{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_455","title":"Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"dc_date":["2003-11"],"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)","Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Literacy"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation"],"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/455"],"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\nRECEIVED JAN 1 3 2004 CREP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt; Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Steven M. Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterbinsky Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 November 2003Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Executive Summary The present report provides the results from a study of the different literacy programs used in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). After expending substantial effort and resources to improve the reading ability of students in the district, administrators at LRSD wanted to examine the effectiveness of the different programs used within the district for literacy instruction. To facilitate this exanunation, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis was employed to provide an independent, third party evaluation. The evaluation methodology and data analysis were oriented around the following research questions: 1. 2. 3. What are teacher perceptions of and reactions to the different literacy programs? After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable H to whether students were African American? 4. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? 5. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments? 6. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the elementary schools, school composition variables (i.e., school poverty and percentage of African American students enrolled), and the achievement of African American students? Method H M The evaluation design was based on both quantitative student achievement data as well as qualitative data from K-12 faculty members who are responsible for literacy instruction. The primary data sources were (a) a questionnaire completed by teachers, (b) focus groups conducted  _ - ^.1__ with faculty members representing different literacy programs in the district, and (c) student achievement data including the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score. II H M and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. During the 2002-2003 school year, two CREP researchers conducted seven focus groups at the Neighborhood Resource Center using a structured interview guide. Each focus group was approximately one-hour in duration. Teachers signed a permission form to be interviewed and were given assurance that their comments would be confidential and anonymous. The sessions were audiotape-recorded and supplemented with the researchers hand-written notes. III The Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaires were printed and shipped to LRSD personnel. The district staff members disseminated the questionnaires to the individual schools along with instructions for completing and returning the forms to the district. After the district III staff received the completed forms, they were sent to CREP for analysis. Similarly, district Page 1 of 471 H Id Id personnel assembled the student achievement data into an electronic format. The data files were then sent to CREP researchers for analysis. Id The focus group and surveys were analyzed thematically and descriptively, respectively. A synthesis was then developed to highlight findings by literacy program and grade level (e.g., elementary and secondary) as provided by the district. The achievement methodology and analysis is discussed in the achievement section below. Id Results Id Teacher Focus Groups and Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire Id A synthesis of themes and related findings from the seven focus groups and teacher questionnaire is provided in bulleted format for a concise overview. The reader is encouraged to examine the full report for detailed findings. Id Id Id Most Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Professional development (PD) when received  New materials  Emergent literacy/readiness skills for Kindergarten  Positive impact on student writing  Literacy Coaches (in RR program)  Providing instruction at students level d d Most Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Positive Impact on student writing  Paired reading (instructional strategy)  Portfolios and interactive journals d M Least Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Inconsistent implementation across and within schools  Texts not aligned with SAT-9  Some leveled texts and vocabulary are not appropriate  Transient student population is problematic  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels d d Least Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Gaps in training that is offered to teachers  Lack of consistency in literacy instruction and programs (across and within schools)  Lack of teacher support from non-literacy subject areas  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels d Teacher support for the Programs (Elementary)  Level of support varies across schools (and within schools) Page 2 of 47V  Support for ELLA and Effective Literacy is high because they fit well with what teachers were already doing or moying toward anyway  SEA is most polarized (loye or hate the program) Teacher support (Secondary)  Generally positiye attitudes, but not much support from non-literacy teachers District support (Elementary)  Lack of consistency for teachers to attend training (substitutes\nayailability of training)  District proyides materials, but could also use teacher aides in the classroom District support (Secondary)  Literacy coaches would be beneficial  Need to use district time set aside for inseryices to plan a more comprehensiye literacy approach *  M Professional Deyelopment (Elementary)  Quality of professional deyelopment receiyed has been mixed, but teachers are generally positiye  Literacy Coach (proyiding leadership and training) has been beneficial  General consensus that there is a lack of ongoing training (or opportunity to attend recommended/mandated number of days) II II Professional Deyelopment (Secondary)  Quality of professional deyelopment receiyed has been mixed  Would like more training  Teachers do not see training sessions as tying together. Not sure what big picture literacy plan is II II Classroom Changes (Elementary)  Positiye impact on Kindergarten students  More emphasis on student writing  Students are learning reading strategies  There has been some return to traditional instructional practices II Classroom Changes (Secondary)  More cooperatiye learning (with mixed results)  Special Education teachers assist students in classes (instead of pullout program) * * M Impact on Students (Elementary)  Learned better cooperation skills  Increased confidence in reading  Students are learning reading strategies Page 3 of 47I hl u H Impact on Students (Secondary)  There is some increased motivation to read  Assessments and leveled readers are creating more success and confidence for students  Students are writing more often II M Impact on Teachers (Elementary)  Negative impact on time and stamina  Additional instructional strategies and materials have been beneficial  Increased sharing of ideas H H Impact on Teachers (Secondary)  Increased sharing of strategies  Focus on bringing lower performing students to proficiency level  High school teachers had lower levels of agreement on all survey items (comparatively) II Student Achievement Data M The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of African American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District. The five achievement oriented research questions (#2  #5 above) were used to guide the methodology and analyses. Methodology IM IM IM Subjects of the study included all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the Little Rock School District during the 2002-2003 school year for whom 2003 Literacy Benchmark or 2003 SAT-9 scores were available. This included a total of 11,934 students, of whom 23.4% were Caucasian, 68.2% were African-American, and 48.5% were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Three measures were used to assess literacy, the Literacy Benchmark scale score (Grades 4, 6, and 8), and the SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and SAT-9 Language subscale score (both Grades 5, 7, and 10). I I I i I IM Analyses IM IM District-wide achievement effects. The basic analytic model used to gauge district-wide achievement effects was a 2 (free lunch status) X 2 (gender) X 2 (African-American, nonAfrican American) analysis of variance (ANOVA). This basic model was adapted to each grade level to reflect: (a) the availability of achievement data from the prior year, in which case a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used\n(b) the specific 2003 outcome data that were available at each grade level (either Literacy Benchmark scores or SAT9 scores)\nand (c) the number of outcome variables. School composition and program effects. For elementary schools, information was available regarding specific literacy programs being implemented in the schools. For 5 grade, a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was performed to examine relationships between Page 4 of 47Ml school composition factors (aggregate poverty, mean achievement at pretest, and percentage African American enrollment), school literacy programs, and student achievement. Longitudinal cohort performance on Benchmark Examinations. For fourth and eighth grades, three consecutive years of Literacy Benchmark Performance Level data were available. The percentage of African American students scoring in Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced categories was computed for each year from 2001 to 2003 to provide a basis for examining overall trends in performance across time. Elementary Level Results Below, conclusions and results based on analyses performed on fourth and fifth grade data are presented by research question. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement. did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? I  African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students.  The academic gains on literacy tests were lower for African American students than for other students. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  Although there was a significant relationship between African American status and student achievement, the proportion of variance in academic performance attributable to African American status was very low4.6% for fourth grade, and 5.7% for fifth grade. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy examination improved dramatically between 2001 and 2003, with nearly half perfoiming at a Below Basic level in 2001, compared to only one-fifth in 2003. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school, school composition variables, and the achievement of African American students ?  No significant relationship was observed between the type of literacy program implemented and the achievement of African American students.  The percentage of African American students enrolled in a school did not predict overall achievement or the achievement of African American students.  School poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, had a negative effect on the achievement gains of students. Page 5 of 47Id Secondary Level Results ri The secondary conclusions and results by research question are as follows: ri After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? ri  The absolute level of achievement of African American students was substantially lower than that of other students of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status.  Generally, the gains in academic achievement of African American students were similar to those of other students in grades 6 to 11. ri What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? ri  When data on prior achievement were available, the proportion of variance in 2003 achievement attributable to African American status was quite low at the secondary level, ranging from 0% to 5%. ri What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? ri ri  The performance of African American 8* graders on the Literacy Benchmark exam improved substantially and consistently between 2001 and 2003, with the percentage scoring Below Basic dropping from 48.5% to 34.5%, and the percentage scoring Proficient increasing from 14.9% to 23.9%. ri Were dijferences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments? ri ri ni  From the 5* to the 8* grade cohort, the achievement gains of African American students became more similar to those of other students, and for some subgroups surpassed those of other students in 8* grade.  The gap in achievement gains was greater on the SAT9 than on the Literacy Benchmark examination. Presumably, the Literacy Benchmark examination is more closely aligned to the mandated curriculum than is the SAT9, which is intentionally designed to be insensitive to curricular differences. Summary and Conclusions ri The Little Rock School District is commended for the emphasis given to increasing literacy in all schools in the district and not just those in the lowest performing strata. The state and local initiatives in literacy for early learners, including ELLA and Effective Literacy, are well grounded in current research of best practice. In addition, the Reading Recovery and Success for All models are among the best researched and proven programs in the nation for lower-performing students. Impressions from interviews and survey data, however, are that Page 6 of 47ri ri ri ri these programs are often perceived as separate and discrete entities instead of integral to a district comprehensive literacy program. Teachers describe themselves or their schools as doing ELLA or Success for All and only the certified tutors doing Reading Recovery. Middle and high school teachers comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they have had as English teachers. Thus, it is recommended that the districts plan, or big picture of literacy, be developed and presented to teachers in a format that communicates how each program, school, grade level, and teacher contributes to and accomplishes literacy goals. ri ri ri The professional development in basic literacy has been well received and represents an enormous accomplishment for the district. Management and delivery of the professional development, however, needs to be made more consistent and available to teachers. The primary concerns voiced by teachers were scheduling problems, inadequate space and availability of training for the numbers of teachers needing to be trained, retraining for teachers who change grade levels, training for new teachers, and obtaining qualified substitutes for teachers while they attend training. The impressions of professional development communicated by upper grade teachers and those who were not implementing special programs were that professional development has been minimal, targeted to cunent hot topics (e.g., portfolios), and inconsistent in quality. ri ri ri ri Teachers perceptions of the impact of literacy programs were extremely mixed. Writing and composition were literacy areas that all teachers agreed had been emphasized and improved in their schools and classrooms as a consequence of literacy initiatives in the district. Some of the positive comments relative to ELLA had more to do with the materials teachers had received as a part of the training than the new ideas they had been provided. During the focus groups, the most impressive level of agreement that teachers voiced was by teachers who had Reading Recovery teachers as Literacy Coaches in their schools. The concept of highly trained Literacy Coaches being placed in and available to all elementary schools is a national issue presently and it is recommended that the district find ways to support this concept not only in elementary schools with large at-risk populations, but in all schools in the district. ri ri ri Regarding student achievement, substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in LRSD. However, the differences in academic gains tend to be smaller at higher grade levels. The three-year trend in Literacy Benchmark scores shows substantial, sustained improvement in the academic achievement of African American students between 2001 and 2003. African American status of the student, as well as the percentage of African American students enrolled in a school, explain only small amounts of variance in student outcomes compared to prior achievement. None of the curricular programs examined in this study had a significant impact on the achievement of 5 grade students  however, these programs are most likely to have an impact at the primary grade levels. Page 7 of 47Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Report II ri The present report provides the results from a study of the different literacy programs used in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). After expending substantial effort and resources to improve the reading ability of students in the district, administrators at LRSD wanted to examine the effectiveness of the different programs used within the district for literacy instruction. To facilitate this examination, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis was employed to provide an independent, third party evaluation. The evaluation methodology and data analysis were oriented around the following research questions: ri 1. 