions - including merging to break for the day, Guess it wi\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_135","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":["2012-04"],"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. 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/135"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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,~-------------------..... : - -- Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 - (501) 682-4475 W ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer April 30, 2012 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPMmD Y Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C-~~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 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, 2012. BY: Jer C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001 -205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on April 30, 2012, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~c.~ J\nE~ Lasiter IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 ~~fe~ c,g:tt:f$\n!ttfqfrn~tipn-avail~hle~Jit ~foff'.~ 1'\n'2012,- the ~/\\OE efalculated the S,1~t~,\"FQqrl'd_afJ~f.fFun,ging for FY:.111-12_ sd!?ie~ 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. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Based on the information avaffable at Mar.ch 31, 2o\"12:the ADE calculated for FY 1-1 /12, supj_ect tQ pe_riodic ~djustments.    ~ ,   C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 On March 31 , 2012, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 11/12 were as follows: LRSD - $45,023,480 NLRSD - $25,442,676 PGSSD - $31\n285,944 The allotments of State Foundation Funding, calculated for FY 11 /12 at March 31, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments,. '-'!'ere as follows: LRSD - $61 ,907,286 NLRSD - $\n34,983,681 PCSSD-$43,018,176 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31 , 2012, for FY11/12, 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 April 30, 2012 Based on the informa~iori _available\nthe ADE calffated at March 31, 201.2,  for FY11/12, subject t9 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 April 30, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per cnild to $8,336. Based on the in-formation-available, the ADE calculated at March 31\", 2012, for FY11/12, 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 April 30, 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at March 31, 2012, totaled $10,596,190. Allotment calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,373,720 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 April 30, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011 , for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. ~~tuaJ as_ of Aprll 30,29~~ Distdbutions for FY1'VT~'al Marctf 31,, 20127w~r_e\nLRSD - $3it~o\n922 I . , - NLRS~ :.,$3,?95\n395 P~SSD _-$6J333,3t6 The allotmerts calcufa~d for: FY :j 1Tf2 at riifarch 31\n2012, -subjed to periodic adjustments, w~re: LR.SD- $4,:458,463 NLRSD - $5,564,846 Pesso - $9,761,876 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay Districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011 , General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1 ,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD-$510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-th ird payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 201 1, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1 ,020,436.26 PCSSD-$1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011 , General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11/12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD - $1 ,778,000.70 ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In August 1997, the ADE Transportation Coordinator reviewed each District's Magnet and M-to-M Transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 School Year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. School Districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In October 2005, paperwork -was generated for the first payment in the 05706 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 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. 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. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 -Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 8 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. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 4 7 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 9 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Centr:al States Bus Sales. The buses for- -the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. 10 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Bids were released in July 2011, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-47 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities \u0026amp; Transportation submitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen ( 16) buses for the three Districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSO Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 Passenger buses On April 3, 2012, The Office of State Procurement sent out the request for bids for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses being purchased. The bid opening will take place on April 19, 2012. The breakdown of the buses was submitted previously. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each School Year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. 13 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 April 30, 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11/12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) II. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to_tbe ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11 /12. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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 percent 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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The July 1995, Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE Administrative Team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was 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. 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. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts were 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. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 ans 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. 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 and 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. 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 and 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. The Assistant Directer 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. On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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. On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was Chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE Attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. Or:t May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phas.e Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three Districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two School Districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a North School District and a South School District in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. ADE Staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase Activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., declared the LRSD unitary and released the District from Federal Court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County Districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper Federal Court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County Districts for a time period _naL io exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County Districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The Court ruled that the District could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary School assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the Districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenors filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that School Desegregation Monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the District, or on the District's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County Districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than Jur:ie 14, 2008. Act 2 was passed in the Special Legislative Session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase Meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the District. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an Independent District. He said that taking Jacksonville out onhe PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the Court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in Federal District Court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-2009 Budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the Districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that Legislators, Attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and Representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, tr.e three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the District Court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson , Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration'': Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the School Choice Law and the Charter School Law. The LRSD has said that Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County School Desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney, General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian~Miller to schedule Court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities .from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated th e group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first Court hearing with U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an Attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District, Stephen Jones, an Attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an Attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three Districts to continue even if the Districts are all unitary. John Walker, an Attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 30 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since State Funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1 .6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a Federal Court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the District. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure, provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for Districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School Applications will appear in the next State Board Meeting Agenda. 31 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 32 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski Colclnty School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011 , at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for District Staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE Legal Department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the District starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requiremer.1ts. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The State has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case relates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 35 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the lmplement~tion Phase activities for the p'reviqus guarter. Mr. WilHe Morris, ADE L~ad Planner for Desegregation, updated the\ngroup on all relev\nmt desegr~gation, issues_: Mr. Scott Rjchar9so11, As~istant Attorney General, stated that on March 19\n2012, th~y were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release thf3 State from the 1993 Settlement Agreemecit. The settlemerit sch~dules had not oeen discus_sed, in the last two year~. Mr.. Rfp~ards0n\nalso stated th~t or:i March 29, 201_2, the two\"niain things that were submitted te\u0026gt; the Co'urts were, Gharter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gaps Mr. Morris stated tt:,e big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary -cfreas in the last Cort Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part ofthe County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the l?CSSD facilities. plan. Due to bad weather conditions during Spring Break, Mr. Morris was unable to visit any facilities. Next week, if the weather permits, he will visit facilities that are not testing. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. Transportation and facility funding are to continue being provided until being relea~ed from the Court. There- has been no feedback on C.RSD from Mr .. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negativ~ impact on their litigation. Mr, Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no rf3sponse to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation l?hase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 36 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 37 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 38 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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 impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and Worker's Compensation was not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE Administrative Team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the Legislative Session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the Office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior Legislative Session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 39 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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. 40 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 and 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. 41 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 meetir:.ig-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 Augyst 27, 2001 , at the ADE. The committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County School Districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 , in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 , at the ADE. The committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County School Districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 , in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 , at the ADE. The committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County School Districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the School Districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 42 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 \"de- _ annexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the SenateCommittee. 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. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011 , 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 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. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 Semianmial Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE Administrative Team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its Executive Summary were distributed to all Board Members. The Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education Meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and Executive Summary at the July Board Meeting. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 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. 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 i formed 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. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 and 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 and 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 met 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. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (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 ExecutiYe 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. 53 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed-and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approvetl the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. 54 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. 55 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool , and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed-and-approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1856","title":"District Court, charter intervenors' response to motion for summary judgment motion to enforce filed by Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua intervenors, and exhibits","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-03-12"],"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":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, charter intervenors' response to motion for summary judgment motion to enforce filed by Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua intervenors, and exhibits"],"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/1856"],"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":["49 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1858","title":"District Court, exhibits 8-21 from response to statement of facts","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-03-12"],"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":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits 8-21 from response to statement of facts"],"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/1858"],"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":["111 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1840","title":"District Court, response to statement of material facts not in dispute in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua's motion for summary judgment; District Court, response to statement of facts, and exhibits 1-7","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-03-12"],"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":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, response to statement of material facts not in dispute in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua's motion for summary judgment; District Court, response to statement of facts, and exhibits 1-7"],"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/1840"],"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":["59 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_65","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","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/65"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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\nf - Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 -1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION March 30, 2012 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPMIHD Y Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of March, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~~~ General Counsel REC VE.D MAR l9 2012 DE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for March, 2012. BY: c.~~ J~. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on March 30, 2012, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark B umette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Eaucation (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 , 2012 Base~''.on. t~Jnfc\u0026gt;[mattQffav.ailatfferat::F'.ebrua'~~'.\"'.\"zol2\n~iHe.: 40e\"caicurated u\n~stafe foii~\"1.aJ~i,,.i\n: unguigSf a~,~it1\"/1f?'..s.\\ilJ?i~ to:!iiEidedr,~':a~f~:stii:Jepts. 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. 1 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, 2012 Based on\" ttle inf~rmi~l?q:_~\\{~!~~11 at,,f:~br~ary\n29~'.i!)Jr\" tfle fi!)E 9?I'cul~ted for ~Y 11 /12, sup1e.q_t to _p~nod1c ad1~.stl]l~nts\nC. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 On f::ebruary 29,' 2qj 2,. distri,t\u0026gt;uti:ons\" ()f S!afe):ounda!iOl,l. FU~dIBJf fQr'FY -1\"'1!12 1#,ere as _f.9ll9yts: LRs0 - $3S,395,545 :~lJ{SD, -\"-$22,26?,3f1 PCSSD : $27,375,201' 1he allotments of State _Foundatior:i Funding cak:ul~ted for FY 11/12' at February 29, 201\"2, su_bject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $61,907,286 NLRSD - $34,983,681 PGSSD - $43,018, t76 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 , 2012 Bas,ed on ~the information available, the ADE -caleulated at tFeb11:1ary 29, 2012, for FY11/12, 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, 2012 ~c1s~~ on. 'the information ~vailable, .. the AI)E. ~alculated iit f:~bruary: 29, 201'2, f9r F'(.1 f/t2, supJict to 13eri.o\u0026amp;fic\"'~dfustr:11~At~, It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. Basecforf the informationr, available, the ADE cafculate-d at February29\n2012, for J==Y1.1f-12, 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 Marcb 31 , 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at February 2.9, 2012, totaled $9,337,013. -Aflotment calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,373,720 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 , 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011 , for FY10/11 , subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Last day of each month, September - June. 1'.:f't~5-:.i2:irS:o:f6 N,s:~a:..,~?\n3~.8~9-1 o P. CSSD ~\"$5,857\\128 .. ~ -- . -\"' -. ift1e'. allotmegts G:atcctfatecflor. ~y t 1112'.1(Febfa!\nY 02~ -4Q12, suh\u0026gt;f~91-tQ_~eri\u0026gt;die adjustm.erJ.t~\nwaj-_e: 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 , 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 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, 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the districts. In January 2011 , General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1 ,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD =-$1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1 ,020,436.26 PCSSD-$1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011 , General Finance made the last one-third payment to the districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271 ,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11/12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD - $1 ,778,000.70 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 , 2012 In August 1997, the ADE Transportation Coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School Districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 , 2012 In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet-and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. in October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school-year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 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. 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. 