2. ri 3. ri What are teacher perceptions of and reactions to the different literacy programs? After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? ri ri 4. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? 5. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments? 6. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the elementary schools, school composition variables (i.e., school poverty and percentage of African American students enrolled), and the achievement of African American students? ri Method ri The evaluation design was based on both quantitative student achievement data as well as qualitative data from K-12 faculty members who are responsible for literacy instruction. The data were collected during the 2002-2003 school year., ri Instrumentation ri ri ri Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire. A questionnaire was developed by CREP researchers to gather faculty members perceptions of their schools literacy program. The specific areas addressed included understanding of the program, professional development, resources, pedagogical change, support, and outcomes associated with program implementation. The questionnaire was comprised of two sections. The first section included 21 items to which teachers responded using a likert-type scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). The second section contained six items that gathered demographic information about the respondents. Teacher Focus Group. Structured interview protocols were used to conduct group interviews with randomly selected teachers. Interview guides were developed by CREP researchers to ensure consistency of questions during the different interviews. The areas addressed in the guide were as follows: general information, professional development. Page 8 of 47 i Hri classroom level changes, results/outcomes, and parent and community support. Appendix A contains a copy of the interview guide. Student Achievement Data. A variety of achievement data sources were analyzed because of the different types of literacy assessments used at each grade level. The achievement assessments included in the analysis were from all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the district during the 2002-2003 school year. The three primary data sources included the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. Procedure To establish the focus groups, teachers were randomly selected from all schools in the district and then grouped for the interviews to represent the districts various grade divisions and established comprising 38 teachers (see table 1). literacy programs. A total of seven groups were Table 1 ri Number of Focus Group Participants ri ri ri ri ri ri ri Literacy Program Number of Participants ELLA____________________________ Effective Literacy___________________ Harcourt Brace_____________________ Reading Recovery__________________ Success For All____________________ Middle School Language Arts (English) High School English Total _______________ 4 6 4 6 6 7 5 38 Two CREP researchers conducted the seven focus groups at the Neighborhood Resource Center using the structured interview guides. Each focus group was approximately one-hour in duration. Teachers signed a permission form to be interviewed and were given assurance that their comments would be confidential and anonymous. The sessions were audiotape-recorded and supplemented with the researchers hand-written notes. The Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaires were printed and shipped to LRSD personnel. The district staff members disseminated the questionnaires to the individual schools along with instructions for completing and returning the forms to the district. After the district staff received the completed forms, they were sent to CREP for analysis. Similarly, district personnel assembled the student achievement data into an electronic format. The data files were then sent to CREP researchers for analysis. M Page 9 of 47r I Results Teacher Focus Group To analyze the focus groups, the tape-recorded sessions and researcher notes were summarized and recoded into bullet statements. The individual focus group summaries were then analyzed thematically and synthesized by grade level and program. The following is a synthesis of findings from the focus groups (see Table 2 for an overview). The literacy initiative in LRSD is a combination of programs supported by national, state, and district funds to provide a balanced, comprehensive approach to reading and writing instruction. Professional development is organized, supported, and provided by five district personnel. The following programs are currently used: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), (Grades K-2). ELLA is a three-year staff development process designed for grades K-2. The training began in the LRSD in 1999 and consists of 12 days (6 hours per day) of staff development covering a range of topics and instructional techniques that support emergent learners. Comments from the four K-2 teachers who participated in this group were integrated with comments regarding ELLA training from three additional K-2 teachers (total n = 7) who had been trained in ELLA but were interviewed as part of the Effective Literacy group. Effective Literacy (Grades 3-5). Effective Literacy is a two-year staff development process designed for grades 3-5. It began in the district as a state initiative in 1999. The components of the program are organized into 8 full day sessions (6 hours) and include a range of topics and instructional techniques to support reading and writing development. A total of six teachers participated in the focus group although only three were teachers were currently in grades 3-5. Signatures Reading Series (1999), Harcourt Brace Publishers. This is the basal reading textbook series adopted by the district in 2000. Professional training related to the use of the reading series was provided during the first year of adoption. Since that time, no other staff development has occuned relative to the reading series. Four teachers participated in this focus group from grades 1, 2,4, and 5. Reading Recovery (Grade 1). Reading Recovery is an extensively researched and widely used early intervention/prevention program that provides at-risk first graders with one-to-one tutoring from specially trained certified teachers. The yearlong professional training of teachers is considered to be one of the greatest assets of the program. In the six schools that were represented in the focus group, the Reading Recovery teacher served as their schools Literacy Coach. Success for All (SFA), (Grades K-5). SFA is a comprehensive school reform model that uses a reading curriculum founded on research-based instructional practices, cooperative learning, and one-to-one tutoring for at-risk learners. The program was introduced in the district in 1997-98 and presently exists in six schools in the district. According to the six teachers who Page 10 of 47 participated in the interview, three of the current SFA programs will continue next year while three others are being discontinued or reconfigured to exist only in the upper grades. Middle Schools (Grades 6-9), (English/Language Arts teachers). Middle schools were reformed in the district in 1999 and encompass grades 6-9. Most of the schools now have a double-block English class (2 hours and 45 minutes) for all students. All grades participate in Reading and Writing Workshop concepts. Professional development has been largely shaped by current trends and research in literacy. Seven English teachers participated in the interview. High Schools (Grades 10-12), (English teachers). According to the five teachers participating in this focus group, all of the high schools are on block schedules (learning periods that exceed the traditional 45 to 55 minutes) with various configurations of time for English classes to accommodate different levels of learners. As in the middle schools, teacher professional development has been implemented based on national research findings, trends, and issues in literacy development. Most ejfective elements of the literacy programs Although teachers have had varying amounts of training in ELLA (from one day to as many as eight days), they were generally positive about the professional development and the materials they had received as part of the training. They indicated that one of the most effective components of ELLA training was the Developmental Reading Assessment that enabled teachers to effectively measure student progress. When implementation of the assessment first began, teachers said they had to share the testing materials and that this was very inconvenient and stressful. However, every teacher was reported to have his/her own testing materials this year. Other positive comments related to the emergent literacy emphasis for kindergarten students and the resulting improvements, especially in childrens writing. Teachers also commented positively about currently having books to use to begin teaching students to read in kindergarten (a relatively new philosophical change in reading instruction in kindergarten). I According to the teachers, the most positive aspects of Effective Literacy training were the emphases on delivery of instruction in variable groupings (whole class and small groups) and the changes in school schedules that provide two and one-half hours of uninterrupted time for reading first thing in the morning. The increased time for literacy has also given teachers more time for writing. Teachers reported the most effective aspects of the Harcourt Brace Signatures reading series to be the organization of the book around thematic units, consistent lesson structures for each day of the week, and the vocabulary emphasis in the series. In addition, the series provides English as a Second Language (ESL) materials, reinforcement of skills with workbooks, and suggested trade books to support the basal materials. Teachers from schools implementing the Reading Recovery program indicated the most effective elements included the one-to-one tutoring of students, extra time (30 minutes) for instruction of at-risk learners, and the structure of the lessons. One teacher claimed that the program works even for the hyperactive students. The most common point of agreement Page 11 of 47IM  H  II regarding effectiveness of this program, however, was that the training Reading Recovery teachers received to become certified was excellent and that schools were greatly benefiting from the leadership these teachers were providing to the schools in their roles as Literacy Coaches. Elements of the Success for All program that teachers perceived as most effective included the regrouping of students for reading instruction into more narrow ranges of ability levels and the routines of the instruction. One teacher referred to having an aide to help with instruction as one of the most effective elements of SEA\nWhen I have an aide to help teach, the kids really do much better and discipline problems go down significantly.  Middle school Language Arts/English teachers reported that students are writing more as a consequence of teacher professional development and emphasis on reading/writing workshop approaches to instruction. Other effective elements of the literacy curriculum included its H reorganization into quarters that were more manageable for instruction, and implementation of M writing portfolios that move through the grades with students. Teachers indicated that portfolios were helping to encourage high expectations for all students and the writing prompts and rubrics were especially helpful to teachers in structuring and evaluating student writing. High school English teachers were more reserved in attributing effectiveness to any H particular elements of the literacy programs that are operational in their schools. They explained, We dont know (whats been most effective) until we see the test scores. Two strategies. paired reading and interactive journals, are relatively recent approaches teachers referred to as II working well. II II II II III II Least effective elements of the literacy programs One primary concern about ELLA was the inconsistency of implementation across schools. Teachers explained that judging the effectiveness of ELLA is complicated by high rates of student mobility, especially when students move from one school with strong ELLA implementation to another school where there is less emphasis on ELLA concepts and strategies. Teachers also mentioned that although they liked the new approaches to student assessment of progress, it was difficult to individually test a class of 25 students, and there had been a change in the cap or cutoff for first grade to level 8 even though some students are at level 25 or 30. Teachers were not clear about why the level was changed and what purpose it served in helping teachers and students move to appropriate levels of instruction. Effective Literacy teachers indicated that they did not perceive any ineffective or undesirable elements of the literacy initiatives in the district. In the teachers words: We like it and We want all the training we can get. Teachers concerns about the Harcourt Brace reading series centered around the amount and depth of comprehension work required by the books and workbooks, the number and simplicity levels of the stories, and vocabulary that was too difficult for some grades and too easy for others. Another concern was that the texts were not good matches for the SAT-9 achievement test. Page 12 of 47d d d d d d d d d d d II II II Reading Recovery programs have specified guidelines regarding acceptance of students into the program and discontinuance of students after 20 weeks of instruction. Teachers indicated concerns that these policies interrupted student success and were not always in the best interests of students and their continuing progress. One teacher said, Students dont continue to make the same kind of progress in literacy groups that they have made in individual tutoring sessions. Others commented that in some cases, students have been discontinued because of behavior and not reading ability and that some schools are not accepting the lowest students or students who speak English as a Second Language (ESL). Success for All teachers most common concerns related to the lack of flexibility in the program. One teacher said that the timing of the individual activities presented in a days lesson did not include enough time to monitor for student understanding. Other related concerns were that there was no room in the schedules for review and that the program did not allow teachers to move students down in ability level even if they needed to be moved to more appropriate reading levels. Thus, when students at lower levels got behind a grade level or more, it was difficult to find an appropriate group for them. Because of a highly transient student population, teachers find that they constantly have to train the students to the routines and in cooperative learning. Teachers reported that the least effective elements in middle school literacy initiatives were the gaps in the training. Because the training started several years ago, new teachers have not received much. In addition, teachers indicated that there needed to be reading classes in middle school for all students and not just for the lowest performers. Additional concerns about literacy were that grammar was not being emphasized any longer and that increased classroom emphasis on writing did not match assessment formats. One teacher explained. When there is so much emphasis on writing, test scores go down because students are tested in multiple choice formats. One concern that teachers emphasized was the lack of consistency in literacy instruction and programs in middle schools. One teacher said, All schools are doing something different. Another teacher suggested that there was need to rewrite literacy programs and have guidelines that make programs consistent for all teachers and students. High school English teachers indicated that getting everybody (teachers) to participate and support the literacy initiatives across subject areas was difficult. They heard complaints from teachers about the increase in the amount of work for them when they gave even tiny writing assignments to students. In addition, it was hard for teachers to check to ensure that students read 25 books across multiple classes. II d Teacher Support for Literacy Initiatives Overall, teachers reported that support for ELLA, and Effective Literacy initiatives is high primarily because the concepts and strategies fit well with what they were already doing or moving toward anyway. One teacher said, It comes naturally and is working well at our school. Another indicated that much of ELLA was what she was already doing and by combining and adding the ELLA principles to it, she had created a true balanced literacy environment. Page 13 of 47 h d d d d Teachers were more equivocal about their support of the Harcourt Brace reading textbook series. According to one teacher, Its there. We use it. Another explained, If we find the books lacking in some way, we search out other materials, such as novels, and supplement the reading. Reading Recovery teachers indicated that teacher support for the program varies from school to school. Some reported that their schools were more positive than others\nhowever, there were no reports of any strong dislike of the program. The widest range of variability in teacher support for a district literacy program was reported by Success for All teachers who indicated that in some schools there was no support, in others the support was low and in some most of the teachers support the program. One teachers comment reflected how she as an individual had also ranged in her opinion of the program as she experienced it over time. She said, I hated it at first, but I like it a lot more now that I am working with the higher level kids. Middle school teachers had no comments about general support for the literacy programs at their schools. High school teachers, however, indicated that their colleagues had generally positive attitudes about literacy efforts in their schools. They indicated that they, as literacy experts, could possibly contribute more to other teachers confidence and support of literacy if the English teachers had more time to work with their colleagues in other subject areas and train them to use rubrics for grading writing assignments. d d II II II d d District Support for Literacy Initiatives The most common concern about ELLA relative to the question of district support was the lack of consistency for supporting teachers to attend training. The teachers explained that the district expects teachers to commit to eight days of training and assures them that substitutes will be supplied to relieve them of teaching duties so that they can attend the training. However, in the words of one teacher, They wont let you call and arrange for your own subs even when you know someone who is available. Then when the day comes, they don t send subs. So you can t go, or the kids get supervised by aides. Another issue of concern to teachers was not receiving supplies (e.g., phonics charts, magnetic letters), in the most recent ELLA trainings as teachers had received in earlier sessions. Teachers also expressed the need for more physical support for implementing ELLA. Specifically, they wanted to have teaching assistants for early grades who were trained in EJ.IA concepts and strategies to provide daily support during reading instruction. Effective literacy teachers also expressed concerns about having qualified substitutes in their classrooms when they are away from their classes for training. They indicated that this problem may be centered more at the individual school administrative level, however, than at the district level. Teachers responses relative to the Harcourt Brace reading texts indicated that all the materials needed to support literacy instruction were made available to teachers through the district. One teacher reported that when she was new in a school, however, she had to hunt for the materials for herself and that she believed that other new teachers often had this same Page 14 of 47ri ri experience. She expressed the opinion that more should be done to help new teachers become aware of the resources and textbooks that were available and where they could be found. ri ri ri ri ri ri ri Reading Recovery is largely supported through Title I, a federal source of dollars that teachers did not attribute as support from the district. Teachers comments were that when schools dont qualify for federal funds, such as Title I, then the school does not receive the same level of support that other schools do. Success for All teachers indicated that the district has not supported the number of refresher trainings recommended by the model developers due to economic conditions. Teachers also reported that three schools were forced to drop the SFA program due to Reading First requirements. Middle school teachers made no comments about district support, whereas, high school teachers made suggestions for ways in which the district could provide greater support. Specifically, teachers expressed the need for literacy coaches to not only help the English teachers do a better job, but also to help train teachers in other subject areas to use rubrics, writing prompts, and consistent scoring techniques to improve students writing. Teachers also indicated the need to use district time set aside for inservice training to plan a more comprehensive literacy approach. ri ri ri ri ri ri Professional Development Teachers reports of the amount of ELLA professional development they had received relative to the 12 required days of training was highly variable. Some teachers reported receiving as little as 3 days of training while others who had taught the same number of years (or more) had completed 12. Teachers who were new to the district indicated they are expected to go one day a month for training. According to teachers, there were also differences among schools regarding monies that paid for training (Title I in some schools). Some teachers were also offered stipends to attend training, whereas others were not. One teacher indicated that some training sessions had not been accessible because the number of participants was limited. Although teachers were generally positive about the quality of the training, some were not. One teacher said, I got more from my college class than I did from ELLA training, and another suggested that If training were better, people would buy into it more. Teachers offered several specific suggestions for ways the professional development could be improved and made more effective. Some of these ideas included selecting successful inservice teachers to do the training\nusing videos that were more realistic in terms of numbers of students in a classroom\nmaking the training more hands-on and less video and lecture\nand offering the training at better times, even during the summer. ri Although professional development in Effective Literacy began in the district at the time that ELLA began (1999), the most sessions any one teacher in the focus group had completed was four out of the eight. According to teachers, the district presently expects same teachers to complete all eight days by the end of their first year of teaching, but as with ELLA training, sessions have been limited by numbers of participants, and thus teachers have not always been able to attend them. The teachers were generally positive about the quality of the Page 15 of 47 *ri ri ri ri ri training. One teacher commented that, If we hear just one thing to help change up the day and make things better for the students, thats good. Teachers also liked scheduling the training during school hours and immediately after school. Teachers reported that the professional development provided for using the Harcourt Brace reading series was offered by company representatives at the time of adoption and that there had not been any ongoing training since that time even for new teachers or for teachers who change grades. One teacher commented that the training that was done started halfway into the year and that put me behind in using it [reading textbook]. Another concern for teachers was that the trade books that are referenced in the reading series, and modeled and suggested in the training, were not available in the school libraries, or there weren t enough of them for the students to use.  ri ri The most positive reports regarding professional development were made by teachers in Reading Recovery schools. The specially trained and certified Reading Recovery teacher at each school also serves as the schools Literacy Coach. Each has received additional training to be Literacy Coaches for whole schools beyond their specific training in the Reading Recovery program. In the role of coaches, the teachers have brought their training back to the school and trained others. Teachers were positive in their response to this model of professional development indicating that they [the coaches] help, model, and are non-threatening for teachers. ri M M Success for All teachers have had access to two sets of professional development activities. The training specific to the implementation of the SFA model was originally offered to schools when the model was first implemented in the district. Since that time follow-up trainings have been limited by funding, and as a result, have been combined and shared with other schools in the area that were implementing SFA. All teachers in SFA schools have also had access to ELLA training. Teacher descriptions and judgments of the quality of SFA training varied. Two teachers descriptions of the SFA training were highly positive. In their words: They were awesome presentations. Other responses were more critical with the primary concern being that they were redundant and provided too much information. ni II II II W Middle school English teachers response to professional development was also mixed. Some of the teachers indicated they had benefited from the trainings, while others described them as a waste of the districts money. Another concern was that some teachers need specific types of training (e.g., portfolios) while others dont. In general, all of the teachers indicated that they needed more training than they have received, especially in such topics as conferencing,,, hands-on application of teaching strategies, and how to do writers workshop like in ELLA. High school teachers comments regarding professional development indicated that they have no sense of a district coordinated plan for teachers. One teacher said, We have no overall picture of what we are doingjust pieces. They said also that they have lots of inservices that have been adequate, but that their time might be better spent if they worked with their faculties in their individual schools to brainstorm and plan their own comprehensive literacy programs. Page 16 of 47 kri ri Classroom Level Changes ri ri ri ELLA teachers described two major changes in kindergarten. Teachers are returning to doing centers as they had in the past, and they are emphasizing and involving students in writing. They also noted that there were increases in pressure put on five year olds to perform academically. Teachers at other grades had noted less change in classrooms as a consequence of ELLA. Comments such as, Teachers are falling back to the regular ways\n It isnt anything different than what I have always done\n We arent big on ELLA at our school\n and Sometimes we use pieces of ELLA indicated that changes in classrooms that could be attributed to ELLA would be difficult to observe. ri t Changes in Effective Literacy classrooms primarily involved more emphasis on writing activities. Teachers also indicated they had greater variety of reading materials available, including more technology-based programs such as Accelerated Reader. ri ri Teachers using Harcourt Brace basal textbooks as their primary vehicle for delivery of instruction also indicated that teachers are falling back into traditional methods even after we have trained on ELLA. One change that was noted, however, was that ELLA emphasizes placing students at their instructional levels and doing extra reading programs to meet their needs. The reading materials provide teachers with additional materials and suggestions for trade books that enable them to differentiate instruction. One teacher noted, however, that the text materials do not do enough to address the needs of lower level kids. ri ri Teachers in Reading Recovery schools provided the most positive and specific descriptions of how classrooms had changed as a consequence of the literacy program. Teachers reported