2. ActualasofMarch31,2012 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the districts. The buses were distributed to the districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 8 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and -M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. \"The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid ior 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 9 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States BtlS Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses _wlth wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. 10 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2012 Bids were released in July 2011 , for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-4 7 passenger buses and 1-4 7 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities \u0026amp; Transportation sut?rnitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen (16) buses for the three districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSD Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 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 March 31 , 2012 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 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of March 31, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 11 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 March 31, 2012 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 March 31 , 2012 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 March 31 , 2012 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 March 31 , 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 12 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 March 31, 2012 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 01/0:Z:- Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . 13 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 March 31 , 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11/12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March ~1 . 2012 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was$200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11 /12. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for brack students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of March 31, 2012 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 percent 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. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. 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. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 16 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 , 2012 (Continued) 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the districts were 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. 17 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, 2012 (Continued) 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, 1-998, 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. 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. 18 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 , 2012 (Continued) 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 from the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant DiFector 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 Mor:i~toring Plan are finalized and approved. In September and 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. 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. 19 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, 2012 (Continued) On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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. On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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 from 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. 20 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 , 2012 (Continued) On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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. 21 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 , 2012 (Continued) On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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.rn. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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. . On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from 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. 22 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, 2012 (Continued) On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the lF0up 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. Tl:le 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 from 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. On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 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 , 2012 (Continued) On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibH+ty of having two School Districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a North School District and a South School District in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. ADE Staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201 -A at the ADE. On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from Federal Court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper Federal Court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County Districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County Districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 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 , 2012 (Continued) On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court rul ing from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary Schoel- assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr-: Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201 -A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the st Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenors filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that School Desegregation Monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 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, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County Districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special Legislative Session that started March 31, 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31. Also discussed in the Implementation Phase Meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the District. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the Court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in Federal District Court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-2009 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 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, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates co!'.ltinue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the District Court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 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, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of- the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics ef discussion in the meeting included the School Choice Law and the Charter School Law. The LRSD has said that Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 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 , 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney, General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase- working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 29 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 , 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge, S-rian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase -working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the lmplementatior:.1 Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a Federal Court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School applications will appear in the next State Board Meeting Agenda. 30 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 , 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He alse stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. -He also stated that the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal student privacy regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 31 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 , 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little- Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal student privacy regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A repoct released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski County School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011 , at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for district staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 32 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, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE legal department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and P-CSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 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, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the district starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Cour=t-for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The state has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case relates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with professional development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2012 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, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 35 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, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 36 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, 2012 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 impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the districts regarding loss funding and Worker's Compensation was 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. 37 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 , 2012 (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. 38 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 , 2012 (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_[aws 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. 39 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 , 2012 (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 desegregatieA. (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_rn. 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. 40 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 , 2012 (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 ABE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011 , 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 41 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 , 2012 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. 8. Through execution of the lmplementatioA-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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2012 Ongoing 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, 2012 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 42 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, 2012 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. 43 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, 2012 (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. 44 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, 2012 (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. 45 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 , 2012 (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. 46 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 , 2012 (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 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. 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) ider+tify 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 Februar:y_ 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. 47 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 , 2012 (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 and 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 and 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 met 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. 48 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 , 2012 (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 Ark-ansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of Aug_ust. 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. 49 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 , 2012 (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. 50 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, 2012 (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 Exe.cutive 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, L003, 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. 51 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, 2012 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and-its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved-the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. 52 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, 2012 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State - Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. 53 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 , 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State_Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. 54 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 , 2012 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. 55 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 , 2012 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board o\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_1855","title":"Multiple court filings","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-02-21/2012-02-28"],"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","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1855"],"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":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_123","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":["2012-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. 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/123"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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- Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 -1019  (501) 682-4475 W ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION February 29, 2012 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 DV~fD 1 2012 DESEGRE/~-:.,, nf ''TOPJNG Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPMIHDY Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY 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 February, 2012. BY: ~C'.~ yC. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on February 29, 2012, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~yCc. Lasiter~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 B_ased on the mformation available at January 31, 2012, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Fungjng for FY 11/12 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. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Based on the information ~vailable-at January 317 2012, the ADE ca-lculated @r FY 11/12, subje_gt to p~riodic adjuajments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 On January 31, 2912, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 11/12 were as follows: LRSD - $33,767,610 NLRSD - $19,082,006 Pesso - $23,464,458 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 11/12 at January 31, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LR$D-- $61,907,-286, NLRSD - $34,983,681 PCSSD - $43,018,176 Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at January 31, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at January 31, 2012, for FY11/12, 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 February 29, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at January 31, 2012, for FY11/12, 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 February 29, 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at January 31, 2012, totaled $8,113,417. Allotment calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,587,208 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011 , for FY10/11 , subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Distrlb_utiOl}S for FY 11,1~ at January_31, 2012, w~re: LRSD-$2,229,230 NLRSD - $2,782,425 PCSSD - $4,880,940 The allotments calculated for FY 11/12 at January 31, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,458,463 NLRSD - $5,564,846 PCSSD - $9,761,876 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 201n, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1,020,436.26 PCSSD - $1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011 , General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271,487.69 over the last two payments. The fUrrent payment reflects jVhat is due, less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11/12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD - $1,778,000.70 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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. 7 The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 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. 8 In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for .$56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 9 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. 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) 0. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) In July 2008, 16 new Magnet aP.d M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,51 O per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. Bids were released in July 2011 , for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-4 7 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-47 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 10 1 . Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) Q. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 11 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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 February 29, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Payment due date and ending July f , 1995. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97 /98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 12 Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11 /12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11/12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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. 13 Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11. Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11 /12. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1 . Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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 percent 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. 14 The July 1995, Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was 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. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 15 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 final ized in June 1997. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 16 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. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) 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. In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the School Improvement Process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a.) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b.) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c.) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SA T-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the 17 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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 gr.cup 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. 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 21 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) 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. On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group inet to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two School Districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a North School District and a South School District in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is atso being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation-Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There- was discussion about the three- districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On July 12, 2007, 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. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary School assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2007, 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. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a medi.ated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, 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. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenors filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, 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. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. , stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, 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. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-2009 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, 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 have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated thaL in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson , Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the Charter School law. The LRSD has said that Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, 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 ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states fhat Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the Nor:th Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had reql:lested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, 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. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011 , 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 White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated-that the Little Rocl\u0026lt;-School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal student privacy regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the interim superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 30 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , 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. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal student privacy regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski County School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011 , at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011 , 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. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for district staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011 , at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 31 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011 , 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. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE legal department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, -and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 32 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, 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. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the district starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The state has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case relates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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 February 29, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. !='rejected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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 impedes 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. 36 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. 37 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. !:-i 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. 38 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. 39 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation . (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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 !aws 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. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011 , 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education-will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 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. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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--th-e 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. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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 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. 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. ::rhe 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. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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 and 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 and 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. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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. crn 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 -sfate 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. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (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 Stirnmary 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. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education-reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. -On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. 53 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State- Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month-of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. 54 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 29, 2012 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 12, 200\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1859","title":"Multiple court filings","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-02-01/2012-02-14"],"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","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1859"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1853","title":"Court of Appeals, Joshua intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees and costs","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":null,"dc_date":["2012-01-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019"],"dcterms_title":["Court of Appeals, Joshua intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees and costs"],"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/1853"],"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":["89 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_193","title":"Annual Reports to the Magnet Review Committee","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":["2012/2013"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Magnet schools","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Annual Reports to the Magnet Review Committee"],"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/193"],"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\nStipulation Magnet Principals ANNUAL REPORT to the MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 2012-2013 CHERYL A. CARSON May 14, 2013   Stipulation Magnet Principals ANNUAL REPORT to the MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 2012-2013 CHERYL A. CARSON May 14, 2013  1   BOOKER ARTS MAGNET School website: www.lrsd.org - link to Booker Arts Magnet School Principal's Name: Cheryl A. Carson E-Mail: cheryl.carson@lrsd.org Direct Phone Line: 44 7-3802 Asst. Principal's Name: Eloise Booth E-Mail: eloise.booth@lrsd.org Direct Phone Line: 44 7-3871 Area of responsibility: Student Discipline, School Facilities, Supervision of Non-Certified Personnel, Transportation School Secretary: Judy Wilson-Murray Direct Phone: 44 7-3803 Counselor: Direct Phone: Tamara Ringler 447-3833 PTA President: Anne Weaver E-Mail: anneweaver@sbc.global.net Phone: 501-247-8405 Marion Howse 447-3804  2    SCHOOL COMPOSITION Race/ Native African Hispanic/ Multi-ethnicity American Asian American Latino White Ethnic Number of 0-M 3-M 153-M 23-M 56-M 24-M children 0-F 2-F 159- F 21 - F 56-F 22-F Number 0-M 0-M 6-M 0-M 5-M 0-M of 0-F 0-F 31 - F 1 - F 31 -F 0-F staff 3    SCHOOL COMPOSITION cont. Grade Native Asian African Hispanic White Multi-Ethnic Total American American K 0-M 1-M 20-M 3-M 7-M 4-M 35-M 0-F 0-F 19-F 3-F 6-F 5-F 33-F 1 0-M 1-M 23-M 1-M 6-M 3-M 34-M 0-F 0-F 24-F 3-F 12- F 4-F 43-F 2 0-M 0-M 29-M 6-M 12-M 7-M 54-M 0-F 0-F 23-F 4-F 7-F 3-F 37-F 3 0-M 1-M 30-M 4-M 12-M 4-M 51-M 0-F 1-F 32-F 0-F 16- F 4-F 53-F 4 0-M 0-M 27-M 5-M 8-M 3-M 43-M 0-F 1-F 29-F 8-F 6-F 2-F 46-F 5 0-M 0-M 24-M 4-M 11- M 3-M 42-M 0-F 0-F 32-F 3-F 9-F 4-F 48-F 4    REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES Faculty/Staff: None Curriculum Related Materials: None Equipment/Facility: Bows for Stringed Instruments Other (please list): Instrument Repair 5   CURRENT ACSIP FOCUS Priority 1 : Literacy Goal 1: All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression, with additional attention to practical reading passages, content and style writing domains, and formulating appropriate responses to open response questions. Goal 2: To narrow the achievement gap between proficient and non-proficient learners in literacy. (Strategic Plan) Goal 3: All Booker Arts Magnet School students will read on grade level by the end of third grade. (Strategic Plan) Priority 2: Mathematics  Goal 1. All students will improve in mathematics computation and problem solving, with additional attention to geometry and measurement, and formulating appropriate responses to open response questions. Goal 2: To narrow the achievement gap between proficient and non-proficient learners in mathematics. (Strategic Plan) 6   CURRENT ACSIP FOCUS Priority 3: Wellness Goal : All students will increase healthy eating habits, practice good hygiene, and engage in fitness activities, as indicated by increases in the attendance rate and percentages of students having ratings of healthy on the BMI. Priority 4: Parental Involvement Goal: All parents/guardians will become engaged in parental involvement activities that will result in increases in student achievement.  7    SCHOOL STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS 2012- 2013 Automatic Locking Mechanisms on Main Entry Door 2013- 2014 Additional Security Cameras Restroom Renovations 8    CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS Changes in 2012-13: None Proposed Changes for 2013-14: None 9    ESEA Accountability Literacy: Achieving Mathematics: Needs Improvement Subpopulation info: See Slides 11 - 23 10   BenchmLairtekr ac3Yy :e aCr omparison SubgrouWpistMh orTeh a2n0 S tudents  100.0.- -----....-r-------,----- ...........~....,. ....\nw-,!r-ihHr--~~-----rrl'I'~----, 80.0 71.1 65.5 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 - Combined African Hispanic Caucasian Econ. LEP IEP PopulatioAnm erican Disadv. PercePnrto ficient D 2009-10 37.9 12010-11 jo2011-12 J 11   BenchmLairtekr ac3Yy :e aCr omparison SubgrouWpisthM orTeh a2n0 S tudents  100.0r-- ---.n.--r----- ............ --~+-e,t-A-------------............------, 80.0 71.1 65.5 60.0 I 40,0 20.0 0.0 Combined African Hispanic Caucasian Econ. LEP IEP PopulatioAnm erican Disadv. PercePnrto ficient I  2009-10 37.9 12010-11 1  2011-12 12   BenchmLairtekr ac3Yy :e aCr omparison SubgrouWpistMh orTeh a2n0 S tudents  100.0... ----..-,.-r------ .............-.- -M--\u0026amp;-\u0026amp;.+-A---------- 80.0 71.1 65.5 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Combined African PopulatioAnm erican Hispanic Caucasian Econ. Disadv. PercePntr oficient 1--~~ 2009-10 37.9 12010-11 D2011-12 LEP IEP 13  90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0  Achievement Gap: Benchmark Literacy 3 Year Trends 84.9 ,----a1a2 --61.7  Caucasian  African American 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Percent Proficient  14    Benchmark Literacy by Gender 100%\u0026gt; 78% 80%\u0026gt; 71 Ofo 60% Female 40%  Male 20% 0% 2010-11 2011-12 Percent Proficient 15   BenchmaMrka th3: Y earC omparison SubgrouWpsit hM oreT han2 0S tudents 100.0 r-----------------1'1-f-tt-~-------------, 80.0 75.16.0 70.0 57.52.2 67.3 60.0 40.0 I 20.0 0.0 67.74 72.4'3.627 .8 Combined African Hispanic Caucasian EconD. isadv.L EP Population American PercenPtr oficient 61.5 27.6 IEP  7 D 2009-10 I 2010-11 ~2011-12 16   Achievement Gap: Benchmark Math 3 Year Trends 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 77 67. 0.0 ---...----..---------1 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Percent Proficient  Caucasian  African American  17  I 100%\u0026gt; 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 84%\u0026gt;  Benchmark Math by Gender 58.27% 76.43% ...--------. 64 .5 2 % 2010-11 2011-12 Percent Proficient  Female  Male 18  100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  Booker 3rd Grade Math Caucasian Caucasian African male female American male African American Female Booker 3rd Grade Literacy Caucasian Caucasian male female African American male African American Female 2009-10  2010-11  2011-12 2009-10  2010-11  2011-12  19  120 100 80 60 40 20 0  Booker 4th Grade Math Caucasian Caucasian African male female American male African American Female 2009-10  2010-11  2011-12 Booker 4th Grade Literacy 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Caucasian Caucasian African male female American male African American Female 2009-10  2010-11  2011-12  20  120 100 80 60 40 20 0  Booker 5th Grade Math Caucasian Caucasian African male female American male African American Female 2009-10  2010-11  2011-12 Booker 5th Grade Literacy 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Caucasian Caucasian African male female American male African American Female 2009-10  2010-11  2011-12  21  African American White Difference  Booker Arts Magnet School A Comparison of the Percent of African American and Caucasian Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on Augmented Benchmark Exam 2009-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Literacy 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 33.3% 38.5% 52.1% 58.6% 67.7% 67.2% 72.0% 77.9% 78.6% 84.4% 33.9% 33.5% 25.8% 20.0% 16.7%  2011-12 78.1% 84.8% 6.7% 22  African American White Difference  Booker Arts Magnet School A Comparison of the Percent of African American and Caucasian Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced on Augmented Benchmark Exam 2009-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 Mathematics 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 42.3% 50.9% 61.7% 67.5% 72.2% 73.1% 78.8% 86.0% 87.8% 84.4% 30.8% 27.9% 24.3% 20.3/o 12.2%  2011-12 67.2% 77.2% 10.0% 23    Booker Arts Magnet Percentage of Students Scoring AUAbove 50th Percentile by Subgroup on Norm Referenced Tests - First Grade 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Combined 35% 34/o 29% 41% 37% 46% 55% 37% African 30%) American 26% 19% 35% 30% 37% 52% 30% Hispanic 17% 0% 0% 50% 33% 50% 58% 50% Caucasian 50% 57% 61% 54% 49% 58% 56% 44% Econ Dis 28% 28% 22% 37% 28% 38% 53% 32% LEP 0% 0% 0% 33% 38% 50% 60% 50% Students 38% 38% 0% with 29% 0% 9% 29% 21% Disabilities 24    Booker Arts Magnet Percentage of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile by Subgroup on Norm Referenced Tests - Second Grade 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Reading Math Combined 31% 53/o 25% 41% 29% 42% 52% 53% African 22% 43% 12% 34% 19% 36% 44% 34% American Hispanic 15% 62% 14% 43% 50% 90% 67% 67% Caucasian 48% 62% 52% 55% 65% 35% 55% 71% Econ Dis 22% 45% 22% 42% 29% 38% 45% 47% LEP 18% 64% 18% 43% 63% 88% 83% 88% Students 11% 22% 11% 33% 13% 25% 0% 0% with Disabilities 25    Strategic Planning Goal Goal: All Students will be proficient in Literacy by end of 3rd Grade. Result: More of Booker's 3rd grade students scored proficient or above on last year's Benchmark Literacy Exam than in the  previous year. In 2012 70.24% of Booker's 3rd grade students scored proficient or above on the 3rd grade Benchmark Exam. In 2011 68.13% of Booker's 3rd grade students scored proficient or above on the 3rd grade Benchmark Exam. 26    LRSD's Strategic Plan Achievement Goals for Literacy (Chart 1)  Increase the percent proficient and advanced in literacy by 5 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5)  Reduce the achievement gap for proficient and advanced by increasing the percent of African-American students scoring proficient and advanced in literacy by 6 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5) 27    Chart 1 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 Third Fourth Fifth H/L 100/o +80% 80% +20% 70% +45% Males H/L 86% -14% 100% 100% Females AA 59% +2% 76% +36% 59% -3% Males AA 80% -2% 97% +9% 97% +10% Females White 80% +10% 82% +1% 90% -3% Males White 43% -26% 72% -23% 100% +8% Females 28   LRSD's Strategic Plan Achievement Goals for Mathematics (Chart 2)   Increase the percent proficient and advanced in mathematics by 5 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5)  Reduce the achievement gap for proficient and advanced by increasing the percent of African-American students scoring proficient and advanced in mathematics by 6 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5) 29    Chart 2 2011 - 2012 2011- 2012 2011 - 2012 Third Fourth Fifth H/L 100/o 60% -10% 40% +15/o Males H/L 86% -14% 67% -33% 100% Females AA 63% -11% 76% +36% 35% -37% Males AA 66% -12% 79% -9% 85% -2% Females White 90% +10 72% -1% 70% -23% Males White 72% -10% 75% -8% 77% -15% Females 30   LRSD's Strategic Plan Achievement Goals for Literacy (Chart 3)   Increase the percent at the advanced level in literacy by 4 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5)  Reduce the achievement gap at the advanced levels by increasing the AfricanAmerican percent advanced in literacy by 6 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5) 31    Chart 3 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 Third Fourth Fifth H/L 25% +5% 20% 30% +30% Males H/L 86% +36% 67/o +34% 67% +67/o Females AA 22% +13% 43% +34% 22% +14% Males AA 80% +42% 58% +30% 67% +32% Females White 30% -10% 64% +9% 50% Males White 43% +12% 42% +3% 47% +22% Females 32   LRSD's Strategic Plan Achievement Goals for Mathematics (Chart 4)   Increase the percent at the advanced level in mathematics by 4 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5)  Reduce the achievement gap at the advanced levels by increasing the AfricanAmerican percent advanced in literacy by 6 percentile points a year for each grade level (grades 3-5) 33 Chart 4 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 Third Fourth Fifth H/L 75% +55% 40% +20/o 30% +30% Males H/L 86% +36% 33% 0% -100% Females AA 30% +4% 19% +13% 15% -5% Males AA 43% -7% 27% -9% 22% -13% Females White 60% +10% 45% -28% 40% -39% Males White 29% -15% 33% -11% 24% -26% Females 34 LRSD's Strategic Plan Achievement Goals for Literacy {Chart 5) There will be no students at Below Basic or just Basic in Literacy and virtually all students perform at grade level in reading by the end of Grade 3. 33    Chart 5 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 Third Fourth Fifth Below Basic Basic Below Basic Basic Below Basic Basic H/L 25% 001o 0% 20% 0% 30% Males H/L 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% Females AA 22% 22% 0% 24% 22% 19% Males AA 3% 17% 0% 3% 0% 4% Females White 10% 10% 9% 9% 0% 10% Males White 29% 29% 0% 8% 0% 0% Females 35    INTERVENTION OR SUPPORT SERVICES  Reading Recovery -All Students Scoring Below Basic in Literacy  After-School Tutoring -All Students Scoring Basic or Below Basic in Literacy and/or Math Invited  Small Group Intervention -All Students Scoring Below Basic in Literacy who were not in AfterSchool Tutoring  Rtl - All Students Scoring in the Lowest Percentiles on Standardized Assessment  Summer School - All Students scoring \"at risk\" on DIBELS, have IRls, or Below Basic on Standardized Assessment  Resource  LEP Instructional Modifications and Testing Accommodations  504 Accommodations  Speech  OT, PT  GT  Individual and Small Group Counseling36  Living Hope  Academic Improvement Plans and Intensive Reading Interventions  Starfish Reading Initiative  PIES (Positive Interventions for Educational Success) Plan-s- --------------' 36   RECRUITMENT Outstanding/New Recruitment Activities.  Satisfied Parents  Members of the Booker Arts Magnet Family 17 Students - Children of Alumni 18 Students - Children or Grandchildren of Staff 223 Students - Siblings Attend/Attended 258 Students with Booker Arts Magnet School Family Ties Three Teachers are Alumni  37   Booker Arts Magnet School Honors/Awards School/Staff/Student Recognitions  Choir students performed at the Capitol Hotel on December 20, 2012.  Drama students presented an excerpt from \"Beatrice's Goat\" at Artistry in the Rock on April 30, 2013.  Creative Movement students participated in Jump Rope for Heart and Hoops for Heart.  Math students participated in the Matheletes and Go Figure! mathematics competitions.  Hejun Chen, fourth grade student, won eighth place in the Pulaski County Spelling Bee.  Dante Watson, fourth grade student, won fourth place in the Little Rock School District Science Fair.   Alta and Kaiya Griffith performed in \"Madeline and the Gypsies\" at the Arkansas Arts Center.  Mayrean Johnson and Mary McMorran were honored for 40 and 38 years of service to the Little Rock School District., respectively.  Gifted and Talented students participated in the Little Rocker's Marathon.  Mary Lou Alley, Susan Blue, Tammy Higdon, and Patti Jackson received the President's Service Award for Volunteer Service to the Little Rock School District. 38   Participation at National/Regional/Local Conferences or lnservices  Gail Hollamon and Emily Vaughn - Mickelson Exxon Mobil Teacher Academy for Math and Science  Emily Vaughn served on the Arkansas Department of Education's Range-finding Committee for Third Grade Writing  All-State Music Conference  Arkansas Counseling Association Conference  AGATE  CGI Training  NABSE  Powerful Coaching  39    Booker Arts Magnet Composition - Withdrawals 2012-2013 Grade Native Asian African Hispanic/ White Multi-Ethnic Total American American Latino K 0 0 3 1 3 0 7 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 8 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 9 3 12 1 27 40    Booker Arts Magnet Explanation of Withdrawals Transferred to Moved out of Transferred to Moved out of Moved out of Another LRSD LRSD Private Charter State Country School School K 1 4 1 1 0 7 1 5 1 0 2 0 8 2 0 3 1 2 0 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 6 13 3 5 0 27 41  Native American K 0-M 0-F 1 0-M 0-F 2 0-M 0-F 3 0-M 0-F 4 0-M 0-F 5 0-M 0-F Total 0-M 0-F  Booker Arts Magnet Discipline Report - In School Suspensions 2012-2013 Asian African Hispanic/ White American Latino 0-M 4-M 1-M 8-M 0- F 2-F 0-F 0-F 0-M 1-M 1-M 0-M 0-F 3-F 0-F 0-F 0-M 18-M 2-M 4-M 0-F 5-F 0-F 0-F 2-M 6-M 2-M 2-M 0-F 6-F 0-F 0-F 0-M 13-M 2-M 3-M 0-F 8-F 0-F 0-F 0-M 14-M 1-M 6-M 0-F 11 - F 0-F 1 - F 2-M 56-M 9-M 23-M 0- F 35-F 0-F 1-F  Multi- Total Ethnic 0-M 13-M 2-F 4-F 1-M 3-M 0-F 3-F 1-M 25-M 0-F 5-F 0-M 12-M 0-F 6-F 2-M 20-M 0-F 8-F 0-M 21-M 1-F 13-F 4-M 94-M 3-F 39-F 42    Booker Arts Magnet Discipline Report - Out of School Suspensions 2012-2013 Native Asian African Hispanic/Lati White Multi-Ethnic Total American American no K 0-M 0-M 8-M 2-M 4-M 0-M 14-M 0-F 0-F 8-F 0-F 0-F 2-F 10-F 1 0-M 0-M 6-M 1-M 0-M 1-M 8-M 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 2 0-M 0-M 19-M 2-M 3-M 0-M 24-M 0-F 0-F 3-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 3-F 3 0-M 0-M 4-M 0-M 1-M 0-M 5-M 0-F 0-F 6-F 0-F 1-F 0-F 7-F 4 0-M 0-M 20-M 3-M 0-M 1-M 24-M 0-F 0-F 7-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 7-F 5 0-M 0-M 10-M 0-M 3-M 0-M 13-M 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F 0-F Total 0-M 0-M 67-M 8-M 11-M 2-M 88-M 0-F 0-F 24-F 0-F 1-F 2-F 27-F 43 K 1 2 3 4 5 Total Booker Arts Magnet Discipline Report - Long Term Suspension - ALE 2012 -2013 Native Asian African Hispanic/ White Multi-Ethnic American American Latino 0 0 1 - F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - F 0 0 0 Total 1 - F 0 0 0 0 0 1 - F 44    Share the GOOD NEWS  Big Brothers/Big Sisters Mentoring Program  Living Hope, School-Based Mental Health Program  Benchmark \"Our Wheels are Turning\" Challenge Parent Involvement Activities  VIPS Reading Day  Family Math and Literacy Night  Family Movie Nights  Dream Keepers Garage Sale  Thanksgiving Food Baskets Drive  Pajama Day Gift Drive  Campus Beautification Day  37,781.75 VIPS Hours, average of 72.1 hours per student 45    STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS ANNUAL REPORT FORM - 2013 SCHOOL: Booker Arts Magnet School PRINCIPAL'S NAME: Cheryl A. Carson: e-mail: cheryl.carson@,lrsd.org phone: 447-3802 OTHER ADMINISTRATORS (Asterisk if new): NAME: * Eloise Booth e-mail: eloise.booth@lrsd.org phone: 447-3871 SCHOOL SECRETARY: Judy Wilson-Murray phone: 447-3803 ............................................................................... CURRENTENROLLMENT: 519 LAST YEAR'S ENROLLMENT: 543 RACIAL COMPOSITION: 60%B 40%NB 1. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC AND LIST ANY REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES. 2 . Our musical instruments are in need ofrepair. We also need to replace bows for use with our stringed instruments. A cost estimate for these needs is $5,000.00. SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU HA VE FOCUSED ON IN YOUR ACSIP. The staff at Booker Arts Magnet School focused on improving the literacy and mathematics skills of all students. Interventions utilized to improve student achievement in literacy included Reading Recovery, ELLA, Effective Literacy, Literacy Lab, and differentiation of instruction. Differentiation of instruction, increasing mathematics vocabulary, and use of Cognitively Guided Instruction strategies were utilized to improve mathematics achievement. Many efforts have been made to provide differentiated instruction based on student's identified needs. Small group interventions in literacy and mathematics have been provided by classroom teachers, Reading Recovery teachers, instructional specialists, fine arts specialists, and our Literacy and Math teacher. Camp Jaguar, Booker Arts Magnet School's after-school tutoring program, provided twice weekly tutoring sessions on literacy, mathematics, and test-taking strategies to most of our second, third, fourth, and fifth grade students who scored basic or below basic on the Augmented Benchmark Exam or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in 2011-2012 and tpeir siblings. A separate Activity Time following the Camp Jaguar sessions was provided to all interested students. The Activity Time course offerings were arts and crafts, basketball, cooking, and dance. These sessions provided by certified teachers and administrators began in September 2012 and ended in March 2013. Students who were unable to participate in Camp Jaguar were provided small group interventions to address their areas of need during the school day. In addition, interventions to promote wellness and increase student attendance were implemented. A partnership between Booker Arts Magnet School and the city of Little Rock resulted in the Love Your Schools initiative. Cooking Matters classes were provided to interested families 1    3. for six weeks in February and March 2013. ZUMBA classes were provided three afternoons weekly to our staff and interested parents . PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS Automatic locking mechanisms on our main entry door were installed during the second semester of2012-2013. Additional security cameras will be installed, and student, staff, and Health Room restrooms will be renovated in the very near future. 4. REPORT ON CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS 5. There are no proposed changes in the curriculum offerings for the 2013-2014 school year, other than the incorporation of the Common Core Standards for third through fifth grades in our curriculum maps. DID YOUR SCHOOL MEET ESEA ACCOUNT ABILITY GOALS AND THE DISTRICT'S STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS? Booker Arts Magnet School was designated as an Achieving School in Literacy with 80.37 percent of all students scoring proficient or advanced. 77.73 percent of the Targeted Achievement Gap Group scored proficient or advanced. All students, the Targeted Gap Group, and all subgroups of students made their growth goal in Literacy ranging from 66.67 percent of Students with Disabilities to 95 .24 percent of Hispanic students. A three year comparison of the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in Literacy on the Augmented Benchmark Exam indicated steady growth for each subgroup of students with twenty or more students. The gap between the percentage of African American students and Caucasian students scoring proficient or advanced in Literacy on the Augmented Benchmark Exam decreased by 10.0 percent to a gap of 6.7 percent. A comparison of the Augmented Benchmark Exam scores of male and female students indicated that 90.00 percent of female students scored proficient or advanced and 71.00 percent of male students scored proficient or advanced. The gap between the percentage of male and female students scoring proficient or advanced increased from 18.0 percent on the 2010-2011 Augmented Benchmark Exam to 19.0 percent on the 2011-2012 Augmented Benchmark Exam. Booker Arts Magnet School was designated as a Needs Improvement School in Mathematics with 70.00 percent of all students scoring proficient or advanced. 66.82 percent of the Targeted Achievement Gap Group scored proficient or advanced. No subgroup of students made their growth goal in Mathematics. A three year comparison of the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in Mathematics on the Augmented Benchmark Exam indicated a decline for each subgroup of students with twenty or more students. The gap between the percentage of African American students and Caucasian students scoring proficient or advanced in Mathematics on the Augmented Benchmark Exam decreased by 2.2 percent to a gap of l 0.0 percent. A comparison of the Augmented Benchmark Exam scores of male and female students indicated that 76.43 percent of female students scored proficient or advanced and 64.52 percent of male students scored proficient or advanced. The gap between the percentage of male and female students scoring proficient or advanced decreased by 13.82 percent from 25.73 percent to 11.91 percent. 2   6.  The 2011-2012 Augmented Benchmark Exam scores met or exceeded the 2011- 2012 Strategic Plan goal for increasing the percentage of all students scoring proficient or advanced by five percentile points (six percentile points for African American students) in Literacy in third grade for Hispanic males and White males. Scores for fourth grade students met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males, Hispanic females (already at 100%), African American males, and African American females. Scores for fifth grade students met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males, African American females, and White females. The Strategic Plan goal for increasing the percentages of students scoring advanced by four percentile points (six percentile points for African American students) in Literacy in third grade met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males, Hispanic females, African American males, African American females, and White females. Scores for fourth grade students met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic females, African American males, African American females, and White males. Scores for fifth grade students met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males, Hispanic females, African American males, African American females, and White females. The Strategic Plan goal for eliminating all students scoring basic or below basic in Literacy on the Augmented Benchmark Exam was not met for any subgroup of students in third through fifth grades. The percentages of third grade students scoring proficient or advanced in Literacy on the Augmented Benchmark Exam are as follows: Hi~panic males-75%, Hispanic females-86%, African American males-56%, African American females-80%, White males-80%, and White females-42%. The percentages of fourth grade students scoring proficient or advanced in Literacy on the Augmented Benchmark Exam are as follows: Hispanic males-80%, Hispanic females-100%, African American males-76%, African American females-97%, White males-82%, and White females-92%. The percentages of fifth grade students scoring proficient or advanced in Literacy on the Augmented Benchmark Exam are as follows: Hispanic males-70%, Hispanic females-100%, African American males-59%, African American females-96%, White males-90%, and White females- I 00%. The 2011-2012 Augmented Benchmark Exam scores met or exceeded the 2011- 2012 Strategic Plan goals for increasing the percentage of all students scoring proficient or advanced by five percentile points (six percentile points for African American students) in Mathematics in third grade for White males. Scores for fourth grade students met or exceeded the goal for African American males. Scores for fifth grade students met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males. The Strategic Plan goal for increasing the percentages of students scoring advanced by four percentile points (six percentile points for African American students in Mathematics) in third grade met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males, Hispanic females, and White males. Scores for fourth grade students met or exceeded the goal for African American males. Scores for fifth grade students met or exceeded the goal for Hispanic males. PLEASE LIST ANY INTERVENTION OR SUPPORT SERVICES YOUR SCHOOL PROVIDED TO ENHANCE ACADEMICS, TEST-TAKING SKILLS, OR TO RAISE TEST SCORES. In addition to the interventions listed in the response to the second question, Response to Intervention targeted interventions were provided to students who were significantly below grade level and who were progress monitored by the School-Based Intervention Team. Resource, Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Physical 3  7.  8.  Therapy services were provided to students with identified needs. Gifted and Talented instruction was provided to all kindergarten through second grade students and to identified second through fifth grade students. 504 accommodations were provided to identified students. Limited English Proficient students were also provided instructional modifications and testing accommodations when needed. Small group and individual counseling sessions were conducted for students identified by the School-Based Intervention Team, parent referral, teacher referral, and/or due to disciplinary sanctions. Living Hope also provided individual and family services to identified students and their families. Academic Improvement Plans and Intensive Reading Intervention Plans were created and implementing for each student scoring basic or below basic on standardized assessments. Volunteers for the Starfish Reading Initiative provide individual tutoring two days a week for identified kindergarten students. Summer School was also offered to all students scoring basic or below basic. PIES (Positive Interventions for Educational Success) plans were developed for students who repeatedly violated Category I and/or Category II rules. LIST OUTSTANDING OR NEW RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES. Satisfied parents are the most effective recruitment tool. Parents who feel that they are viewed as partners in their child's education and who feel that their child is an important part of the school family assist in Booker Arts Magnet School's recruitment effort. As of May 7, 2013, the incoming kindergarten class for 2013- 2014 included twenty-one students whose parents or older siblings attended school at Booker Arts Magnet. Also, seventeen students assigned for the 2013-2014 school year have parents who are alumni. Eighteen students are the children or grandchildren of LRSD staff members. 223 of our students have siblings who currently attend or have attended Booker Arts Magnet School. A total of 258 students have family ties to Booker Arts Magnet School. This information indicates that Booker Arts Magnet School has satisfied parents who value their children's experiences at Booker and have re-enrolled them for the 2013-2014 school year. RECAP HONORS AND/OR AW ARDS WON  Gail Hollamon and Emily Vaughn were chosen to participate in the Mickelson Exxon Mobile Teacher Academy for Math and Science to be held this summer.  Mayrean Johnson and Mary McMorran were honored for 40 and 38 years of service to LRSD, respectively.  Booker Arts Magnet School's choir students performed at the Capitol Hotel on December 20, 2012.  Drama students presented an excerpt from \"Beatrice's Goat\" at Artistry in the Rock on April 30, 2013.  Creative Movement students participated in Jump Rope for Heart and Hoops for Heart.  Math students participated in the Matheletes and Go Figure! mathematics competitions.  Hejun Chen, fourth grade student, won eighth place at the Pulaski County Spelling Bee.  Gifted and talented students participated in the Little Rockers Marathon as part of a unit on wellness.  Dante Watson, fourth grade student, won forth place at the LRSD Science Fair. 4    9.  Alta and Kaiya Griffith performed in \"Madeline and the Gypsies\" at the Arkansas Arts Center.  Mary Lou Alley, Susan Blue, Tammy Higdon, and Patti Jackson received the Presidential Award for their volunteer service to the Little Rock School District. RECAP PARTICIPATION AT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, OR LOCAL CONFERENCES OR INSERVICES. Staff members at Booker Arts Magnet School participated in research-based \"best practices\" training such as the All-State Music Conference, Arkansas Counseling Association Conference, AGATE, CGI training, NABSE, and Powerful Coaching. Emily Vaughn, third grade teacher, served on ADE's Range Finding Committee to set the ranges for the third grade writing assessments. 10. PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HAVE WITHDRAWN OR EXITED YOUR SCHOOL'S PROGRAM AND THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. 11. Twenty-seven students have withdrawn from Booker Arts Magnet School during the 2012-2013 school year. Nine students were African American, three students were Hispanic/Latino, twelve students were White, and three students were MultiEthnic. Seven students were in kindergarten, eight in first grade, six in second grade, one in third grade, three in fourth grade, and two in fifth grade. Seventeen of the students were males, and ten of the students were females. Twelve students moved out of the District. Six students transferred to other LRSD schools. Three students transferred to private or charter schools. Six students moved out of Arkansas. PROVIDE A DISCIPLINE REPORT WHICH INCLUDES IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS, OUT OF SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS, AND LONG TERM SUSPENSIONS. A total of 133 in-school suspensions have been administered to Booker Arts Magnet School students during the 2012-2013 school year. In kindergarten, one inschool suspension was administered to a Hispanic male, four to African American males, two to African American females, eight to White males, and two to Multiethnic females. In first grade, one in-school suspension was administered to a Hispanic male, one to an African American male, three to African American females, and one to a Multi-ethnic male. In second grade, two in-school suspensions were administered to Hispanic males, eighteen were administered to African American males, five to African American females, four to White males, and one to a Multi-ethnic male. In third grade, two in-school suspensions were administered to Hispanic males, two to Asian males, six to African American males, six to African American females, and two to White males. In fourth grade, two in-school suspensions were administered to Hispanic males, thirteen to African American males, eight to African American females, three to White males, and two to Multiethnic males. In fifth grade, one in-school suspension was administered to a Hispanic male, fourteen to African American males, eleven to African American females, six to White males, one to a White female, and one to a Multi-ethnic female. 5  12 .   A total of 115 out-of school suspensions have been administered to Booker Arts Magnet School students during the 2012-2013 school year. In kindergarten, two suspensions were administered to Hispanic males, eight to African American males, eight to African American females, four to White males, and two to Multiethnic females. In first grade, one suspension was administered to a Hispanic male, six to African American males, and one to a Multi-ethnic male. In second grade, two suspensions were administered to Hispanic males, nineteen to African American males, three to African American females, and three to White males. In third grade, four suspensions were administered to African American males, six to African American females, one to a White male, and one to a White female. In fourth grade, three suspensions were administered to Hispanic males, twenty to African American males, seven to African American females, and one to a Multi-ethnic male. In fifth grade, ten suspensions were administered to African American males and three to White males. One long-term suspension was administered to an African American female who physically assaulted several staff members. An examination of the offenses for which our students received the in-school suspensions, the out-of school suspensions, and the long term suspension indicated that the majority of these offenses were Disorderly Conduct, Fighting, Tardiness, Bullying, and Sexual Misconduct. PIES (Positive Interventions for Educational Success) plans have been developed for students having repeated violations of the same offenses in an effort to extinguish the students' inappropriate behaviors. SUPPLY ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WISH TO INCLUDE. Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Arkansas assisted Booker Arts Magnet School by providing mentors for twelve of our students with academic, behavioral, or self-esteem needs. This was the eighth year of partnership with Big Brothers, Big Sisters who provides our mentors through the UALR Law School, Philander Smith College, and Little Rock Fire Fighters. Several students also have mentors through Pfeifer Camp. Booker Arts Magnet School students and their families have benefitted from our partnership with Living Hope, a school-based mental health provider. Living Hope provides a full time case worker and part-time therapist for students and provides medication clinics once a month for families who need services. Living Hope also has a community-based program and a summer program for students. Living Hope currently serves Booker Arts Magnet School students and their families. The Benchmark \"Our Wheels are Turning\" Challenge, a motivational program to encourage students to exhibit good test-taking behaviors such as coming to school on time, working the entire testing period, and checking over their answers once they have completed their test if time permits, resulted in the principal riding a \"hog\" (Harley Davidson motorcycle), and the Literacy Ladies riding inside and on top of a \"bug\" (Volkswagen Beetle) on April 19, 2013. Parental involvement activities for the 2012-2013 school year included VIPS Reading Day, Family Math and Literacy ight, two Family Movie Nights, and the Dream Keepers Garage Sale. Parents also supported Booker Arts Magnet School's efforts by donating food items for our Thanksgiving Baskets and funds for the Pajama Day fundraiser to provide gifts for needy Booker Arts Magnet School 6    children for Christmas. Other parent involvement activities included Campus Beautification Day on April 20, 2013. Booker Arts Magnet School's staff, students, parents, and community partners contributed 37,781.75 volunteer hours from March 1, 2012 through February 28, 2013, averaging 72.1 hours per student. 7 2012 Arkansas School ESEA Accountability Report  District: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent: MORRIS HOLMES School: BOOKER ARTS MAGNET ELEM. SCH. Principal: CHERYL CARSON LEA: 6001006 Grades: K-05 Address: 2016 BARBER ST. Enrollment: 551 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Attendance Rate: 96.39% (3 QTR AVG) Phone: 501-447-3800 Poverty Rate: 77.50% Needs Improvement School Achieving School Percent Tested # Expected Literacy Literacy # Expected Math Math All Students 273 YES 273 YES Targeted Achievement Gap Group 223 YES 223 YES ESEA Subgroups # Expected Literacy Literacy # Expected Math Math African Americans 165 YES 165 YES Hispanic 32 YES 32 YES White 67 YES 67 YES Economically Disadvantaged 214 YES 214 YES English Learners 27 YES 27 YES Students with Disabilities 29 YES 29 YES Achieving School in Literacy # Attempted Percentage 2012 AMO # Applicable Percentage 2012 AMO 2012 Performance 2012 Growth All Students 270 80.37 73.46 183 90.16 85.42  Targeted Achievement Gap Group 220 77.73 70.21 147 89.12 84.27 Three Year Performance Three Year Growth All Students 811 73.46 537 86.22 85.42 Targeted Achievement Gap Group 627 70.21 414 85.51 84.27 ESEA Subgroups 2012 Perfonmance 2012 Growth African Americans 165 70.24 107 88.79 82.76 Hispanic 31 60.14 21 95.24 88.54 White 66 84.91 48 91.67 89.42 Economically Disadvantaged 211 78.67 70.40 138 89.86 83.66 English Learners 26 80.77 61.80 17 94.12 89.82 Students with Disabilities 29 37.93 22.08 21 66.67 57.70 Needs Improvement School in Math #Attempted Percentage 2012 AMO # Applicable Percentage 2012AMO 2012 Perfonmance 2012 Growth All Students 270 78.29 183 68.23 Targeted Achievement Gap Group 220 76.17 147 66.48 Thre Three Y ar rowth All Students 811 78.29 537 68.23 Targeted Achievement Gap Group 627 76.17 414 66.48 ESEA Subgroups 2012 Perfonmance African Americans 165 74.41 107 65.52 Hispanic 31 80.07 21 54.17 White 66 86.08 48 75.32  Economically Disadvantaged 211 75.65 138 66.61 English Learners 26 77.08 17 64.35 Students with Disabilities 29 45.00 21 50.64 Page 1/1    School Plan BOOKER ARTS MAGNET ELEM. SCH. 2016 BARBER ST., LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan 2012-2013 The staff of Joseph R. Booker Arts Magnet School believes and expects that every individual can and will learn. Our mission is to educate all students to higher levels of academic performance, while developing divergent thinking and creativity, promoting physical and emotional wellbeing, and fostering positive growth in social behaviors through integration of the curriculum and the fine and performing arts. In partnership with parents and the community, we accept the responsibility to teach all students with the goal of enabling them to achieve their ultimate educational potential and to equip them to meet the challenges of the Twenty-first century. Grade Span: K-5 Title I: Not Applicable School Improvement: MS Table of Contents Priority 1: Literacy Goal: All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression, with additional attention to practical reading passages, content and style writing domains, and formulating appropriate responses to open response questions. Goal 2: To narrow the achievement gap between proficient and non-proficient learners in literacy. (Strategic Plan) Goal 3: All Booker Arts Magnet School students will read on grade level by the end of third grade. (Strategic Plan) Priority 2: Mathematics Goal: All students will improve in mathematics computation and problem solving, with additional attention to geometry and measurement, and formulating appropriate responses to open response questions. Goal 2: To narrow the achievement gap between proficient and non-proficient learners in mathematics. (Strategic Plan) 1    Priority 3: Wellness Goal: All students will increase healthy eating habits, practice good hygiene, and engage in fitness activities, as indicated by increases in the attendance rate and percentages of students having ratings of healthy on the BMI. Priority 4: Parental Involvement Goal: All parents/guardians will become engaged in parental involvement activities that will result in increases in student achievement. Priority 1: Supporting Data: Improve Student Achievement in Reading and Writing Literacy 1. ACSIP CRT Data for BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Literacy Exam 2010 Combined Population: 101 students were tested and 55% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Content and Practical - multiple choice and Practical - open response. The analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified areas were Content and Style. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Literacy Exam 2011 Combined Population: 91 students were tested and 68% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Content - multiple choice and Practical - open response. An analysis of the responses to the writing prompts indicated the lowest identified areas were the Content and Style domains. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students and Students with Disabilities were summarizing major points in non-fiction text and recognizing and using variations of print. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not identified. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Literacy Exam 2012 Combined Population: 86 students were tested and 70% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Practical-multiple choice and Practical-open response. An analysis of the responses to the writing prompts indicated the lowest areas were the Content and Style domains. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were drawing inferences\ngenerating questions and checking the text for answers\nand reading the text for a variety of purposes. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were drawing 2   inferences\ngenerating questions and checking the text for answers\nand editing for usage. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. 2. ACSIP CRT Data for BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fourth Grade Literacy Exam - 2010  Combined Population: 95 students were tested and 69% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple-choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Literary - multiple choice and Practical - open response. The analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area was Style. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fourth Grade Literacy Exam 2011 Combined Population: 102 students were tested and 70% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Content and Practical - multiple choice and Content and Practical - open response. An analysis of the responses to the writing prompts indicated the lowest identified areas were the Content and Style domains. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students and Students with Disabilities were making connections from text to self and editing. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fourth Grade Literacy Exam 2012 Combined Population: 90 students were tested and 89% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages reveled that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Practical - Multiple Choice and Practical - Open Response. An analysis of the responses to the writing prompts indicated the lowest areas were the Content and Style domains. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were analyzing and comparing features of genres, spelling, and reading for the text for a variety of purposes. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were drawing inferences\ngenerating questions and checking the text for answers\nand summarizing-identifying important ideas and details. The lowest identified area for the other subpopulations were not available. 3. ACSIP CRT Data for BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fifth Grade Literacy Exam 2010 Combined Population: 89 students were tested and 72% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified 3    areas for Combined students were Content - multiple choice and Practical - open response. The analysis of the open response questions in the five writing domains revealed that the lowest identified area was Style. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fifth Grade Literacy Exam 2011 Combined Population: 83 students were tested and 76% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Literary and Content - multiple choice and Literary - open response. An analysis of the responses to the writing prompts indicated the lowest identified areas were the Content and Style domains. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students and Students with Disabilities were using text features to locate information, editing, and identifying figurative language. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fifth Grade Literacy Exam 2012 Combined Population: 97 students were tested and 82% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the three types of reading passages reveled that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Practical - multiple choice and Literary and Content - open response. An analysis of the responses to the writing prompts indicated the lowest areas were the Content and Style domains. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were editing for mechanics, context clues, and summarizingmain ideas and supporting details. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were editing for mechanics, utilizing background knowledge for comprehension, and summarizing-main ideas and supporting details. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available THREE YEAR SUMMARY: An examination of the Augmented Benchmark Literacy Exam results for third through fifth grade students for 2009- 2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 indicated that Combined students had difficulty with the Practical - multiple choice and Practical - open response and Content and Style - writing domains. The lowest identified area for Limited English Proficient students was drawing inferences and supporting them with text evidence. The lowest identified area for Students with Disabilities was editing for usage. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available for 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. 4. Stanford 10 - Grade 5 Total Reading 2010 Combined Population: 89 students were tested and 60.7% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Informational - Using Monitoring Strategies. The lowest areas for the subpopulations 4    were not available. Stanford 10 Grade 5 Comprehensive Language - 2010 2010: Combined Population: 89 students were tested and 43% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Capitalization - Informative. The lowest areas for the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 5 Total Reading 2011 Combined Population: 83 students were tested and 35% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest area for Combined Students was determining main idea. Limited English Proficient students had the most difficulty with vocabulary and drawing conclusions. Students with Disabilities had the most difficulty with determining main idea, drawing conclusions, and understanding stated information. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills Grade 5 Total Language 2011 Combined Population: 83 students were tested and 36% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest area for Combined students was usage and expression. The lowest areas for Limited English Proficient students were usage and expression - verbs and modifiers. The lowest areas for Students with Disabilities were capitalization, use of apostrophes, and usage and expression - modifier. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 5 Total Reading 2012 Combined Population: 97 students were tested and 36% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test.The lowest identified areas for Combined students were determining main ideas and drawing conclusions. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were verbs, drawing conclusions, modifiers, and determining main ideas. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were understanding stated information, determining main idea, and drawing conclusions. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 5 Total Language 2012 Combined Population: 97 students were tested and 35% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were appropriate usage and expression, capitalization of place names, and organization of ideas. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were verbs, modifiers, vowels in spelling, and capitalizing place names and names of groups or organizations. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were suffixes in spelling, over capitalization, use of apostrophes, modifiers, and appropriate usage and expression. The lowest identified areas for other subpopulations were not available 5    5. Stanford 10 Grade 4 Total Reading 2010 Combined Population: 95 students were tested and 65.3% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Functional - Explicit Supporting Details. The lowest areas for the subpopulations were not available. Stanford 10 Grade 4 Comprehensive Language 2010 Combined Population: 95 students were tested and 18% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Content and Organization - Narrative. The lowest areas for the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 4 Total Reading 2011 Combined Population: 102 students were tested and 33% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest area for Combined and Students with Disabilities was vocabulary - modifier. Limited English Proficient students had the most difficulty with vocabulary - verb. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 4 Total Language 2011 Combined Population: 102 students were tested and 36% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest area for Combined students was capitalization of names and titles. Limited English Proficient students had the most difficulty with suffixes in spelling. Students with Disabilities had the most difficulty with usage of commas and spelling with consonants. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 4 Total Reading 2012 Combined Population: 90 students were tested and 31 % scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total reading test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were modifiers, verbs, and understanding stated information. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students and Students with Disabilities were verbs, understanding stated information, modifiers, and determining main ideas. The lowest identified areas for other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 4 Total Language 2012 Combined Population: 90 students were tested and 44% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were capitalization of names/titles and 6    organizations/groups, and use of commas. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient were spelling with suffixes and consonants, capitalization of name/title, and comma. The lowest identified areas of other subpopulations were not available. 6. Stanford 10 Grade 3 Total Reading 2010 Combined Population: 101 students were tested and 32.7% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Functional - Extending Meaning. The lowest areas for the subpopulations were not available. Stanford 10 Grade 3 Comprehensive Language 2010: Combined Population: 95 students were tested and 17% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Punctuation - Narrative. The lowest areas for the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 3 Total Reading 2011 Combined Population: 91 students were tested and 32% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest area for Combined students was vocabulary - modifier. Limited English Proficient Students had the most difficulty with vocabulary - modifier and nouns and drawing conclusion. Students with Disabilities had the most difficulty with inference and interpretation. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 3 Total Language 2011 Combined Population: 91 students were tested and 20% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language Test. The lowest area for Combined students was spelling - consonants. Limited English Proficient Students had the most difficulty with use of apostrophes and commas. Students with Disabilities had the most difficulty with the use of verbs. The lowest areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 3 Total Reading 2012 Combined Population: 86 students were tested and 40% of scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were modifiers and understanding stated information. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were modifiers, nouns, drawing conclusions, and understanding stated information. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were inferring motives, understanding stated information, nouns, and modifiers. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 3 Total Language 2012 7    Combined Population: 86 students were tested and 24% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were spelling-consonants and capitalization-writing conventions. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were use of apostrophes and commas, spelling-suffixes and consonants, and capitalization-place names and writing conventions. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were capitalization-place names and writing conventions, usage of verbs, and usage of apostrophes and ending punctuation. The lowest identified areas for other subpopulations were not available. 7. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 2 Total Reading 2011 Combined Population: 92 were tested and 29% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading Test. The lowest areas for Combined students and the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 2 Total Language 2011 Combined Population: 92 were tested and 20% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest areas for Combined students and the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 2 Total Reading 2012 Combined Population: 102 students were tested and 49% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were verbs, modifiers, and factual understanding. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 2 Total Language 2012 Combined Population: 102 students were tested and 33% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest identified area for Combined students was affixes. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. 8. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 1 Total Reading 2011 Combined Population: 99 students were tested and 37% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest area for Combined students and the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 1 Total Language 2011 Combined Population: 99 students were tested and 35% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest areas for Combined students and the subpopulations were not available. 8    Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 1 Total Reading 2012 Combined Population: 94 students were tested and 43% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were factual understanding, inference and interpretation, and analysis and generalization. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 1 Total Language 2012 Combined Population: 94 students were tested and 43% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were usage of pronouns and commas. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. 9. Metropolitan 8 Kindergarten Sounds and Print 2010 Combined Population: 90 students were tested and 59% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest areas for Combined students and for the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Kindergarten Total Reading 2011 Combined Population: 85 were tested and 62% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Reading test. The lowest areas for Combined students and the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Kindergarten Total Language 2011 Combined Population: 85 were tested and 91 % scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Language test. The lowest areas for Combined students and the subpopulations were not available. Kindergarten students were not administered a norm-referenced test in 2011-2012. THREE YEAR SUMMARY An examination of the Stanford 10, Metropolitan 8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills for kindergarten through fifth grade students for 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 indicated that Combined students had the most difficulty with capitalization, main idea, and understanding the stated idea. In addition to the lowest areas identified for Combined Students, Limited English Proficient students had the most difficulty with punctuation - apostrophes, modifiers, and verbs. In addition to the lowest areas identified for Combined students, Students with Disabilities had the most difficulty with drawing conclusions and capitalization. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. 9    10. In 2009-2010, the percentage of Combined students reading on or above grade level as indicated by the guided reading text level was 60% in kindergarten, 78% in first grade, and 76% in second grade. The percentage of African American students reading on or above grade level was 49% in kindergarten, 76% in first grade, and 78% in second grade. The percentage of Hispanic students reading on or above grade level was 100% in kindergarten, 60% in first grade, and 57% in second grade. The percentage of Caucasian students reading on or above grade level was 71 % in kindergarten, 84% in first grade, and 77% in second grade. The percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students reading on or above grade level was 48% in kindergarten, 75% in first grade, and 72% in second grade. The percentage of Limited English Proficient students reading on or above grade level was 100% in kindergarten, 67% in first grade, and 43% in second grade. The percentage of Students with Disabilities reading on or above grade level was 45% in kindergarten, 22% in first grade, and 33% in second grade. In 2010-2011, the percentage of Combined students reading on or above grade level as indicated by guided reading text levels was 70% in kindergarten, 79% in first grade, and 65% in second grade. The percentage of African American students reading on or above grade level was 62% in kindergarten, 80% in first grade, and 58% in second grade. The percentage of Hispanic students reading on or above grade level was 78% in kindergarten, 73% in first grade, and 70% in second grade. The percentage of Caucasian students reading on or above grade level was 67% in kindergarten, 83% in first grade, and 84% in second grade. The percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students reading on or above grade level was 62% in kindergarten, 75% in first grade, and 62% in second grade. The percentage of Limited English Proficient students reading on or above grade level was 78% in kindergarten, 86% in first grade, and 75% in second grade. The percentage of Students with Disabilities reading on or above grade level was 29% in kindergarten, 27% in first grade, and 50% in second grade. In 2011-2012, the percentage of Combined students reading on or above grade level as indicated by guided reading text levels was 68% in kindergarten, 65% in first grade, and 70% in second grade. The percentage of African American students reading on or above grade level was 68% in kindergarten, 65% in first grade, and 63% in second grade. The percentage of Hispanic students reading on or above grade level was 43% in kindergarten, 75% in first grade, and 100% in second grade. The percentage of Caucasian students reading on or above grade level was 70% in kindergarten, 61 % in first grade, and 68% in second grade. The percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students reading on or above grade level was 62% in kindergarten, 64% in first grade, and 65% in second grade. The percentage of Limited English Proficient students reading on or above grade levels is 43% in kindergarten, 80% in first grade, and 100% in seoond grade. The percentage of Students with Disabilities reading on or above grade level was 75% in kindergarten, 29% in first grade, and 27% in second grade. THREE YEAR SUMMARY An examination of the guided reading text levels for kindergarten, first and second grade students for 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012, indicated that the percentage of African American students reading on or above grade level did not differ with statistical significance from that of Combined students, with the exception of kindergarten students in 2009-2010 and second grade students in 2010-2011. The percentage of Caucasian students and Economically Disadvantaged students reading on or above grade level was comparable to all students with few exceptions. In some cases, their scores exceeded the scores of their peers. A smaller percentage of Students with Disabilities read on or above grade level than their peers in 2009-2010 and in first and second grades in 2011-2012. 10    11. An analysis of the fifth grade SOAR Literacy assessments for 2011-2012 indicated that 61 % (second quarter), 61 % (third quarter), and 49% (fourth quarter) of Combined students scored proficient. An analysis of African American students scores indicated that 58% (second quarter), 57% (third quarter), and 44% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. An analysis of Hispanic students scores indicated that 54% (second quarter), 62% (third quarter), and 38% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. An analysis of Caucasian students scores indicated that 72% (second quarter), 67% (third quarter) and 61 % (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data for the other subpopulations was not available. An analysis of the fourth grade SOAR Literacy assessments for 2011-2012 indicated that 55% (second quarter), 54% (third quarter), and 50% (fourth quarter) of Combined students scored proficient. An analysis of African American students scores indicated that 58% (second quarter), 49% (third quarter), and 51 % (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data was not available on the scores of Hispanic students. An analysis of Caucasian students scores indicated that 59% (second quarter), 63% (third quarter) and 55% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data for the other subpopulations was not available. An analysis of the third grade SOAR Literacy assessments for 2011-2012 indicated that 39% (second quarter), 39% (third quarter), and 21 % (fourth quarter) of Combined students scored proficient. An analysis of African American students scores indicated that 32% (second quarter), 30% (third quarter), and 16% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. An analysis of Hispanic students scores indicated that 64% (second quarter) and 45% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data was not available on the third quarter scores of Hispanic students. An analysis of Caucasian students scores indicated that 46% (second quarter), 75% (third quarter) and 33% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data for the other subpopulations was not available. An analysis of the second grade SOAR Literacy assessments for 2011-2012 indicated that 69% (second quarter), 68% (third quarter), and 57% (fourth quarter) of Combined students scored proficient. An analysis of African American students scores indicated that 57% (second quarter), 61 % (third quarter), and 47% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data was not available on the scores of Hispanic students. An analysis of Caucasian students scores indicated that 86% (second quarter), 79% (third quarter) and 68% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data for the other subpopulations was not available. An analysis of the first grade SOAR Literacy assessments for 2011-2012 indicated that 84% (second quarter), 66% (third quarter), and 82% (fourth quarter) of Combined students scored proficient. An analysis of African American students scores indicated that 85% (second quarter), 64% (third quarter), and 80% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. An analysis of Hispanic students scores indicated that 73% (second quarter), 58% (third quarter), and 75% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. An analysis of Caucasian students scores indicated that 85% (second quarter), 74% (third quarter) and 89% (fourth quarter) scored proficient. Data for the other subpopulations was not available. One-Year Summary 11    An analysis of the first through fifth grade SOAR Literacy assessments for the second - fourth quarters of 2011-2012 indicated no statistically significant differences between the scores of Combined, African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian students with the following exceptions: African American students in second grade during the second and fourth quarters (lower scores)\n' Hispanic students in first grade during the second quarter (lower scores) and third during the second and fourth quarters (higher scores)\nand Caucasian students in second grade during the second and third quarters, third grade during the third and fourth quarters, and fifth grade during the second and fourth quarters (higher scores). Data for the other subpopulations was not available. 