that students were achieving higher, students were learning strategies to help themselves become more strategic readers, and writing was being emphasized more and had subsequently improved. One teacher commented that these changes had resulted from a combination of things\nResults have been convincing\nmaterials are good\nthe literacy coach has been helpful\nReading Recovery fills in gaps from the classroom. ri ri Success for All teachers found it difficult to describe changes as a consequence of the program because as two of them said: SEA is all I know. One teacher indicated that she does more cooperative learning than in the past. Others comments such as, I do my own thing when the door closes and I follow the program but I modify it seemed to imply that in some classrooms instruction is drifting from SEA practices to more traditional. ri ri Middle school teachers made no comments about notable changes to classroom instruction beyond the presence of special education teachers who now come into classrooms with students who have individualized instructional plans to assist them in the classrooms rather than pulling students out for separate classes in literacy. ri ri High school teachers said there had been lots of changes in classroom instruction recently. However, the only major change they discussed in-depth was cooperative learning. They indicated that although teachers were trying to use cooperative learning more, they are not completely satisfied with how it is working. I Page 17 of 47n  n Impact on Students RUA teachers indicated that achievement has gone up but qualified their judgments by I saying\n.. .but we cant tease out if the changes are due to ELLA or not. They also reported that the use of leveled books had given students more confidence to try things, kindergarten students were being provided with stronger foundations for transitioning into first grade reading . _J '1^ V 1 1 f -I i\"! T1 rr I and writing expectations, and that students were really involved in writing. was too early to tell how the program had impacted I V Effective Literacy teachers said that it students. One aspect of the emphasis on literacy that they noted had impacted students was the wide range of resources and materials that they now had available to them. Another observation teachers reported was their judgment that students that were new to the district were starting at lower achievement levels than students who had consistently been enrolled in the district. at According to teachers using the Harcourt Brace reading series, students have enjoyed the  stories in the texts and have learned better cooperation skills through partner reading strategies. Teachers also reported that students have learned what good readers are and that this is helping them to be more successful. q I I I q q( Teachers in the Reading Recovery schools indicated that the impact of the program on students is largely determined by the follow through and support of the regular classroom teacher. In one teachers words: Without strong communication between the Reading Recovery teacher and the classroom teacher, it wont happen for students. Although teachers indicated that many students have been helped with Reading Recovery, they also reflected again on their concern that many students regress once they are dropped from the program and do not continue to improve. Two Success for All teachers said that achievement scores of students had gone up, while another reported this was not the case at her school. Teachers reported that students were getting bored with the structure and routines of the program at this time of the year (late spring). Middle Schools teachers indicated that the Accelerated Reader program has been useful in increasing the motivation of students to read. They also reported that the assessments and leveled readers were creating more success and confidence for students and that students were writing more. According to the teachers, behavior and classroom control of students (management) are still very big issues for achievement of middle school students. q was too early to tell what impact their teaching High School teachers indicated that it had on students this year as they are judged by whether students can read and write (as indicated q on their achievement tests). Impact on Teachers 3ie One T.f.I A teacher commented that because there is stuff going on all the time, teachers constantly busy, but not necessarily in a good way. Others agreed that the pressures and Page 18 of 47  ri  time investments have had a negative impact on teacher stamina. Another teacher explained that when schools work together and all are doing ELLA, that it is not because of ELLA necessarily, but because they are working together as a team around a central focus. A final comment was that ELLA had provided teachers with strategies and ideas that helped all teachers in a school provide more consistency across a variety of student learning levels and across schools as student mobility continues to increase. fl Ejfective Literacy teachers were reported to be excited about it. They like having the additional materials and seem to be sharing ideas among themselves more than in the past. fl Harcourt Brace Reading Series teachers indicated that they have observed teachers in their schools discussing the stories in the texts with each other. They indicated that teachers were sharing ideas and expectations they have for students more than they have in the past. fl fl Reading Recovery classroom teachers reported borrowing and successfully using many of the strategies the tutors use that are particular to the Reading Recovery program. The modeling that the Literacy Coaches have done in the Reading Recovery schools was reported to be well received and useful to teachers. fl fl Success for All teachers responses were ambivalent about the impact of the program on teachers. Three teachers said that teachers at her school hated the program and that this commonality brought them together. Another teacher claimed that teachers at her school loved the program and that it brought them together also. Another teacher reported middle ground response to the program at her school by saying, They dont hate the program, but they arent particularly enthusiastic about it. n fl Middle School teachers gave no response to the question of impact on teachers while High School teachers reported that as a consequence of the emphasis on literacy in the district, they are sharing a lot more strategies. Although some of the teachers expected their schools to be on warning status, they indicated that teachers were staying focused on trying to identify students who are in most need and work at ways to bring them to proficiency level. H fl fl fl Page 19 of 47Table 2 Themes from Teacher Focus Group Theme ELLA Most Effective Element Professional Development Materials Effective Literacy______ Instruction for different student groupings (whole class/small group) Harcourt Brace______ Thematic units Reading Recovery 1 to 1 tutoring Success For AU Regrouping of students Middle School High School Developmental Reading Assessment 2.5 hours of Reading instruction Emergent literacy emphasis More time for writing Consistent lesson structures Vocabulary ESL materials Skill reinforcement Extra instruction time for at-risk students Reading/writing workshop approach Paired Reading Teacher Aides Student writing portfolios/rubrics Interactive journals Training to become RR certified Reorganization of curriculum into quarters Least Effective Element Teacher Support for Program District Support for Program Inconsistency of implementation across schools Individually testing all students (time) First grade cutoff/ level Support is high due to fit with existing practices Lack of support to attend training Lack of materials and teacher aides (None noted) Support is high due to fit with existing practices Lack of support to attend training Amount of comprehension work Story levels No link with SAT-9 Not high or low\nit is one resource Materials are available\nnew teachers need assistance Guidelines (timeframe) for acceptance to and discontinuance from program (20 week limit) Varies across schools (no strong dislike) Program primarily supported by Federal funds Lack of flexibility Gaps in training Inability to move students to lower reading level Frequent retraining on routines Varies across schools (strong dislike to strong support) Lack of support to attend training Lack of support to continue SFA Reading classes for low perf students only Lack of consistency between schools (No comments) (No comments) Lack of support from non-literacy teachers Ensuring students read 25 books across multiple classes Generally positive\nneed more time to work with peers Need Literacy Coaches Need inservice time for planning Page 20 of 47Theme ELLA Professional Development Classroom Level Changes Impact on Students Impact on Teachers Number of days received varies across schools Stipend is inconsistent Delivery and time could be improved More work centers and writing in Kindergarten Some regression to traditional methods Increased confidence Better prepared to transition to P grade Strain on time New strategies/ideas (consistency within and across schools) Effective Literacy Number of days received varies across schools Good quality Emphasis on writing More materials available More resources and materials available More materials Sharing of ideas Harcourt Brace No ongoing training Trade books not widely available Use of materials and trade books to differentiate instruction Some regression to traditional methods Learned cooperation skills and what agood reader is Sharing expectations and ideas Reading Recovery Training to become certified/ Literacy Coach is beneficial Teacher-trainer model is positive Increased student achievement and writing ability Students becoming strategic readers Literacy Coach Gains made during program, but not always continued after program New strategies available Literacy Coach well received Success For All Ongoing training is limited Varying quality of training More cooperative learning Some regression to traditional methods Mixed achievement results Boredom with routines Unity through like or dislike of program Middle School Ongoing training is limited Varying quality and applicability of training Special Ed teachers work with students in classrooms Student behavior still problematic AR program increases motivation Success and confidence from assessments/ leveled readers (No response) High School No overall training plan\njust series of unrelated inservices Need training relevant to own school More cooperative learning (varying quality) Too early to tell Sharing of ideas Focus on bringing students to proficiency Page 21 of 47 M M M  Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire (LPTQ) The questionnaires were analyzed descriptively using the program groupings provided by the district. The groups were as follows\n(a) Balanced Literacy, (b) Direct Instruction, (c) Success For All, (d) Middle Schools, and (e) High Schools. See table 3 for a comparative overview. a Professional Development. Most teachers in the different programs agreed that they had _ thorough understanding of their schools literacy program and that they have received adequate professional development for program implementation. High school teachers tended to be less positive than other groups with regard to receiving effective professional development and support provided by external partners, although more than one-half of the high school teachers agreed with these items (60.9% and 56.5%, respectively). 1 II II n M M n Resources. Most respondents agreed that they had the materials needed to implement their literacy program, with the exception of high school teachers (39.1% agreement). A similar pattern was seen with regard to having sufficient faculty and staff for program implementation, where high school teachers agreed less often than teachers in other literacy program groups. In comparison with other teachers, faculty members from schools implementing Success For All and teachers at the High School level had lower levels of agreement that technological resources had become more available as a result of their literacy program. The majority of teachers (80.9%) implementing Direct Instruction agreed that they were given sufficient planning time to implement their literacy program. Other respondents were less positive with regard to this item, with two-thirds of the middle school respondents agreeing that they were given sufficient planning time, and less than one-half of Balanced Literacy (47.2%) and High School English (32.6%) teachers agreeing. Impact/Outcomes. Most respondents agreed that their literacy program had changed classroom learning activities and had a positive impact on students. High school teachers, however, were less likely to agree with these items. Teachers were also positive regarding the impact that their literacy program had on student enthusiasm for learning and encouraging students to have higher standards for their own work. Middle and High school teachers, however, had lower levels of agreement with these items in comparison with elementary teachers. Lower levels of agreement (less than 50%) were seen from all respondent groups regarding increased parental and community involvement as a result of the literacy programs. Teachers were also less likely to agree that they are now more involved in decision making at their schools since implementing their literacy program. Encouragingly, most teachers agreed that they are supportive of the literacy program at their school (ranging from 65.2% agreement by High School teachers to 89.4% agreement from Direct Instruction teachers). Page 22 of 47H M Table 3 Percentage of Teacher Agreement (Agree or Strongly Agree) with LPTQ Items by Program LPTQ Item H d    I I II II II II II d I have a thorough understanding of this school's literacy program.________________________________________ I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/ training for implementation of my school's literacy program._________________ Professional development provided by external trainers, model developers, and/or designers has been valuable. Guidance and support provided by our school's external facilitator, support team, or other resource personnel have helped our school implement its literacy program. Teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement our literacy program.____________________ Materials (books and other resources) needed to implement our literacy program are readily available. Our school has sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement its literacy program.____________________ Because of our program, technological resources have become more available.___________________________ Our literacy program has changed classroom-learning activities a great deal.__________________________ Overall student achievement has been positively impacted by our literacy program.__________________ Children in this school are more enthusiastic about learning because of our literacy program.____________ Because of our literacy program, parents are more involved in the educational program of this school. Community support for this school has increased since our literacy program has been implemented._________ Students have higher standards for their own work because of our school's literacy program.____________ Teachers are more involved in decision making at this school than they were before we implemented our literacy program._______________________________ Our literacy program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs.__________ Because of our literacy program, teachers in this school spend more time working together to develop curriculum and plan instruction.___________________ Teachers in this school are generally supportive of our literacy program._______________________________ The elements of our literacy program are effectively integrated to help us meet school improvement goals. This school has a plan for evaluating all components of our literacy program.____________________________ Achievement for African American students has been BL N = 551 84.9 DI N = 47 91.5 SFA N= 115 85.2 MS N = 88 84.1 HS N = 46 80.4 81.3 87.2 79.1 79.5 71.7 78.0 74.0 47.2 75.0 68.4 55.4 72.1 71.9 60.8 33.6 27.0 55.2 47.5 61.2 60.8 80.9 80.6 70.2 89.4 89.4 80.9 91.5 80.9 68.1 85.1 78.7 63.8 46.8 42.6 66.0 53.2 72.3 63.8 89.4 85.1 89.4 80.0 85.2 60.9 85.2 59.1 82.6 65.2 41.7 77.4 72.2 59.1 40.0 35.7 57.4 41.7 56.5 55.7 72.2 84.3 81.7 72.7 67.0 60.2 67.0 62.5 73.9 67.0 45.5 20.5 25.0 47.7 42.0 51.1 51.1 73.9 70.5 60.2 56.5 32.6 39.1 32.6 19.6 28.3 45.7 13.0 6.5 8.7 26.1 17.4 26.1 26.1 65.2 41.3 28.3 positively impacted by our literacy program. i 60.3 76.6 71.3 60.2 32.6 BL = Balanced Literacy\nDI = Direct Instruction: SFA = Success For All\nMS = Middle School\nHS - High School Page 23 of 47 II ri Student Achievement Data ri ri The purpose of this portion of the study was to examine the achievement of African American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District. Specifically, the examination sought to determine whether (a) African American students academic gains were similar to those of other students\n(b) there were any evident longitudinal trends in the overall achievement or in achievement gains for African American students\nand (c) at the elementary school level, there was any relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school and achievement gains of African American students. Subjects I The subjects included all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the Little Rock School District during the 2002-2003 school year for whom 2003 Literacy Benchmark or 2003 SAT-9 scores were available. This included a total of 11,934 students, of whom 23.4% were Caucasian, 68.2% were African-American, and 48.5% were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Three measures were used to assess literacy: the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. Preliminary Data Screening Data Screening: Grades 5, 7, and 10. For grades 5,7, and 10, 2003 SAT-9 scores served as outcome variables, while Literacy Benchmark scores from 2002 served as a covariate for grades 5 and 7. A total of 5,320 student records were comprised of 1,842 fifth grade\n1,932 seventh grade\nand 1,445 tenth grade records101 records (1.9%) did not include a 2003 grade level indicator. These 101 records were eliminated from subsequent analyses, leaving a total of 5,219 cases. Less than 1% {n = 41) of cases did not include a valid school location code, and were thus eliminated from subsequent analyses, leaving 5,178 for further processing. A score of zero on the SAT-9 subtests indicated that a valid score was not obtained. For fifth grade, 307 students were missing 2002 Literacy Benchmark Scores, 82 scored 0 on the SAT-9 Reading subtest, and 16 scored 0 on the SAT-9 Language subtest. For seventh grade, 325 students were missing benchmark scores, 57 had scores of 0 on the Reading subtest, and 47 had scores of 0 on the Language subtest. Tenth grade students did not have benchmark scores from the preceding year\n43 had scores of 0 in Reading, and 54 had scores of 0 in Language. Data screening: Grades 4, 6, 8, and 11. For grades 4, 6, 8, and 11, 2003 Literacy Benchmark scores served as the outcome variable, while 2002 SAT-9 scores served as a covariate for all except grade ILA total of 6,770 student records were comprised of 1,841 fourth grade, 1,863 sixth grade, 1,759 eight grade, and 1,307 eleventh grade records. All records contained a valid grade level indicator. Only four records were deleted due to missing school location indicatorsall of these were 11* grade. All 4* grade records contained a Literacy Benchmark score. For 6* grade, 1,487 records had matching pretest (SAT-9) and posttest (Benchmark) scores\nrespective numbers for 8* and 11* grades were 1,447 and 985. After eliminating cases with a SAT-9 score of zero, the number of cases retained for analysis was 1,395 for 6* grade, 1,359 for 8* grade, and 946 for 11* grade. Finally, to be included in Page 24 of 47ri ri ri multivariate analyses using Benchmark, SAT-9 Reading, and SAT-9 Language scores, cases were required to have valid scores on all three instruments (or both SAT-9 scores for 10 grade). ri ri The results of data screening for all grades are depicted in Table 4, along with the percentage of children eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, the percentage of African American students, and the mean Literacy Benchmark score for unscreened and screened samples. Across grades, match rates ranged from 72.4% for 11* grade, to 100% for 4' grade. Comparisons on key variables indicate that the screening procedures did not substantially alter the composition of the samplesthe largest observed discrepancy for any demographic variable was a 1.8% difference in the number of African Americans in the 11* grade sample (see Table ri 4). Likewise, differences on the Benchmark test means were small, the largest being a difference of 3.7 for 11* grade, which represents an increase of about one-tenth of a standard deviation unit from prescreen to postscreen. It is worth noting that the percentage of children eligible for free  1  1_______J__________11,. j i ith rimhohlv rliip tn nhildrpn flt ri or reduced-price lunch dramatically declines in lO'** and 11* grades, probably due to children at these grade levels not applying for the program. Table 4 Pretest-posttest Match Rates and Screened Sample Characteristics ri Grade n Match Rate % Free Lunch % African American Mean Benchmark' ri ri ri ri ri Fourth Prescreen Postscreen Fifth Prescreen Postscreen Sixth Prescreen Postscreen Seventh Prescreen Postscreen Eighth Prescreen Postscreen Tenth Prescreen Postscreen Eleventh Prescreen Postscreen 1,841 1,841 1,842 1,464 1,863 1,395 1,932 1,509 1,759 1,359 1,445 1,342 1,307 946 100.0% 79.5% 74.9% 78.2% 77.3% 92.9% 72.4% 63.0 55.8 54.2 60.4 60.6 47.4 45.8 53.0 51.6 26.0 26.0 20.6 20.6 '2002 scores for grades 5,7, and 10\n2003 scores for other grades. 68.5 69.2 69.9 67.4 68.2 72.3 71.7 68.1 68.3 64.9 63.8 64.3 62.5 204.8 196.7 197.9 175.6 176.9 172.0 173.4 184.8 187.5 n/a n/a 187.0 190.7 Page 25 of 47Analyses H ri ri ri District-wide achievement effects. The basic analytic model used to gauge district-wide achievement effects was a 2 (free lunch status) X 2 (gender) X 2 (African-American, nonAfrican American) analysis of variance (ANOVA). This basic model was adapted to each grade level to reflect: (a) the availability of achievement data from the prior year, in which case a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used\n(b) the specific 2003 outcome data that were available at each grade level (either Literacy Benchmark scores or SAT9 scores)\nand (c) the number of outcome variableswhere both Reading and Language SAT9 scores were available, multivariate analysis of variance or multivariate analysis of covariance was used. Within each grade level, outcome variables were converted to Z-scores to aid in the interpretation of results and to permit comparisons across grade levels for which different outcome variables were available. Z-scores express the original scale scores in standard deviation units. Partial eta- squared (e^) values were computed for prior achievement, gender, race, and free lunch status. Partial indicates the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that is uniquely attributable to each predictor variable (see Tables 5 and 6). ri Table 5 Average Unadjusted Z-scores by Grade Level, Free Lunch Eligibility, Gender, and Race ri Grade Level Not eligible Female Male Female Free lunch eligible Male ri ri Fourth Non African-American African-American Fifth Non African-American African-American Sixth Non African-American African-American Seventh Non African-American African-American Eighth Non African-American African-American Tenth Non African-American African-American Eleventh Non African-American African-American 0.85 0.32 0.95 0.10 0.78 0.25 1.06 0.17 0.93 0.37 0.90 -0.10 0.83 -0.10 0.53 -0.13 0.84 -0.22 0.49 -0.17 0.95 -0.05 0.58 -0.19 0.70 -0.34 0.50 -0.22 0.23 -0.14 0.16 -0.30 0.21 0.01 0.08 -0.24 -0.13 -0.05 0.13 -0.51 0.36 -0.11 -0.09 -0.54 0.01 -0.56 -0.13 -0.50 0.09 -0.58 -0.37 -0.57 -0.30 -0.60 -0.07 -0.60 * 'Literacy Benchmark scores for grades 4, 6, 8, and 11\nSAT9 Reading subtest scores for grades 5, 7, 9, and 10. Page 26 of 47If If Table 6 If Proportion of Variance Explained in Achievement Outcomes: Partial Eta-squared (^) Values for Prior Achievement, Gender, Race, and Free Lunch Status by Grade Level Grade Level Prior Achievement Gender Race Free Lunch Status Fourth n.a. 0.028 0.046 0.058 If Fifth 0.480 0.002 0.057 0.028 If Sixth 0.477 0.024 0.000 0.000 Seventh 0.541 0.029 0.050 0.026 If Eighth 0.450 0.047 0.001 0.011 If Tenth n.a. 0.020 0.090 0.068 Eleventh 0.502 0.013 0.009 0.000 If If If Performance gap analysis. A performance gap analysis was performed for grades that had data available for two consecutive years (i.e., matching pretest and posttest scores). The performance gap was defined as the standardized difference in pretest-adjusted means between African American students and other students within gender and free lunch status categories\nthus, four performance gap estimates were computed for each grade level. These performance gaps were then regressed on grade level to ascertain whether there was a trend across age cohorts. If If If If School composition and program effects. For elementary schools, information was available regarding specific literacy programs being implemented in the schools. For 5 grade, a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was performed to examine relationships between school composition factors (aggregate poverty, mean achievement at pretest, and percentage African American enrollment), school literacy programs, and student achievement. In HLM, a student-level (Level 1) model of reading achievement is constructed for each school. The Level 1 model provides a mean (or predicted mean) for each school, as well as a slope coefficient for each student-level predictor. The means and slopes computed for each school in the Level 1 modeling process become outcome variables in the Level 2 (school) model. At level two, HLM uses school composition and program variables as predictors of the means and slopes computed in the Level 1 model. A major advantage of HLM over traditional analyses, in addition to producing more reliable and accurate statistical tests, is that it allows one to assume that the relationships between Page 27 of 47 H  student achievement and other student variables are different from school to school. These differences can then be modeled as a function of school characteristics. For example, in addition to ascertaining whether particular features of a school are associated with the overall average effectiveness of a school, one can determine whether school characteristics are associated a more equitable distribution of achievement gains across levels of prior achievement, or are differentially effective for students with different characteristics (e.g., African American students). Because development of HLM models is exploratory, full specification of the analyses is presented in the results section. Longitudinal cohort performance on Benchmark Examinations. For fourth and eighth grades, three consecutive years of Literacy Benchmark Performance Level data were available. The percentage of African American students scoring in Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced categories was computed for each year from 2001 to 2003 to provide a basis for examining overall trends in performance across time. Elementary Level Results District-wide Achievement Effects Fourth grade. ANOVA revealed significant main effects for gender (Fi,i83i=52.15, p \u0026lt; .001), free lunch status (Fi,i83i=l 13.30, p \u0026lt; .001), and race (Fi,i83i=87.75,p \u0026lt; .001). None of the interaction effects were significant, which indicates that the main effects for each variable were constant across levels of the other variables. Mean Literacy Benchmark scores were significantly higher for females (M = 214.6) than for males (M = 203.0), for students not eligible for free lunch (M = 217.4 versus M = 200.2), and for non-African American students (Af = 216.4 versus M = 201.2). As shown in Table 7 and in Figures 1 and 2, mean scores for African American students were approximately four-tenths of a standard deviation lower than those of non- African American students who were of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status. An examination of longitudinal cohort performance on the Benchmark Literacy examination showed a dramatic reduction in the percentage of African American students scoring in the Below Basic range from 2001 (49.1%) to 2003 (20.4%\nsee Figure 3). Simultaneously, the percentage of African American fourth graders who scored at a Proficient level increased from 19.1% in 2001 to 45.2% in 2003 (see Figure 3). Page 28 of 47Id Id Table 7 Id Average Z-scores by Grade Level, Free Lunch Eligibility, Gender, and Race^, Adjusted for Prior Achievement Id Grade Level Not eligible Female Free lunch eligible Male Female Male Id Id ri ri ri Fifth Non African-American African-American Sixth Non African-American African-American Seventh Non African-American African-American Eighth Non African-American African-American Eleventh Non African-American African-American 0.38 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.38 0.04 0.32 0.33 0.28 0.15 ri ri ri ri ri ri 0.60 -0.02 -0.04 -0.07 0.57 -0.01 -0.07 -0.10 0.06 0.04 0.15 -0.18 0.11 -0.16 0.21 0.19 -0.06 -0.14 0.01 -0.14 0.16 -0.13 0.00 0.17 0.46 0.14 -0.19 -0.17 0.15 -0.20 'Literacy Benchmark scores for grades 4, 6, 8, and 11\nSAT9 Reading subtest scores for grades 5,7, 9, and 10. Page 29 of 47M ri ri 1.00 ri .80- .85 ri .60 .53 N .40 \u0026lt; .20- ri 0.00- I -.09 IZZlNon Afr-American H -.20 HAfrican American Female Male I Figure 1. Fourth Grade Average Z-scores by Gender and Race\nStudents Not Eligible for Free or Reduced-price Lunch. M .40 ri .20  ri -.00  EEL ri -.20  ri -.40  ri -.60 Female II Male CeSnoh Afr-American ^HAfrican American Figure 2. Fourth Grade Average Z-scores by Gender and Race\nStudents Eligible for Free or Reduced-price Lunch. Page 30 of 47 ri ri ri ri ri 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 49.1% --------------^2v4%r 32.4% 31.6% 31.8% Below Basic Basic 4\u0026amp;.2% 3474 19.1 Proficient 0.2%0.8% Advanced M N M 1 %  2001 112002 112003 Figure 3. Percentage of African American Fourth Graders Scoring at Each Performance Level on the Literacy Benchmark Examination by Year, 2001-2003. ri ri Fifth grade. MANCOVA showed significant two-way interaction effects for between gender and African-American status (F2,i463=3 194, p \u0026lt;.05) and African-American and free lunch status (F2,i463=3.195, p \u0026lt;.05). Follow-up univariate tests indicated that the gender X African- American interaction effect was significant only