12. In 2009-2010, Booker Arts Magnet School students had an attendance rate of 96.59%. The Third Quarter Average Daily Attendance was 547.35, and the Average Daily Membership was 566.64. In 2010-2011, Booker Arts Magnet School students had an attendance rate of 95.75%. The Third Quarter Average Daily Attendance was 529.99, and the Average Daily membership was 553.49. In 2011-2012, Booker Arts Magnet School students had an attendance rate of 96.40%. The Third Quarter Average Daily Attendance was 530.39, and the Average Daily Membership was 550.15. 13. Booker Arts Magnet School Needs Assessment Narrative The building level review of data included but was not limited to state mandated assessments (Augmented Benchmark Exam and !TBS)\nLittle Rock School District mandated assessments (SOAR)\ngrade level common formative assessments\nperceptual surveys of professional development activities\nclassroom walkthrough data\nand perceptual surveys from parents, students, and teachers\nour analyses suggested areas of strengths (using graphic organizers, using context clues, making inferences, questioning the author's purpose, sentence formation, usage, and mechanics) and areas of need (recognizing expository text features that are sequential and/or comparative, sort relevant and irrelevant information based on the purpose of reading, connecting own background knowledge and personal experience to make inferences and to respond to new information in the text, Practical and Content open response items, and Content and Style writing domains) in our building. To assist us in realizing building level improvement goals, the building level instructional leaders will provide meaningful guidance with classroom walkthroughs, focus walks, and teacher conferencing and support for all staff by providing on-site, ongoing professional development and mentoring from principals and building level coaches who will support teachers' content area needs and in the development and use of effective methods for the delivery of literacy instruction. We will all be accountable for the implementation of the building's selected interventions (tiered activities, programs, and/or processes) that will ensure student and staff learning targets. The greatest areas of need across our Combined student population are reading comprehension and written expression in the areas of Practical and Content open response and Content and Style writing domains. Also, our various subpopulations have additional deficiencies. Our African American, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and Limited English Proficient students are weaker in Practical open response items and Content and Style writing domains. Finally, our Students with Disabilities and Caucasian students struggle with Content and Practical open response items and Content and Style writing domains. In the area of literacy, our Combined student population 12    scored lower (80.37% proficient or advanced) than similar groups within the state (84.0% proficient or advanced) and higher than the district (74.3% proficient or advanced). Our African American students, Limited English Proficient students, Hispanic students, and Economically Disadvantaged students scored higher than similar groups within the district and the state. Our Combined student population scored higher than the district but lower than the state. However, there is not a significant achievement gap between our African American (78.18% proficient or advanced) students as compared to their Caucasian peers (84.85% proficient or advanced). 77.7% of our Target Achievement Gap Group scored proficient or advanced. The Little Rock School District's Language Arts Core Curriculum is rigorous, standards-based, appropriately paced, regularly assessed and aligned to the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks. Our student data along with our professional development surveys revealed the following areas of need within our combined population: reading comprehension and written expression in the areas of Practical and Content open response and Content and Style writing domains. These areas of need indicate that there are Core Literacy instructional weaknesses. We will address reading comprehension and written expression in the areas of Practical and Content open response and Content and Style writing domains by (a) aligning our professional development to support this area\n(b) realigning human resources (literacy/instructional coaches) to support those individual teachers who are experiencing the most difficulty in delivering instruction in reading comprehension and written expression in the areas of Practical and Content open response and Content and Style writing domains as evidenced by student scores on common formative assessments, classroom walkthroughs and/or focus walks, (c) ensure targeted planning to make sure that the fidelity of Core Literacy instructional practices are in place\n(d) having designated learning targets\n(e) teachers will provide grade level instruction built on \"best\" instructional \"practices\" (i.e., differentiated instruction)\nand (f) when students have difficulty reaching their designated learning targets based on progress monitoring, they will receive supplemental, tiered instructional interventions. 14. EVALUATIONS OF INTERVENTIONS READING RECOVERY Reading Recovery services have been provided to underachieving students at Booker Arts Magnet School for eleven years. Reading Recovery focuses on providing intensive intervention services to the lowest 20% of all first grade students, as identified by the Developmental Reading Assessment, Observation Survey, and Kindergarten Alternate Ranking sheets. Individualized instruction is provided to identified students for at least 30 minutes daily. The daily instruction and frequent assessments allow Reading Recovery teachers to provide instruction that is both diagnostic and prescriptive, targeting the students' specific weaknesses in word attack skills, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and writing. An examination of guided reading text levels from 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 indicated that 42% of first grade through filth grade students receiving services from Reading Recovery teachers were proficient. In addition, students with weaknesses in reading comprehension and fluency received instruction from Reading Recovery teachers in a small group setting (three to five students) for at least 40 minutes each day. COMPREHENSIVE LITERACY PROGRAM A Comprehensive Literacy Program has been implemented at Booker Arts Magnet School for the past nine years. All kindergarten through filth grade literacy teachers, the Literacy Coach, Instructional Coach, Drama Specialists, 13  Goal Benchmark   Reading Recovery Teachers, and administrators have demonstrated their commitment to the instructional practices learned in ELLA, Effective Literacy, and Literacy Lab as evidenced by their completion of the required professional development for ELLA, Effective Literacy, and/or Literacy Lab. An examination of Augmented Benchmark Exam scores and guided reading text levels from the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years demonstrated an increase in the number of students scoring proficient or advanced or meeting the grade level standard. When comparing Augmented Benchmark Exam scores of the same groups of students from the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years, Combined students and subpopulations (with the exception of Hispanic students with 100% and Students with Disabilities in 2010-2011) increased the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced with increases ranging from 2.5% to 26.5%. DIFFERENTIATION OF INSTRUCTION The Differentiation of Instruction Intervention has been implemented at Booker Arts Magnet School for four years. Academic Improvement Plans, Intensive Reading Intervention, 504 Plans, and Individualized Education Plans were developed collaboratively with parents of identified students. Limited English Proficient students received instruction from teachers who participated in English-as-a-Second Language training. SOAR test data was disaggregated alter each assessment and utilized to plan re-teaching. The School-Based Intervention Team met seventeen days during 2009-2010, sixteen days during 2010-2011, and eighteen days during 2011-2012 to monitor the progress of students receiving Tier II and Tier III Interventions. Ninety-two Gilted and Talented students were served by two Gilted and Talented teachers in 2011-2012. Camp Jaguar (alter-school tutoring program) was provided to 122 students in 2009-2010, 98 students in 2010-2011, and 86 students in 2011-2012 scoring basic or below basic on the Literacy portion of the Augmented Benchmark Exam. 62% of third grade students, 100% of fourth grade students, and 69% of filth grade students in the after-school tutoring program scored proficient or advanced or made the necessary scale score growth to be counted as proficient during 2009-2010. 62% of third grade students, 70% of fourth grade students, and 69% of filth grade students scored proficient or advanced or made the necessary scale score growth to be counted as proficient during the 2010-2011 school year. 57% of third grade students, 90% of fourth grade students, and 67% of fifth grade students scored proficient or advanced or made the scale score growth necessary to be counted as proficient in 2011-2012. All students will improve in reading comprehension and written expression, with additional attention to practical reading passages, content and style writing domains, and formulating appropriate responses to open response questions. Goal 2: To narrow the achievement gap between proficient and non-proficient learners in literacy. (Strategic Plan) Goal 3: All Booker Arts Magnet School students will read on grade level by the end of third grade. (Strategic Plan) To increase the number of third, fourth, and filth grade students scoring \"proficient\" or \"advanced\" on the Augmented Benchmark Exam by the percentages listed to the following AMOs for each group by the end of the 2012-2013 school year: 14  Performance: All students to 75.88% TAGG students to 72.92% All African American students to 72. 94% All Hispanic students to 63. 77% All Caucasian students to 86.28% All Economically Disadvantaged students to 73.09% All Limited English Proficient students to 65.28% All Students with Disabilities to 29.17%. Growth: All students to 86. 74% TAGG students to 85.70% All African American students to 84.33% All Hispanic students to 89.58% All Caucasian students to 90.38% All Economically Disadvantaged students to 85.14 All Limited English Proficient students to 90. 74% All Students with Disabilities to 61.54%.  The ESEA Accountability status for the Combined students and all subpopulations was Achieving. Intervention: READING RECOVERY - Tier II and Tier III Interventions PROGRAM EVALUATION: Effectiveness of Tier II and Tier III interventions will be determined by 15-20% of students having a composite score of 70% or greater on the quarterly SOAR assessment. Scientific Based Research: \"Reading Recovery. (2008) Report of the What Works Clearing House : Institute of Education Sciences: US Department of Education.  Glasswell, K. and M. Ford. (2010) \"Teaching Flexibility with Leveled Texts: More Power for Your Reading Block.\" The Reading Teacher. Volume 64, Number 1: 59-60. \"2011-2012 Reading Recovery Statistical Abstract for the U.S.\" Report of the International Data Evaluation Center. Ohio State University. Actions ,Person Responsible JTimeline rResources Source of Funds 15    Provide professional development for all Reading Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff General Recovery teachers such as Continuing Contact 08/14/2012  Outside Revenue: $500.00 sessions, the Literacy Conference, and Parental End: Consultants Involvement. 06/06/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $500 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Professional Development Select and purchase materials for Reading Mary Lou Alley, Start:  District Staff General Recovery teachers such as leveled books, Instructional Coach 08/01/2012  Teachers Revenue: $500.00 consumable materials, and LLI sets. End: 06/13/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $500 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Utilize Observation Survey and Kindergarten Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff alternate ranking sheets to identify first grade 08/15/2012  Outside ACTION students for Reading Recovery services. (Tier III) End: $ Consultants BUDGET: 06/05/2013  Performance Action Type: AIP/IRI Assessments Action Type: Equity Utilize ITBS and Augmented Benchmark Exam Cheryl Carson, Principal\nStart:  District Staff results to identify kindergarten, first, second, Ruth Keogh, Literacy and 05/15/2012  Outside ACTION third, fourth, and fifth grade students with Math Teacher End: $ Consultants BUDGET: reading deficits for Literacy Groups.(Tier II) 06/05/2013  Performance Assessments Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Equity Collaborate with staff and parents to develop and Cheryl Carson, Principal\nStart:  Central Office implement AIPs, IRis, and 504 plans for students Mary McMorran, Resource 08/15/2012  District Staff ACTION working below grade level. Teacher\nTammy Higdon, End:  $ Performance BUDGET: Reading Recovery Teacher\n06/05/2013 Assessments Tamara Ringler, 504 Action Type: AIP/IRI  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Special Education Utilize appropriately leveled texts based on Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  School Library student !nterest !n Readino. Recoven.1 instruction Recoverv Teacher nRnnnn17 16    to develop vocabulary, to increase fluency, and to End:  Teaching Aids ACTION maintain interest in reading.(Tier III) 06/30/2013 BUDGET: $ Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Review Running Records daily to monitor the Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  District Staff progress of students receiving Reading Recovery Recovery Teacher 08/20/2012  Outside ACTION services. (Tier III) End: $ Consultants BUDGET: 06/05/2013  Performance Action Type: AIP/IRI Assessments Action Type: Program Evaluation  Teaching Aids Monitor the text levels of students receiving Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff Reading Recovery and Literacy Group services on 08/20/2012  Performance ACTION an ongoing basis. End: $ Assessments BUDGET: 06/05/2013  Teaching Aids Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Special Education Participate in monthly School-Based Intervention Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  District Staff Team meetings to assess students being progress Recovery Teacher\nCheryl 08/20/2012  Outside ACTION monitored or receiving Tier II or Tier III Carson, Principal End: $ Consultants BUDGET: instruction. 06/05/2013  Teachers  Teaching Aids Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Special Education Schedule and conduct conferences with parents of Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  Centra I Office students receiving Reading Recovery instruction Recovery Teacher 08/20/2012  District Staff ACTION concerning progress. (Tier III) End: $  Performance BUDGET: 06/05/2013 Assessments Action Type: AIP/IRI  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Special Education 17    Send books home with students and encourage Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  School Library parents to read with their children each night. Recovery Teacher 08/20/2012 ACTION End: BUDGET: $ 06/06/2013 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Compare pre- and post-test results of Slosson Cheryl Carson, Principal\nStart:  Performance Oral Reading Test scores and Observation Survey Tammy Higdon, Reading 01/31/2013 Assessments ACTION results of Reading Recovery students at the end Recovery Teacher End:  $ Teachers BUDGET: of their 20-week program to assess the 06/06/2013 effectiveness of Reading Recovery instruction. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Compare the pre- and post-HMH unit assessment Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance results, Slosson Oral Reading Test scores, and 05/31/2013 Assessments ACTION reading text levels to assess the effectiveness of End:  $ Teachers BUDGET: Literacy Group Instruction. (Tier III) 06/06/2013 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Utilize literature in Literacy Group instruction to Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  School Library develop vocabulary, to increase fluency, and to Recovery Teacher 08/20/2012  Teaching Aids ACTION maintain interest in reading.(Tier II) End: BUDGET: $ 06/05/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Write a school-based Reading Recovery report on Tammy Higdon, Reading Start:  Outside the results of students served. Provide copies of Recovery Teacher 05/17/2013 Consultants ACTION the report to the principal and District Teacher End:  $ Teachers BUDGET: Leader for dissemination at the district level and 06/06/2013 to assess the effectiveness of Reading Recovery and Literacy Group instruction. Action Type: Program Evaluation 18  Provide daily reading and writing instruction for identified students.(TIER III) Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Equity  Tammy Higdon, Reading Recovery Teacher Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/05/2013  Teaching Aids ACTION BUDGET:  $ Total Budget: $1000 Intervention: COMPREHENSIVE LITERACY PROGRAM - Tier I Intervention All students at Booker Arts Magnet School will have access to and be engaged with a rigorous standards-based Language Arts Core Curriculum that is appropriately paced and regularly assessed. Students will have designated learning targets and teachers will provide grade level instruction built on \"best instructional practices\". When students have difficulty reading their designated learning targets, the instructional staff at Booker Arts Magnet School will support them with supplemental, tiered instruction. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Effectiveness of Tier I interventions will be determined by 80% of students having a composite score of 70% or greater on the quarterly SOAR assessment. Scientific Based Research: Wolk, S. (2010) \"What Should Students Read?\" Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 7: 9-16. Bryk, A. (2010) \"Organizing Schools for Improvement\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 7: 23-30. Cowan, D. (2009) \"Creating a Community of Professional Learners: An Inside View\". SEDL Letter, Volume 21, Number 1: 20-25. Flowers, N. and D. Carpenter. (2009) \"You Don't Have to Be a Statistician to Use Data: A Process for Data-Based Decision Making in Schools\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 2: 64-67. Fogarty, R. and B. Pete. (2010) \"Professional Learning 101: A Syllabus of Seven Protocols.\" Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 4: 32-34. Higgins, M, L. Young, J. Weiner, and S. Wlodarczyk. (2010) \"Leading Teams of Leaders: What Helps Team Member Learning?\" Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 4: 41-45. Saphier, J. and L. West (2010). \"How Coaches Can Maximize Student Learning\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 4: 46-50. Jacobson, D. (2010) \"Coherent Instructional Improvement and PLCs: Is it Possible to Do Both?\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 6: 38-45. Actions Provide professional development for kindergartenfifth grade teachers such as ELLA, Effective Literacy, Person Responsible Timeline Resources Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff 08/14/2012  outsidP. 19 Source of Funds General Revenue: $0.00    Literacy Lab, Step Up to Writing, Daily Five, and End: Consultants Arkansas History (for those teaching the content). 06/06/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $0 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Professional Development Provide professional development for the Literacy Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Outside General Coach such as Coaches' LRSD Coaches Meetings, the 08/07/2012 Consultants Revenue: $500.00 Literacy Conference, Parental Involvement, and End: Professional Learning Communities. 06/13/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $500 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Utilize literacy coach to assist teachers in Susan Blue, Literacy Start:  Teaching Aids implementing instructional strategies learned in Coach 08/15/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ ELLA, Effective Literacy, and Literacy Lab in End: classrooms. 06/06/2013 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Utilize consultants to model effective instructional Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff strategies learned in ELLA, Effective Literacy, and 08/15/2012  Outside ACTION BUDGET: $ Literacy Lab strategies for classroom teachers such End: Consultants as Sabrina Stout, Dr. Betsy Kaye, and Karen James. 