for SAT9 Language scores (Fi,i464=6.37, p =.012), whereas the free lunch status X African-American interaction was significant only for SAT9 Reading scores (Fi,1464=4.598, p \u0026lt; .05). Accordingly, univariate post hoc tests were performed on the interaction effects. Four gender X race groups were formed to test the interaction effect on language scores: African-American males, African-American females, other males, and other females. These groups differed significantly on pretest-adjusted SAT9 Language scores (F 3,1538=37.55, p\u0026lt;.001). Post hoc tests indicated that each adjusted group mean was significantly different from the others, with other males having the highest adjusted Z-score (M=0.38), followed by other females (Af=0.25), African-American females (M= -0.04), and African-American males (M=-0.15). The interaction was attributable to a larger performance gap between males than females across levels of race (see Figure 4). ri Page 31 of 47d d d d d d d .50 .40  .30 .25 .20 .10 0.00' -.10 -.20 E^Non Afr-American ^lAfrican American d Female Male d Figure 4. Adjusted Mean Z-scores by Gender and Race\nFifth Grade SAT9 Language. d d Four groups were also formed to follow-up the/ree lunch X race interaction effect: African-American students eligible for free lunch, African-American students not eligible for free lunch, Other students eligible for free lunch, and Other students not eligible for free lunch. Post hoc tests showed that: (a) the adjusted mean SAT9 Reading score for African-American students eligible for free lunch {M= -0.18) was significantly lower than the adjusted mean for all other groups\n(b) the adjusted means for non-eligible African American students (M=0.007) and Other students eligible for free lunch (M = 0.134) were not significantly different\nand (c) the adjusted mean for non-eligible, non-African American students (A/=0.501) was significantly higher than that of all other groups. The interaction was attributable to a larger performance gap between African American and Other students who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch compared to the gap for students who were eligible (see FigureS). d Page 32 of Vlri ri .60 ri .50 ri .40 ri .20 I -13 I ri 0.00' -.20 -.40 [Z^Non Afr-American HAtrican American Not Eligible Free Lunch Eligible Figure 5. Adjusted Mean Z-scores by Free Lunch Status and Race: Fifth Grade SAT9 Language. School-level predictors of achievement gains and the relationships between student characteristics and student achievement: A hierarchical linear model of 5'* grade achievement. To further explore the relationships among school-level variables and student achievement, a 2- level hierarchical linear model was constructed for fifth grade achievement. First, student-level regression equations were estimated for each school, using 2003 SAT9 reading scale scores as the outcome variable, and 2002 Benchmark Literacy, African American status, free lunch eligibility status, gender, and special education status as predictor variables. Benchmark Literacy scores were centered on the grand mean for this variable, meaning that the intercept of the regression equation for each school was equal to the pretest-adjusted mean score. Relationships were then estimated between the regression coefficients for each school and school composition variables (i.e., reading program, presence of a literacy coach, percentage of African American students, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch). School composition variables associated with a t-value greater than 2.0 were then incorporated into the final model. As Table 5 indicates, the percentage of students eligible for free lunch was a potential predictor of mean adjusted achievement (Bq, or the school-level intercept), the slope associated with gender, the slope associated with special education status, and the slope associated with African American status. The percentage of African American students was a potential predictor of the slope associated with special education status, as was implementation of the Success for All reading program (see Table 8). Page 33 of 47 d ri Table 8 Results of Exploratory HLM Analyses: School-level Variables as Predictors of Student-level Regression Coefficients II Level-1 Coefficient Potential Level-2 Predictors (School-level) SFA DI RR COACH ri INTRCPTl,BO Coefficient Standard Error t value AFRAMER LUNCH ri GENDER,Bl Coefficient Standard Error t value LUNCH,B2 Coefficient Standard Error t value SPED,B3 Coefficient Standard Error t value PRETEST,B4 Coefficient Standard Error t value AFRAMER,B5 Coefficient Standard Error t value Note. -3.142 2.720 -1.155 0.411 6.250 0.066 -3.137 2.094 -1.498 -1.212 2.321 -0.522 -0.100 0.053 -1.903 -0.109 0.044 -2.484 SFA DI RR COACH AFRAMER LUNCH -2.351 1.675 -1.404 1.586 3.876 0.409 -0.069 1.348 -0.051 0.046 1.449 0.032 -0.069 0.032 -2.132 -0.071 0.027 -2.629 SFA DI RR COACH AFRAMER LUNCH 0.527 1.625 0.324 0.796 3.659 0.217 -0.978 1.258 -0.778 0.273 1.365 0.200 0.011 0.033 0.329 0.010 0.028 0.339 SFA DI RR COACH AFRAMER LUNCH 4.992 2.181 2.289 -5.857 5.200 -1.126 -1.258 1.826 -0.689 -2.003 1.946 -1.029 0.094 0.044 2.131 0.086 0.038 2.271 SFA DI RR COACH AFRAMER LUNCH 0.024 0.044 0.534 -0.001 0.100 -0.013 -0.005 0.035 -0.147 -0.002 0.037 -0.060 -0.000 0.001 -0.049 -0.000 0.001 -0.206 SFA DI RR COACH AFRAMER LUNCH 2.655 2.322 1.143 -1.055 5.330 -0.198 2.394 1.799 1.331 0.566 1.987 0.285 0.075 0.046 1.636 0.080 0.038 2.073 SFA = Success for All program. Recovery program. American enrollment, reduced-price lunch. Coach = Literacy Coach. DI= Direct Instruction program. RR = Reading AFRAMER (level 2) = percentage African Lunch (level 2) = percentage of children eligible for free or t-values over 2.0 in bold. I I Page 34 of 47n H II II II II As shown in Table 9, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch was significantly, negatively related to the mean adjusted pretest score for schools f = -4.31, df= 31, p\u0026lt; .001), indicating that schools with higher percentages of children eligible for free lunch tended to have lower student achievement after adjusting for prior achievement. The percentage eligible for free lunch also was negatively related to the slope for gender f = -2.385, df =31, p =0.023), meaning that the achievement differences between boys and girls grew smaller as school poverty grew higher. The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch was positively related to the slope indicating African American status (r=3.305, df= 31, p = 0.003), which shows that the achievement gap between African American and other students became lower as school poverty rates increased. The type of reading program implemented in schools was not significantly related to any outcome. Table 9 n Hierarchical Linear Model of Fifth Grade Achievement: Final Estimation of Fixed Effects fl Fixed Effect Coefficient Standard Error T-ratio Approx. d.f. P-value fl For For INTRCPTl, INTRCPT2, GOO LUNCH, GOl GENDER slope, INTRCPT2, GIO LUNCH, Gll LUNCH slope. BO Bl 674.570463 -0.245310 3.896852 0.056874 173.107 -4.313 31 31 0.000 0.000 fl For 8.742665 -0.101186 2.638103 0.042419 3.314 -2.385 31 31 0.003 0.023 B2 INTRCPT2, G20 For SPED slope, -6.642145 1.682618 -3.948 32 0.001 B3 fl For For INTRCPT2, G30 SFA, G31 AFRAMER, G32 LUNCH, G33 PRETEST slope, INTRCPT2, G40 AFRAMER slope, INTRCPT2, G50 LUNCH, G51 -30.431707 8.625169 0.296650 -0.028009 8.907047 9.294506 0.289108 0.228295 -3.417 0.928 1.026 -0.123 29 29 29 29 0.002 0.361 0.314 0.904 B4 B5 0.772208 0.037128 20.798 32 0.000 -26.731249 0.181304 3.617033 0.054857 -7.390 3.305 31 31 0.000 0.003 H  I LUNCH = Free/reduced price lunch eligibility status. AFRAMER = African American. SPED = Special education Note. status. Secondary Level Results I Sixth grade. ANCOVA resulted in a significant main effect for gender (Fi.i465= 34.18, p \u0026lt; .001) after controlling for 2002 SAT9 Reading scores. As with fourth grade, females (M = 0.252) had significantly higher Literacy Benchmark Z-scores than males -0.110). A significant interaction effect was observed between race and free lunch status (Fi.i465= 6.397, p =0.012). Post hoc tests showed that\n(a) the adjusted mean SAT9 Reading score for African- American students eligible for free lunch {M= -0.23) was significantly lower than the adjusted mean for all other groups\n(b) the adjusted means for non-eligible African American students (M=0.03) and Other students eligible for free lunch (M = 0.01) were not significantly different\nI Page 35 of 47Il II II and (c) the adjusted mean for non-eligible, non-African American students (A/=0.51) was significantly higher than that of all other groups (see Figure 6). .60 II I M M I I I fl fl fl fl fl .40' .20 0.00 -.20 -.40 h .51 Not Eligible B Free Lunch Eligible Q^Non Afr-American HAfrican American Figure 6. Sixth Grade Average Adjusted Z-scores by Free Lunch Eligibility and Race. Seventh grade. MANCOVA showed significant interaction effects for race Xfree lunch status (F2,i507=4.426, p \u0026lt;.O5) and race X gender (F2,i507=3.592, p \u0026lt;.05). Follow-up univariate tests indicated that the race X free lunch status interaction was significant for both SAT9 Reading (Fi.i507=3.592, p \u0026lt;.05) and SAT9 Language (Fi,i507 = 3.592, p \u0026lt;.05), whereas the race X gender interaction was significant only for SAT9 Reading (Fi,1507 = 3.592, p \u0026lt;.05). Follow-up tests were performed using grouping variables as was done for fifth grade. Post hoc comparisons showed that (a) adjusted mean Z-scores for African American students eligible for free or reduced price lunch (Mseading = -0.13, MLanguage= -0.10) were significantly lower than all other groups\n(b) there was no significant difference between non-eligible African American students (MReading = 0.01, MLanguage= -0.03) and free lunch eligible other students (MReading= 0.09, MLanguage= 0.14), and non-cligible, non-African American students had higher adjusted mean scores than all other groups (MReading= 0.47, MLanguage= 0.44). For both Reading and Language scores, the interaction was attributable to a more pronounced difference between African American students and Other students who were not eligible for free lunch (see Figures 7 and 8). Follow-up tests of the gender X race interaction effect indicated that the adjusted means for African American females (MReading = -0.08, MLanguage= -0.11) did not differ significantly than those of African American males (MReading = -0.08, MLanguage= -0.14), while both groups had significantly lower adjusted means than Other males (MReading = 0.47, MLanguage= 0.31) and Other females (MReading = 0.29, MLanguage= 0.43). Page 36 of 47ri ri .60 ri .50 ri .40 ri .30  .20 1 A ri .10 ''27'' t. j T J 9|'- ri 0.00 -.10 ri -.20 Not Eligible Free Lunch Eligible EZjNon Afr-American ^BAfrican American Figure 7. Adjusted Mean Z-scores by Free Lunch Status and Race: Seventh Grade SAT9 Reading. .50 ri .40 ri .30 .20 .10 0.00 Oil ri -.10 EIZlNon Afr-American -.20 ^lAfrican American Not Eligible Free Lunch Eligible Figure 8. Adjusted Mean Z-scores by Free Lunch Status and Race: Seventh Grade SAT9 Language. ri I Page 37 of 47 ri ri ri ri Eighth grade. ANCOVA showed significant main effects for gender (Fi.1421=66.41, p \u0026lt; .001) and free lunch status (Fi.uzi = 6.59, p \u0026lt; .001), but not for race (F1.1421 = 0-19, p = .890). There were no significant interaction effects. Females (M =0.179) had higher Literacy Benchmark scores than males (M =-0.165), and students not eligible for free lunch (M=0.010) had significantly higher scores than those who were eligible (M =-0.08). African American students had slightly higher pretest-adjusted mean Z scores (M = 0.009) than other students (M=0.003), mostly attributable to the fact that African American students who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch having a higher adjusted mean Z score than other eligible students (see Figure 9). ri .20 ri .13 .10 ftu)*-: ri ri 0.00 ri C.Jae^'.gig -.10 -12 , 'i ri ri -.20 Not Eligible Free Lunch Eligible ri ri ri ri H IZZlNon AfrAmerican ^BAfrican American Figure 9. Eighth Grade Average Adjusted Z-scores by Free Lunch Eligibility and Race As shown in Figure 10, a substantial decline in the percentage of African American eighth grade students scoring Below Basic on the literacy exam occurred between 2001 (48.5%) and 2003 (34.5%). During the same time period, the percentage scoring at a Proficient level rose from 14.9% to 23.9%, and the percentage scoring at a Basic level rose from 35.7% to 40.5%. Page 38 of 47 h d ri ri 60.0% 50.0% 48.5% ri 40.0% 34.7% 33.0% 40.5% ri 30.0% ri 20.0% 10.0% ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri 0.0%  34.5% 357r%qj ll JUI J rz Below Basic Basic '% Proficient 02001 112002 112003 0.9% 0.7%) 1.1% Advanced Figure 10. Percentage of African American Eighth Graders Scoring at Each Performance Level on the Literacy Benchmark Examination by Year, 2001-2003. Tenth grade. No prior achievement data were available for 10* grade students. MANOVA indicated a significant interaction effect between race and free lunch status (F2,i34o = 9.727, p \u0026lt; .001). Follow-up post hoc tests showed that (a) mean Z-scores for African American students eligible for free or reduced price lunch (MReading = -0.54, MLanguage= -0.51) were significantly lower than all other groups\n(b) there was no significant difference between non- eligible African American students (MReading = -0.21 , MLanguage= -0.16) and free lunch eligible Other students (MReading= -0.10, MLangiiage= \"0.12), and non-eligible, non-African American students had higher mean scores than all other groups (MReading= 0.83, MLanguage= 0.75). For both Reading and Language scores, the interaction was attributable to a more pronounced difference between African American students and Other students who were not eligible for free lunch (see Figures 11 and 12). Page 39 of 47d ri 1.00 ri .80   'itv. .83 .60 .40 ri .20' 'X I 1 ri 0.00 I l-^l -.20' ri -.40' I ri -.60 [^]Non Afr-American -.80 HlAfrican American ri Not Eligible Free Lunch Eligible Figure 11. Mean Z-scores by Free Lunch Status and Race: Tenth Grade SAT9 Reading. M 1.00 II .80 II .60 .40 II .20 ri -.00 -.12 id ri -.20 -.40 EniNon Afr-American ri -.60 ^lAfrican American Not Eligible Free Lunch Eligible Figure 12. Mean Z-scores by Free Lunch Status and Race: Tenth Grade SAT9 Language. Page 40 of 47 M ri ri Eleventh grade. ANCOVA revealed significant main effects for gender (Fi,966=4.885, p \u0026lt; .001\nMfemales=0.235, Mmales=-0.020) and race (Fl,966= 3.699, P =.002\nMAfr-Amer=-008, Mnoh Afr-Amer=0.221). No Significant interaction effects were observed. As shown in Figure 13, the average adjusted Z-score for African American students was about 0.20 lower than that of other students within levels of free lunch eligibility. ri .40 ri .30 .20 .10 0.00 -.10 :r 'rm  II ^1 [iZlNon Atr-American -.20 ^African American M M M H llr\u0026lt; 'a II Female Male Figure 13. Eleventh Grade Average Adjusted Z-scores by Gender and Race. Il II II II ri Page 41 of 47ri ri Trends in Student Gains Across Age Cohorts ri ri ri A performance gap estimate was computed within levels of gender and free lunch eligibility status by subtracting the average adjusted Z-score for other students from that of African American students. Negative gap scores indicate that African American students are gaining in achievement at a slower rate, whereas positive scores indicate that African American students are gaining at a greater rate. A cubic regression of these scores on grade