06/06/2013 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Professional Development Purchase textbooks for participants in ELLA, Effective Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  District Staff General Literacy, and Literacy Lab for training. Purchase Coach 07/01/2012 Revenue: $500.00 professional texts to support utilization of curriculum End: maps. 09/28/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $500 Action Type: Alignment Select and purchase leveled books and big books for Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  District Staff General kindergarten and first grade teachers to utilize while Coach 07/01/2012  Teachers Revenue: $1000.00 imolementing strategies learned in ELLA and the End: 20    LRSD Literacy Curriculum Maps. 06/30/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $1000 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Select and purchase sets of novels for second-fifth Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  District Staff General grade teachers to utilize while implementing Coach 07/01/2012  Teachers Revenue: $1000.00 strategies learned in Effective Literacy, Literacy Lab, End: and the LRSD Literacy Curriculum maps. 06/06/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $1000 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Select and purchase books for use in kindergarten Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  Teachers General through fifth grade classroom libraries to implement Coach 07/01/2012 Revenue: $1000.00 strategies learned in ELLA, Effective Literacy and End: Literacy Lab and the LRSD curriculum maps. 06/06/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $1000 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Select and purchase fiction and nonfiction texts for Susan Blue, Literacy Start:  Teaching Aids General student use in the Media Center and classroom Coach and Krystal 07/01/2012 Revenue: $1000.00 libraries focusing on nonfiction in the intermediate Henderson, Media End: grades. Specialist 06/06/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $1000 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Administer HMH Comprehensive Screening Micaela Battles, Loretta Start:  Performance Assessment or Emerging Literacy Survey to students Ellington, Courtney 08/15/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ to identify instructional level for literacy. If Gasper, Jane Harkey, End: necessary, follow up with diagnostic assessments. Theresa Ibekwe, 10/05/2013 Shirley Marshall- Classroom Teachers Action Type: Alignment Provide a two hour uninterrupted literacy block for Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff kindergarten through fifth grade students to insure 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ adequate time to implement the Comprehensive End: Literacy Program. 06/06/2013 21   I Action Type: Collaboration 1 Utilize HMH weekly assessments and runn~g- records !Ve~rlon Jeffrie~, Mi~aela Start: - ,to assess the decoding skills, fluency, !Battles, Loretta 1 08/20/2012 ,comprehension, and vocabulary acquisition of Ellington, Shirley End: 'kindergarten-second grade students as identified in IMarsha\\1-Classroom 06/05/2013 'Curriculum Maps.. 1Teachers Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with staff and parents to develop and implement Intensive Reading Interventions and Academic Improvement Plans to focus on the needs of students working below grade level. IAction Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with staff and parents to develop and implement IEPs and 504 plans to focus on the needs 1of identified students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Special Education Conduct monthly Literacy Team meetings with kindergarten-filth grade teachers to review curriculum maps, score common formative assessments, and disaggregate assessment data. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Schedule and conduct no less than two conferences with the parents of all students to discuss progress, including students with AIPs, IRis, IEPs, and 504 plans. Cheryl Carson, Principal and Ruth Keogh, Literacy and Math !Teacher I I IM-\nry Mc:Morran and\nShirley Marshall, Resource\nSteve McGuire, Speech\nTamara Ringler, 504 Coordinator Susan Blue, Literacy Coach Mary McMorran, Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Battles, Loretta ! Ellington, Courtney Gasper, Jane Harkey, Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/05/2013 Start: 108/20/2012 End: 06/05/2013 Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/06/2013       Performance Assessments Community Leaders District Staff Community Leaders District Staff Teachers  I ACTION BUDGET: $ I ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ I ------------- Darrell Havden ----------------~---------- J 22  Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Provide instruction utilizing instructional strategies learned in ELLA such as Read Aloud, Shared Reading, Guided Reading, Familiar Reading, Literacy Corners, Turn and Talk, and Classroom Libraries for all kindergarten and first grade students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Equity  Vearlon Jeffries, Kindergarten Teacher\nMicaela Battle, First Grade Teacher Provide instruction utilizing instructional strategies Loretta Ellington, learned in Effective Literacy and Literacy Lab such as Courtney Gasper, Jane Word Sorts, Book Talks, Poetry, Writing Workshop, Harkey, Theresa Reading Workshop, Guided Reading, Daily Oral Ibekwe, Shirley Language Activities, Read Alouds, Turn and Talk, and Marshall-Classroom Classroom Libraries for all second through fifth grade Teachers students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Equity Utilize STAR Assessment to identify first through filth grade students' independent reading levels to guide students in self-selecting texts for motivation and before and alter school reading. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Provide kindergarten through filth grade students with models of good readers such as Book Talks, VIPS Reading Day, and the Parent Resource Center. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Krystal Henderson, Media Specialist Susan Blue, Literacy Coach and Krystal Henderson, Media Specialist Utilize strategies to encourage student self-selection Cheryl Carson, of books, such as Book Clubs, book talks during Principal\nKrystal morn!no.a nnouncements.A .cce!eratedR eader. Henderson. Media_ 23 Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/05/2013 Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Start: 08/20/2012 End:           District Staff Teaching Aids District Staff Teaching Aids Performance Assessments Community Leaders District Staff School Library Teachers School Library  ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $    reading to students daily, VIPS Reading Day, Million Specialist 06/05/2013 Minutes, and Book Fairs. Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Identify and implement strategies to increase Susan Blue, Literacy Start:  District Staff vocabulary development across all curriculum areas. Coach and Lou Alley, 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ Instructional Coach End: 06/05/2013 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Identify and implement strategies such as the use of Susan Blue, Literacy Start:  District Staff an age appropriate checklist for test-taking Coach and Lou Alley, 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ strategies to assist second through fifth grade Instructional Coach End: students in identifying the tasks in a selection, 06/05/2013 accessing given knowledge, and developing an accurate response to open response items and kindergarten and first grade students in listening skills and appropriate test taking strategies. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Provide students with sufficient practice with the Micaela Battles, Jane Start:  Performance vocabulary and format of the criterion-referenced Harkey, Theresa 08/20/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ and norm-referenced tests, such as utilizing the Ibekwe-Classroom End: Released Items and HMH materials. Teachers 06/05/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Equity Provide SOAR assessments three times yearly Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance (October, December, and February) to assess 10/17/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ students' mastery of standards listed on the LRSD End: curriculum map. 02/28/2013 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Program Evaluation Identify students with less than 70% mastery of Susan Blue, Literacy Start:  Performance 24    standards as measured by SOAR assessments. Coach 10/19/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ End: 03/05/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Reteach students demonstrating less than 70% Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Start:  Performance mastery of standards on SOAR assessment. Battles, Loretta 10/23/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ Ellington, Courtney End:  Teaching Aids Gasper, Jane Harkey, 03/29/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Theresa Ibekwe, Action Type: Alignment Shirley Marshall Action Type: Equity Integrate literacy instruction into the math, science, Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Start:  District Staff social studies, and fine arts areas to strengthen Battles, Loretta 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ content knowledge. Ellington, Courtney End: Gasper, Jane Harkey, 06/05/2013 Theresa Ibekwe, Action Type: Alignment Shirley Marshall Action Type: Collaboration Utilizing the LRSD curriculum maps and Arkansas Krystal Henderson, Start:  Teaching Aids Library Media Frameworks, provide library lessons to Media Specialist 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ correlate with kindergarten through fi~h grade End: literacy instruction. 06/05/2013 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Utilize Edline and Progress Report cards to inform Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Computers parents of their children's progress in literacy 08/20/2012  Performance ACTION BUDGET: $ weekly. End: Assessments 06/05/2013 Action Type: Parental Engagement Distribute Summer Reading Lists to all students. Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  Teachers Coach 06/05/2013 ACTION BUDGET: $ End: Action Type: Parental Engagement 06/05/2013 Compare the guided reading text level results Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance quarterly to assess the effectiveness of 06/07/2013 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ implementing a Comprehensive Literacy. ,End: 25  Action Type: Program Evaluation Analyze disaggregated !TBS test results for first grade through fifth grade students to identify the percentage of students scoring at or above the 50th percentile on the Reading Comprehension Subtest and to assess the effectiveness of implementing Comprehensive Literacy. Action Type: Program Evaluation Analyze disaggregated Augmented Benchmark Exam results for third through fifth grade students to determine the percentage of students scoring \"proficient\" or \"advanced\" and to assess the implementation of Comprehensive Literacy. Action Type: Program Evaluation Conduct classroom walk through observations, informal observations, and formal observations to assess the effectiveness of Comprehensive Literacy. Action Type: Program Evaluation Create Professional Learning Communities at each grade level to conduct weekly Common Planning Periods, focusing on reviewing curriculum maps and examining assessment data from teacher made tests. Action Type: Collaboration Total Budget:  06/14/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 06/14/2013 End: 06/28/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 06/14/2013 End: 06/28/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/20/2012 End: 06/05/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/15/2012 End: 06/30/2013 Intervention: DIFFERENTIATION OF INSTRUCTION - Tier II and Tier III Interventions    Performance Assessments Performance Assessments Teachers  ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ $5000 PROGRAM EVALUATION: Effectiveness of Tier I interventions will be determined by 80% of students having a composite score of 70% or greater on the quarterly SOAR assessment. 26    Scientific Based Research: Carbo, M. (2009) \"Match the Style of Instruction to the Style of Reading\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 90, Number 5: 373-378. Demski, J. (2009) \"Assess. Instruct. Repeat.\" The Journal, Volume 36, Number 5: 30-36. Levin, H. (2008) \"The Achievement Gap: Helping African American Males.\" Teacher Professional Development Sourcebook. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. Muoneke, A. and L. Shankland. (2009) \"Using Tiered Intervention to Improve High School Performance\". SEDL Letter, Volume 21, Number 1: 5-12. Murphy, J. (2009) \"Closing Achievement Gaps: Lessons from the Last 15 Years\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 3: 8-12. Reichert, M. and R. Hawley (2010) \"Reaching Boys: an International Study of Effective Teaching Practices.\" Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 4: 35-40. Flowers, N. and D. Carpenter. (2009) \"You Don't Have to Be a Statistician to Use Data: A Process for Data-Based Decision Making in Schools\". Phi Delta Kappan, Volume 91, Number 2: 64-67. Harris, Bryan, Plucker, Jonathan A., Rapp, Kelly E., * Martinez, Rebecca S (2009). Identifying Gifted and Talented English Language learners: A Case Study. Journal for the Education of the Gilted, V 32, Number 3. Tomlinson, Carol, A. \u0026amp; Imbeau, Marcia B. (2010). a Differentiated Classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Actions Disaggregate Augmented Benchmark Exam, ITBS, and QELI data to identify kindergartenfifth grade students scoring \"basic\" or \"below basic.\" Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Person Responsible Timeline Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/20/2012 End: 09/14/2013 Utilize \"Item by Item Selections of Correct Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/20/2012 End: 09/14/2013 Answers\" Report (Augmented Benchmark Exam and ITBS) to identify skills in which 75% or fewer of students answered correctly and inform sti:!ff i:!nd r:\u0026gt;i:!rentso f these ski!!s. 27 Resources  Performance Assessments  Teachers  Performance Assessments Source of Funds ACTION BUDGET: ACTION BUDGET: $ $ J    Action Type: Alignment Collaborate with staff and parents to develop Cheryl Carson, Principal !Start:  Performance and implement Intensive Reading Interventions and Ruth Keogh, 08/20/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ and Academic Improvement Plans to focus on Literacy and Math End: the needs of students working below grade Teacher 06/05/2013 level. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Provide common planning periods for grade Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  District Staff level to develop strategies to address the needs 08/15/2012  Teachers ACTION BUDGET: $ of students with AIPs, IEPs, IRis, and 504 End: plans. 06/05/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Utilize instructional strategies to differentiate Vearlon Jeffries, Loretta Start:  District Staff instruction for kindergarten through fifth grade Ellington, Jane Harkey, 08/20/2012  Teaching Aids ACTION BUDGET: $ students, such as learning contracts, reading Theresa Ibekwe, D. J. End: buddies, flexible grouping, curriculum Ramsey, Chris Henry, 06/05/2013 compacting, learning centers, small group Mariah Reescano targeted instruction, and independent study. (Tier II) Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Equity Provide SOAR assessments three times yearly Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance (October, December, and February) to assess 110/17/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ students' mastery of standards listed on the End: LRSD curriculum map. 02/28/2012 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Program Evaluation Identify students scoring less than 70% Susan Blue. Literacy Start:  Performance 28    mastery of standards as measured by SOAR Coach 10/23/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ assessments. End: 03/05/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Reteach students demonstrating less than 70% Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Start:  Teaching Aids mastery of standards on SOAR assessment. Battles, Dixie Fair, 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ Courtney Gasper, Jane End: Harkey, Theresa 06/05/2013 Action Type: AIP/IRI Ibekwe-Classroom Action Type: Alignment Teachers Action Type: Equity Schedule and conduct no less than two Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Start:  Community conferences with the parents of all students to Battles, Loretta 08/20/2012 Leaders ACTION BUDGET: $ discuss progress, including students with AIPs, Ellington, Courtney End:  Performance IRis, IEPs, and 504 plans. Gasper, Jane Harkey, 06/05/2013 Assessments Theresa Ibekwe- Classroom Teachers Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Conduct after school tutoring sessions for Cheryl Carson, Principal\nStart:  Computers General students on \"targeted\" skills. (Tier II) Mary Lou Alley, 09/25/2012  Performance Revenue: $7500.00 Instructional Coach\nD. End: Assessments J. Ramsey, Mariah 03/15/2013 NSLA Action Type: Alignment Reescano, and Chris  Teachers (State-281)  Teaching Aids - Employee $28725.00 Action Type: Technology Inclusion Henry, Fine Art Salaries: NSLA (State-281) $8775.00 - Employee Benefits: ACTION BUDGET: $45000 Provide instruction to support language Joni Thomas, Amy Start:  District Staff acquisition for Limited English Proficient Hallum, Kim Lang, 108/20/2012  Performance ACTION BUDGET: $ students by implementing the ELP frameworks. Courtney Gasper, Lauren End: Assessments Malm, Jane Harkey, and 06/05/2013 Ruth Keoo.h-ESL Trairied 29    Action Type: AIP/IRI Teachers Action Type: Equity Provide instruction to enrich and extend Heather Theodore and Start:  District Staff learning for gifted and talented students. Rachel Morris, Gifted 08/20/2012  Teachers ACTION BUDGET: $ and Talented Teachers End: 06/05/2013 Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Provide instruction to address the needs Mary McMorran, Start:  Performance identified in IEPs for Students with Disabilities. Resource\nSteve 08/20/2012 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ (Tier III) McGuire, Speech\nGina End:  Teachers Goad, OT\nShirley 06/05/2013 Marshall, Self-contained Action Type: Equity Teacher Action Type: Special Education Provide instruction for 504 students with Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Start:  District Staff accommodations outlined in 504 plans. Battles, Loretta 08/20/2012  Performance ACTION BUDGET: $ Ellington, Courtney End: Assessments Gasper, Jane Harkey, 06/30/2013 Action Type: Equity Theresa Ibekwe, Classroom Teachers Utilize Response to Intervention (Rt!) Tier I Vearlon Jeffries, Micaela Start:  District Staff interventions to address the academic deficits Battles, Loretta 08/20/2012  Performance ACTION BUDGET: $ of all students and Tier II and Tier III Ellington, Courtney End: Assessments interventions to address the academic deficits Gasper, Jane Harkey, 06/05/2013  Teachers of \"below basic\" students who are not Theresa Ibekwe-demonstrating growth. Classroom Teachers Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Analyze disaggregated !TBS test results for first Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance through fifth grade students to identify the 06/07/2013 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ percentage of students scoring at or above the End: 50th percentile on the Reading Comprehension 06/14/2013 subtest and assess the effectiveness of implementing the Differentiation of Instruction intervention. 30    Action Type: Program Evaluation Analyze disaggregated Augmented Benchmark Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance Exam results for third through fifth grade 06/07/2013 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ students to determine the percentage of End: students (by subgroup) scoring \"proficient\" or 06/14/2013 \"advanced\" and assess the implementation of the Differentiation of Instruction intervention. Action Type: Program Evaluation Monitor assessed data for core classes of GT Heather Theodore and Start:  Computers students using SOAR tests, ACTAAP exams, and Rachel Morris, Gifted 08/20/2012  District Staff ACTION BUDGET: $ quarterly grades. Hold parent conferences for and Talented Teachers End:  Performance underachieving students. 06/05/2013 Assessments  Teachers Action Type: Parental Engagement Accumulate quarterly evidence of differentiated Heather Theodore and Start:  Computers learning in core class lesson plans for GT Rachel Morris, Gifted 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ students. and Talented Teachers End: 06/05/2013 Action Type: Collaboration Conduct annual evaluation of GT students' Heather Theodore and Start:  Computers progress based on teachers' recommendations Rachel Morris, Gifted 05/20/2013  District Staff ACTION BUDGET: $ and accumulated data. and Talented Teachers, End:  Teachers and Laurie Altschul, GT 06/05/2013 District Coordinator Action Type: Program Evaluation Provide opportunities for enrichment for GT Heather Theodore and Start:  Community students such as virtual field trips, field trips, Rachel Morris, Gifted 08/20/2012 Leaders ACTION BUDGET: $ and competitions. and Talented Teachers End:  Computers 06/05/2013  District Staff Action Type: Equity Provide teachers with materials, equipment, Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  District Staff General technology, and assessments needed in Coach\nTina Brown and 08/15/2012  Teachers Revenue: $520.00 teaching GT students (such as Time for Kids Merilyn Burruss, Math End: magazine). Coaches\nSusan Blue, 06/05/2013 ACTION Literacy Coach BUDGET: $520 31  Action Type: Collaboration Provide activities for advanced students such as Quiz Bowl, Spelling Bee, Destination Imagination, and Mathletes to enrich and extend core curriculum instruction. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Assist gifted and talented students in tracking their own attendance, SOAR test data, and state-test data by maintaining a notebook or data wall. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Provide professional development to teachers trained to work with Limited English Proficient students. Action Type: Professional Development Provide professional development to gifted and talented teachers such as AGATE Cconference. Action Type: Professional Development Total Budget:  Heather Theodore and Rachel Morris, Gifted and Talented Teachers Heather Theodore and Rachel, Gifted and Talented Teachers Start: 07/01/2012 End: 06/30/2013 Start: 07/01/2012 End: 06/30/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/05/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/15/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Priority 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics 1. ACSIP CRT Data for BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Mathematics 2010   District Staff Teachers  Performance Assessments  Teachers  District Staff  ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ General Revenue: $500.00 ACTION BUDGET: $500 $46020 Supporting Data: Combined Population: 101 students were tested and 75% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands revealed that the lowest areas for Combined students were Geometry - multiple choice and Numbers and Operations - open response. The lowest identified areas 32    for the subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Mathematics 2011 Combined Population: 91 students were tested and 79% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five strands revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Measurement and Geometry - multiple choice and Geometry and Data Analysis and Probability - open response for Combined students. The lowest identified area for Limited English Proficient students was Data Analysis and Probability. Students with Disabilities had the most difficulty with Geometry and Numbers and Operations. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Mathematics 2012 Combined Population: 86 students were tested and 72% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five strands of Mathematics revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Measurement-multiple choice and Data Analysis and Probability and Numbers and Operations-open response. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students and Students with Disabilities were to identify change over time and finding all possible combinations of two or three sets of objects. The lowest identified areas for the othr subpopulations were not available. 2. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fourth Grade Mathematics 2010 Combined Population: 95 students were tested and 77% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands revealed that the lowest areas for Combined students were Data Analysis and Probability - multiple choice and geometry - open response. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fourth Grade Mathematics 2011 Combined Population: 102 students were tested and 68% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five strands revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Geometry and Measurement - multiple choice and Geometry - open response for Combined students. The lowest identified are for Limited English Proficient and Students with Disabilities was Geometry - open response. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Augumented Benchmark Exam - Fourth Grade Mathematics 2012 Combined Population: 90 students were tested and 75% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open 33    response and multiple choice questions in the five strands of Mathematics revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Measurement - multiple choice and Geometry and Measurement - open response. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were using strategies for finding the perimeter of a rectangle and computing elapsed time. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were solving problems using addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division and computing elapsed time. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. 3. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fifth Grade Mathematics 2010 Combined Population: 89 students were tested and 72% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands revealed that the lowest areas for Combined students were Geometry - multiple choice and open response. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fifth Grade Mathematics 2011 Combined Population: 83 students were tested and 81 % scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five strands revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Algebra - multiple choice and Geometry and Measurement - open response for Combined students. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient and Students with Disabilities were Algebra and Measurement - open response. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Augmented Benchmark Exam - Fifth Grade 2012 Combined Population: 97 students were tested and 63% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five strands of Mathematics revealed that the lowest identified areas for Combined students were Measurement and Data Analysis and Probability - multiple choice and Geometry - open response. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were two-step problem solving and determining the result of a transformation of a two-dimensional figure as a slide, slip, or turn and justifying the answer. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were interpreting line, double bar, and circle graphs and utilizing models to determine ratios and percents. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. THREE YEAR SUMMARY An examination of the Augmented Benchmark Mathematics Exam results for third, fourth, and fifth grade students in 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 indicated that Geometry and Measurement Multiple Choice items and Geometry Open Response items were the most difficult for Combined students. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient and Students with Disabilities were: Number and Operations and Measurement. The lowest 34    Action Type: Program Evaluation Analyze disaggregated Augmented Benchmark Cheryl Carson, Principal Start:  Performance Exam results for third through fifth grade 06/07/2013 Assessments ACTION BUDGET: $ students to determine the percentage of End: students (by subgroup) scoring \"proficient\" or 06/14/2013 \"advanced\" and assess the implementation of the Differentiation of Instruction intervention. Action Type: Program Evaluation Monitor assessed data for core classes of GT Heather Theodore and Start:  Computers students using SOAR tests, ACTAAP exams, and Rachel Morris, Gilted 08/20/2012  District Staff ACTION BUDGET: $ quarterly grades. Hold parent conferences for and Talented Teachers End:  Performance underachieving students. 06/05/2013 Assessments  Teachers Action Type: Parental Engagement Accumulate quarterly evidence of differentiated Heather Theodore and Start:  Computers learning in core class lesson plans for GT Rachel Morris, Gifted 08/20/2012 ACTION BUDGET: $ students. and Talented Teachers End: 06/05/2013 Action Type: Collaboration Conduct annual evaluation of GT students' Heather Theodore and Start:  Computers progress based on teachers' recommendations Rachel Morris, Gifted 05/20/2013  District Staff ACTION BUDGET: $ and accumulated data. and Talented Teachers, End:  Teachers and Laurie Altschul, GT 06/05/2013 District Coordinator Action Type: Program Evaluation Provide opportunities for enrichment for GT Heather Theodore and Start:  Community students such as virtual field trips, field trips, Rachel Morris, Gifted 08/20/2012 Leaders ACTION BUDGET: $ and competitions. and Talented Teachers End:  Computers 06/05/2013  District Staff I Action Type: Equity Provide teachers with materials, equipment, Lou Alley, Instructional Start:  District Staff General technology, and assessments needed in Coach\nTina Brown and 08/15/2012  Teachers Revenue: $520.00 teaching GT students (such as Time for Kids Merilyn Burruss, Math End: magazine). Coaches\nSusan Blue, 06/05/2013 ACTION Literacy Coach BUDGET: $520 31  Action Type: Collaboration Provide activities for advanced students such as Quiz Bowl, Spelling Bee, Destination Imagination, :and Mathletes to enrich and extend core curriculum instruction. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Assist gifted and talented students in tracking their own attendance, SOAR test data, and state-test data by maintaining a notebook or data wall. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Provide professional development to teachers trained to work with Limited English Proficient students. Action Type: Professional Development  Heather Theodore and Rachel Morris, Gifted and Talented Teachers Heather Theodore and Rachel, Gifted and Talented Teachers Start: 07/01/2012 End: 06/30/2013 Start: 07/01/2012 End: 06/30/2013 Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: 08/05/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Provide professional development to gifted and Cheryl Carson, Principal Start: talented teachers such as AGATE Cconference. 08/15/2012 End: 06/06/2013 Action Type: Professional Development Total Budget: Priority 2: Improve Student Achievement in Mathematics 1. ACSIP CRT Data for BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL Augmented Benchmark Exam - Third Grade Mathematics 2010   District Staff Teachers  Performance Assessments  Teachers  District Staff  ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ ACTION BUDGET: $ General Revenue: $500.00 ACTION BUDGET: $500 $46020 Supporting Data: Combined Population: 101 students were tested and 75% scored proficient or advanced. The analysis of the open response and multiple choice questions in the five mathematics strands revealed that the lowest areas for Combined students were Geometry - multiple choice and Numbers and Operations - open response. The lowest identified areas 32    identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available in 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. 4. Stanford 10 - Grade 5 Total Mathematics 2010 Combined Population: 89 students were tested and 63% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Operations - Communication and Representation. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 5 Total Mathematics 2011 Combined Population: 83 students were tested and 49% scored at or above the 50th percentile on the Total Mathematics test. The lowest area for Combined students and Students with Disabilities was multiple step problem solving. The lowest areas for Limited English Proficient students were multiple-step problem solving and estimationorder of magnitude. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 5 Total Mathematics 2012 Combined Population: 97 students were tested and 44% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest identified areas for Combined students were multiple-step problem solving and estimation. The lowest identified areas for Limited English Proficient students were multiple-step problem solving and comparing quantities. The lowest identified areas for Students with Disabilities were multiple step problem solving and estimation. The lowest identified areas for the other subpopulations were not available. 5. Stanford 10 - Grade 4 Total Mathematics 2010 Combined Population: 95 students were tested and 63% scored at or above the 50th percentile. The lowest area for Combined students was Geometry - Communication and Representation. The lowest identified areas for the subpopulations were not available. Iowa Test of Basic Skills - Grade 4 Total Mathemati\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_51","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":["2012-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. 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/51"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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- Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 -1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd .org An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION January 31, 2012 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 REt~uVED FF~ - t 2012 F DE : .. m!ITOP.ING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220 l RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPM/HD Y Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~~-~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January, 2012. ~ :---~ BY: ,-c::::::::r~ JeyC. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on January 31, 2012, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza . 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III . Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~c:~ JeC. Lasiter ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes-the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 Based on-fhe information available af December 31-\n--2011, the ADE calculated th~State FoundationJ:,unding'fqr FY 11112 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. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 Based ob the'!nformation availa_ble at DecembeL 31 , 26It the ADE calculated for fY 11/12, subjectto perioclic adjustments: C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 On December 31, 2011, distributions of ~tate f:g_undation Funding for FY 11/12 were as follpws\nLRsD-=--$28, 139,675 NLRSb-$15,901 ,671 PCSSD - $.19,553,715 J\"he allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 11 /12 at December 31, 20t1, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $61,907,286 NLRSD - $~4,983,681 PCSSD - $43,018,176 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31 , 2011 for FY11/12, subjec\n:t 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 January 31, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 2011 for FY11/.12, 'subject to periodic ad]1-1st~ents. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 2011 for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustm~nts. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at December 31, 2011, totaled $8,077,836. Allofmerit calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,373,720 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 January 31, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011 for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. A~tl!!I as of Janu_lry 31\n2012 pistributions for F'{,,1 1/1.2 at !)ec::ember) 1, 2011 , were: LRSD -' $1,783,384 NLRSQ - $2,225,940 :Pesso -$3,9-04\n7q2 The allotments calculatec[for FY 11/12 at Decen,ber 31 , 2011, subject to periodic adju~tments, were: LRSD - -$4,458,463 NLRSD - $5,564,846 PCSSD -$9,761,876 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011 , General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1 ,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportatron budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD-$510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1,020,436.26 PCSSD -$1,810,218.30 In December 2011 , General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1 ,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase-buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43.426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passei'i~er\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. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,1 35.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The bu-ses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,036,115.00. In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. Bids were released in July, 2011 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-47 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 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 January 31 , 2012 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. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 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 January 31, 2012 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 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 2. July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 11 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 January 31 , 2012 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11/12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 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 $200,080. 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 d!.!e to_the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. 13 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11 /12. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 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. Then it was 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 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 January 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 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 January 31 , 2012 (Continued) 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. 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 reperting 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. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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. 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (Continued) 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 P!-a-nner 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. 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) 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 Gmup met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. \\tefillie 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 meL 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. On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The Aext Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE.  On June 20, 2006, the ADE lmplementa~ion Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, contentr and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were repor:ted. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On July 12, 2007, 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. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2007, 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. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, 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. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, 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. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville QUt of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p. m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, 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. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then . Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, 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 have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to .either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, 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 rul ing from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hear_ing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, 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. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, 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. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, 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. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011 , 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 White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal student privacy regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the interim superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , 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. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending charter schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal student privacy regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts sho.uld be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts was placed in-their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski County school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011, 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. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for district staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 30 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011 , 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. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE legal department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 31 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, 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. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the district starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The state has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has lsleen implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the_ case relates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. _people have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. iri room 201-A at the ADE. 32 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing . 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 33 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of th is report. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 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 impedes 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. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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. 36 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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, tbe 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. 37 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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 dese_gregation. 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. 38 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011 , 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan , the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 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 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 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. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (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 tb.e 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. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (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 progl\"ess 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. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (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 lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (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 interveners 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 lnterveners 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 lnterveners 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. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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 summaiy 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. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (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. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (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. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month-of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February_ 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 53 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2012 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12,  2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Ed'ucation reviewed and approved tbe PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":3,"next_page":4,"prev_page":2,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":24,"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}}]}}