level was performed to determine whether there were any trends in the differential gain rates. As Figure 14 illustrates, the performance gap grew smaller as grade level increased, and was near or above zero for 6* and 8 grades, in which the Literacy Benchmark score was the outcome. Performance gap indices were negative and relatively large for 5* and 7* grades, particularly among male students not eligible for free lunch. The SAT9 was the outcome variable in these two grades. ri .2 ri 0.0' -.2' ri ri -.4. ri -.6' ri O. \u0026lt; 0 -.8 ri 4.0 Male, Not Eligible Female, Not Eligible Male, Free Lunch  Female, Free Lunch Rsq = 0.7435 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 GRADE A  X Figure 14. Cubic Regression of Performance Gap on Grade Level. ri Note. Performance gap is defined as the difference in mean adjusted Z-scores between African American and other students of the same gender and free lunch eligibility status. An upward trend indicates a reduction in the gap. Negative values indicate that non-African American students within the category made greater gains in achievement, whereas positive values indicate that African American students made greater gains. Page 42 of 47 ri Summary and Conclusions ri The Little Rock School District is commended for the emphasis given to increasing literacy in all schools in the district and not just those in the lowest performing strata. The state and local initiatives in literacy for early learners, including ELLA and Effective Literacy, are well grounded in current research of best practice. In addition, the Reading Recovery and Success for All models are among the best researched and proven programs in the nation for lower-performing students. Impressions from interviews and survey data, however, are that these programs are often perceived as separate and discrete entities instead of integral to a district comprehensive literacy program. Teachers describe themselves or their schools as doing ELLA or Success for All and only the certified tutors doing Reading Recovery. Unfortunately, teachers using the basal reading series dont perceive their schools as doing a literacy program at all. Teachers commented that their schools weren t big on ELLA, or that they close the door and do their own thing. Middle and high school teachers comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they have had as English teachers. Thus, it is recommended that the districts plan, or big picture of literacy, be developed and presented to teachers in a format that communicates how each program, school, grade level, and teacher contributes to and accomplishes literacy goals. The professional development in basic literacy has been well received and represents an enormous accomplishment for the district. It is recommended that efforts be intensified in this regard as teachers indicated that they were appreciative of and eager for training. Management and delivery of the professional development, however, needs to be made more consistent and available to teachers. The primary concerns voiced by teachers were scheduling problems, inadequate space and availability of training for the numbers of teachers needing to be trained, retraining for teachers who change grade levels, training for new teachers, and obtaining qualified substitutes for teachers while they attend training. In addition, the same level of professional development needs to also be made available to upper grade, middle, and high school teachers. The impressions of professional development communicated by upper grade teachers and those who were not implementing special programs were that professional development has been minimal, targeted to cunent hot topics (e.g., portfolios), and inconsistent in quality. Teachers perceptions of the impact of literacy programs were extremely mixed. Writing and composition were literacy areas that all teachers agreed had been emphasized and improved in their schools and classrooms as a consequence of literacy initiatives in the district. Although ELLA has generally been well received by teachers, the level of change it has engendered in teachers instruction is difficult to determine. Some of the positive comments relative to ELLA had more to do with the materials teachers had received as a part of the training than the new ideas they had been provided. During the focus groups, the most impressive level of agreement that teachers voiced was by teachers who had Reading Recovery teachers as Literacy Coaches in their schools. Teachers recognized the level of expertise that the Reading Recovery teachers had and voiced strong appreciation for and dependence on these teachers leadership in implementing literacy instruction in their schools. The concept of highly trained Literacy Coaches being placed in and available to all elementary schools is a national issue presently and it is Page 43 of 47I I fl fl fl recommended that the district find ways to support this concept not only in elementary schools with large at-risk populations, but in all schools in the district. In terms of achievement, the conclusions based on the results of analyses performed on are presented below by research question. It should be noted that these conclusions might not apply if data were available for grades K - 3, or if pretest data were available for fourth grade. Special caution is in order related to interpreting the effects of school programs on student achievement, because those analyses were based only on 5* grade data, whereas the programs tend to focus more strongly on the lower grades. Elementary Achievement 1. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students.  The academic gains on literacy tests were lower for African American students than for other students. 2. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  Although there was a significant relationship between African American status and student achievement, the proportion of variance in academic performance attributable to African American status was very low4.6% for fourth grade, and 5.7% for fifth grade. 3. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy examination improved dramatically between 2001 and 2003, with nearly half performing at a Below Basic level in 2001, compared to only one-fifth in 2003. 4. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school, school composition variables, and the achievement of African American students?  No significant relationship was observed between the type of literacy program implemented and the achievement of African American students.  The percentage of African American students enrolled in a school did not predict overall achievement or the achievement of African American students.  School poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch, had a negative effect on the achievement gains of students. Page 44 of 47I Secondary Achievement 5, After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?   The absolute level of achievement of African American students was substantially lower than that of other students of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status.  Generally, the gains in academic achievement of African American students were similar to those of other students in grades 6 to 11. a 6. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? !l  When data on prior achievement were available, the proportion of variance in 2003 achievement attributable to African American status was quite low at the secondary level, ranging from 0% to 5%. a 7. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  a  The performance of African American 8* graders on the Literacy Benchmark exam improved substantially and consistently between 2001 and 2003, with the percentage scoring Below Basic dropping from 48.5% to 34,5%, and the percentage scoring Proficient increasing from 14.9% to 23.9%. 8. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments? a  From the 5 to the 8* grade cohort, the achievement gains of African American students became more similar to those of other students, and for some subgroups surpassed those of other students in 8* grade.  The gap in achievement gains was greater on the SAT9 than on the Literacy Benchmark examination. Presumably, the Literacy Benchmark examination is more closely aligned to the mandated curriculum than is the SAT9, which is intentionally designed to be insensitive to curricular differences. Overall Achievement a Substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. African American students tend to gain in literacy achievement at a lower rate than other students, especially at the elementary level. The differences in academic gains tend to be smaller at higher grade levels. The three-year trend in Literacy Benchmark scores shows substantial, sustained improvement in the academic achievement of African American students between 2001 and 2003. African American status of the student, as well as the percentage of African American students enrolled in a school, explain only small amounts of variance in student outcomes compared to prior achievement. The Page 45 of 47Il II II aggregate poverty level of the school, however, is significantly related to achievement gains made by students attending the school. None of the curricular programs examined in this study had a significant impact on the achievement of 5* grade studentshowever, these programs are most likely to have an impact at lower grade levels. II II II II II II II II II II II d d d  L Page 46 of 47Il II Appendix A II Teacher Focus Group Interview Guide 1. General information A. B. C. D. E. F. How long has (program name) been implemented in the district? Did teachers have input in the decision to implement (program name)? What elements of (program name) are the most effective? What elements of (program name) are the least effective or least desirable? How would you describe teacher support for (program name)? How would you describe ongoing support from the district for (program name)? n. II Professional Development A. What professional development related to (program name) has been provided for teachers? B. How would you rate the quality of that professional development? II III. Classroom Level Changes A. B. C. What changes have been made at the classroom level as a result of (program name) {e.g. teaching to standards, technology, interdisciplinary and project-based learning, cooperative and team-based approaches, authentic, alternative assessments)! How does (program name) address special needs children? Within the framework of (program name) are there specific strategies or programs for addressing the academic needs of disadvantaged students? Il IV. I II Results A. How has (program name) impacted students? B. Are there differences in student achievement because of (program name)? C. What differences do you see in student motivation, attendance, or conduct because of (program name)? D. How has (program name) impacted teachers? V. Il II Parent/Community support A. How has parental support for the school changed as a result of (program name)? B. How has community support for the school changed as a result of (program name)? Closure - is there anything else you would like to say about (program name)? il I I Page 47 of 47\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\u003eCenter for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1748","title":"Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1748"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["51 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, notice of filing, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to report issued by the Office of Desegregation Management on the implementation of Plan 2000; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief and reply to response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file their brief and appendix; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the court's order dated October 16, 2003; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD hereby gives notice of its filing of its response to Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report dated May 8, 2003. 451168-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 1, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 451168-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT September 29, 2003 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 - Enclosed is Pulaski County Special School District's reply to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report on the Implementation of Plan 2000, May 8, 2003. Department heads and others with responsibilities to the Plan have submitted responses to the status report in consultation with the Office of Equity and Pupil Services. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, w~ Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services B /l-1.-....t-  16~)-.a.-o-- Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education C Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent of Education Sam Jones RESPONSE TO REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Don Henderson Superintendent of Education September 2003 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED OC1 7 1003 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAllOK MOtll10ft1KG Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us October 6, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys ' Fees which has been filed today. MAH Enclosure cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, --yri~-~ MARK A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED OCT 7 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), by and through its counsel, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier, and for its response to PCSSD's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (\"Fee Petition\"), states as follows: I. Introduction Legal counsel for PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 for work allegedly associated with its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Allied Relief (\"Motion to Enforce\") filed with this Court on July 25, 2003. On August 18, 2003, this Court conducted a three-hour hearing on issues raised in the Motion to Enforce, and later that same day it issued an order ruling that the State Board of Education's (\"SBE\") action authorizing an election on the issue of detachment of the Jacksonville Area School System from PCS SD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For the reasons stated below, ADE submits the fee petition of PCSSD is unreasonable and should be reduced accordingly. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT - 9 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ -=:,-=,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHQA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED () e,t, 1 '1 ?nn~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Renewed and Supplemental Motion - Regarding Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3809), which was amended on September 26, 2003. 1 Also Pending is PCSSD's Motion for Temporary Portable Buildings at Robinson High School (Doc. No. 3810). No parties have responded to the PCSSD's motions, and their time for doing so has now expired.2 Sylvan Hills' Band Room In its motion regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room, PCSSD requests authorization to lease a portable building to use as the Sylvan Hills band room for the remainder of the 2003-2004 1On September 26, 2003, PCSSD filed an Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3811). In this motion, PCCSD revoked its request for permission to build a new permanent band room at Sylvan Hills, which was in the original motion (Doc. No. 3809); accordingly, I will not address the issue of a permanent band room at this time. 2See Local Rule 7.2. oEP CLERK 8 1 5 school year. PCS SD asserts that this portable building is necessary because of recurring water problems with Sylvan Hills' current band room. Robinson High School Portable Buildings According to PCCSD, for a variety ofreasons, the emollment at Robinson High School has significantly increased for the 2003-2004 school year. Because ofthis increase, Robinson -High School is presently conducting classes in the cafeteria, band room, auditorium, and gymnasium. As a temporary remedy to accommodate this increased emollment, while permanent classroom additions are considered, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable building for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year. CONCLUSION The PCSSD's Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 38011) requesting permission to lease a portable building for the Sylvan Hills band room, for the remainder of the 2003-2004, school year is GRANTED. The PCSSD's motion (Doc. No. 3810) requesting permission to lease two portable buildings, for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year, to accommodate increased emollment at Robinson High School is GRANTED. IT JS SO ORDERED thi/day of October, 2003. I ;;/J, 0 ~ 4tt UNIJL~J~~ THIS DOCUMENT El\\ffER!::u ui'-J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~1LE...;)8 AN~cr . ON{O ~ 0~ BY S\u0026gt; \u0026amp;- WM. R. WTLSON, JR. 2 __ EDWti:~t,i,ll'.,f1G.HL ______ -4.,.,-R-I6H-T-;-J:;-JN-1:\u0026gt;-S-EY--\u0026amp;-J-E-N-N-I-N6S- J:;-J:;-P------ ~~~BfR2U~~~ TUCKER ROBERTS. LINDSEY TROY A. PRICE (1913 - 1991 ) ATTORNEYS AT LAW PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE J . MARK DAVIS ~g~~~~ -SG~~~~~! JR . SUITE 2300 ~~t:~\\,5,H~:NsN~~~COCK C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JERRY J. SALLINGS PATRICK l. GOSS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . (501) 371-0808 MICHAEL D. BARNES JOHN R. TISDALE STEPHEN R. LANCASTER ~~~~'..Ytfe~~~~:~ 111 FAX (501) 376-9442 ~uy~1 ~~~~CsooNN WILBER ~i~NJ.W~tilt:1o~IVEY 111 www . wlj .com iRis~~ ~~i::-::o~N N.M . NORTON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY CHARLES C. PRICE M. SEAN HATCH CHARLES T. COLEMAN l. ANDREW VINES JAMES l. GLOVER OF COUNSEL JUSTIN T, ALLEN ~~~~~i/t:~HER, JR. ALSTON JENNINGS ~~g~;':.L;D~E!A1i_~~ERLING GREGORY T. JONES RONALD A. MA y PATRICK D. WILSON H. KEITH MORRISON BRUCE R. LINDSEY REGINA A. SPAULDING BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN JAMES R. VAN DOVER MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE WALTER McSPADDEN BLAKES. RUTHERFORD JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wri1cr ' s Dircc1 Di al No . 501 -212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com October 10, 2003  LioetlJlod,opncticebehretbt: UaitedSUta h1t:111ADIIT111doswtO/lia RECEIVED OCT 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD's brief and reply to response to PCSSD's motion for an Award of attorneys' fees. The reply is accompanied by my supplemental affidavit. We ask the Court to consider both items. Thank you very much. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 453145-vl Cordially yours, 2:~EY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP e_:;mre/ones, m Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Timothy Gauger (U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (U.S. Mail) RECEIVED ---- .1-------------------------lJOlv-C.\\l--.1i._::,4;__,7u,Dn..,u..3,.'---- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 0FFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF AND REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its reply, which tracks the format of the State's Response, states: IV. Argument A. An Hourly Rate at $215 Per Hour is Appropriate. While counsel for the PCSSD voluntarily grants the PCSSD a 30 % discount, the State is not entitled to the same discount for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State's only current financial consequence for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement is its exposure for attorney's fees. Indeed, if the State could be assured that future violations would warrant no more exposure than the discounted rate given to the PCS SD, then the State would have even less incentive to hew the line and abide by the Settlement Agreement. B. The Number of Hours Expended is Reasonable. Significantly, the State does not directly challenge the total number of hours expended. Rather, it seeks to avoid attorney fee responsibility in some instances by questioning, without citation to authority, the forums before whom the legal efforts were initially made. As we will explain, the relevant cases demonstrate the fallacy of the State's position. 452284-v1 The United States Supreme Court has squarely addressed these issues in Pennsylvania, et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, et al., 478 U.S. 546 (1986). In 1977 a citizens group, Delaware Valley, filed suit to compel Pennsylvania to implement a vehicle emission inspection program. A consent decree was entered in 1978 calling for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to seek legislation instituting the program. Id. @ 549. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania legislature balked at implementing the provisions of the consent decree. In this protracted case, the Supreme Court divided the procedural history after the consent decree thereafter into nine phases. For purposes of this analysis, only the relevant phases will be referred to. Phase IX of the case included work done by Delaware Valley in hearings before the Environmental Protection Agency in which the State unsuccessfully sought the EPA approval of a reduced emissions program. Delaware Valley then filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs for all work performed after issuance of the consent decree including the work before the administrative agency. Id. @ 553. Among other matters, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had affirmed the District Court's fee award including an award of fees for time spent \"commenting\" on the State's proposed emission regulations promulgated during Phase II. It likewise approved the award of fees for work done at the administrative level citing the Supreme Court case of Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County, 4 71 U.S. 234 ( 1985), in which the Supreme Court held that time spent on \"optional administrative proceedings\" may be compensable under  1988 if the work was \"both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the ... litigation\" to the point where the parties succeeded. Id. @ 556. 452284-v1 2 -- - - --- ------------- The Supreme Court rejected challenges from the State that the proceedings involved in Phases II and IX were not judicial in the sense that they did not occur in a courtroom or involved traditional legal work. The Supreme Court reasoned that the work done by counsel in these two phases was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley's initial success in obtaining the consent decree. Id. @ 558. It said: Protection of the full scope of relief afforded by the consent decree was thus crucial to safeguard the interests asserted by Delaware Valley; and enforcement of the decree, whether in the courtroom before a judge, or in front of a regulatory agency with power to modify the substance of the program ordered by the court, involved the type of work which is properly compensable as a cost of litigation ... . Id. @ 558. Finally, the Court observed that: Several courts have held that, in the context of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.  1988, postjudgment monitoring of a consent decree is a compensable activity for which counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee. Id. @ 559. After engaging in a discussion concerning the similarities between 304 (d) (the Clean Air Act) and 1988 (the Civil Rights Act), the Court noted that: 452284-v1 Given the common purpose of both  304 (d) and  1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney's fees in the same manner. We hold, therefore, that the fact that the work done by counsel in Phases II and IX did not occur in the context of traditional judicial litigation does not preclude an award of reasonable attorney's fees under  304 (d) for the work done during these portions of the present action. Id.@ 560. 3 Many other cases support the position of the PCSSD in these regards. For instance, in Schlimgen v. City of Rapid City, 83 F .Supp.2d 1061 (D.S.D 2000), the plaintiff was fired as a city employee after he opposed a new real estate development. He appealed his termination to the Department of Labor claiming his termination was a violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Id. @ 1065. The Department of Labor agreed. Plaintiff then filed an action in Federal Court seeking damages and attorneys' fees. Rapid City claimed that as a matter of law Schlimgen was not entitled to attorneys' fees related to the earlier Department of Labor hearing. In interpreting 42 U .S.C.  1988, the District Court disagreed. As the District Court explained: The claim must be for specific portions of work product from an earlier administrative proceeding. The work done must be useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it has reached. 42 U.S.C.  1988 awards are not limited to work performed after the complaint is filed . ... fees may be awarded for \"research or investigation done in connection with\" a related proceeding, to the extent it \"proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights\" action. The District Court also noted that Mr. Schlimgen's DOL action was not one to enforce a specific civil rights statute. Id. @ 1071. Here, however, the efforts of the PCSSD in opposing the detachment were all directed toward preventing the State from violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement, an effort which this Court has previously ruled triggers  1988 including liability for attorneys' fees. (Please see orders cited at pages 2 and 3 of counsel's initial affidavit.) Lambert v. Fulton County, GA, 151 F.Supp.2d 1364 (N.D.Ga. 2000), is to the same effect. Lambert was an employment discrimination case in which the procedural history included an appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board before the federal court action was 452284-v1 4 I I initiated. Id. @ 1368. The defendant claimed that the time spent on the appeal to the Fulton - County Board was non-compensable. Id. The District Court disagreed. The District Court began its analysis by noting that: The starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys' fees is \"the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate\" for the attorneys' services. After calculating the lodestar, the court may within its discretion adjust the amount upwards or downwards based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the legal representation provided. Id. @ 1369. In further addressing the lodestar issue, Judge Thrash explained that: As to the work performed, compensable activities include pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit, background research and reading in complex cases, productive attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine activities such as making telephone calls and reading mail related to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and even preparing and litigating the request for attorneys' fees. Id.@ 1369-70. As to the time spent on the administrative proceeding, the Court noted that: A court should award attorneys' fees for time \"spent on administrative proceedings to enforce the civil rights claim prior to the litigation.\" The District Court also noted that: In this case, Plaintiffs' appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board was not required for them to file this suit ... . Because the proceedings before the Fulton County Personnel Board were not mandatory, time spent on them is not automatically compensable. The Court, however, concludes that time spent on these proceedings should be compensated because they were \"useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.\" Here, of course, the PCSSD would have likely committed procedural suicide by not opposing the detachment proceedings initiated by the State Board of Education. Despite that fact, and at a minimum, the State Board proceeding served as a vehicle to conduct discovery through the FOIA, to delineate and brief the myriad legal issues and importantly served as a 452284-v1 5 vehicle whereby the State was presented with an opportunity to avoid its current liability by - comporting its actions with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. 1. The State Court Case. At least three observations are appropriate here. First, \"but for\" the State's passage and activation of the detachment statute, the State Court case would have never been filed. Second, most of the work involved in the State Court case involved identifying, researching and setting forth the legal issues which were generated by the passage of the statute and its activation by the State. Third, most if not all of the issues could have been brought as part of the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as matters of pendent jurisdiction. 2. The State Board of Education Proceedings. Had the PCSSD not opposed the detachment process before the State Board of Education, the argument would have undoubtedly been made that it waived its right to seek relief in this Court by not exhausting its administrative remedies. The PCSSD, as a signatory to the 1989 Settlement Agreement, had no choice but to argue to the State Board of Education, among other matters, that the Board's actions were violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement in at least two particulars. Further, the motion and brief ultimately filed before this Court was in substantial measure an adaptation of the written submissions the PCSSD made to the State Board. Thus, most of the submissions made to this Court by the PCSSD were largely researched and documented as part of the process of opposing the detachment before he State Board of Education. Again, but for passage of a statute which violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement, there would have been no appearances before the State Board because the State Board would not have had this process to engage. 452284-v1 6 3-4. The Passage of the Legislation. The Settlement Agreement itself requires the PCSSD to identify, every biennium, those recent legislative acts or regulations which impede desegregation. Here, the PCSSD identified the legislation while it was still pending and, had the legislature heeded the opposition of the PCSSD to the legislation, and refused to pass the detachment statute, the State would have no _pending fee petition to defend against. 5. Appeal Time. The State's observations concerning premature appeal time are probably correct. C. Other Practices. 1. All of the time entries presented in the petition are for work directly associated with the detachment issue. Except for those entries which have been lined through, counsel for the PCSSD had no other issues pending for the PCSSD during the relevant time period. 2. That which the State regards as \"file maintenance\" is actually part of the on-going effort to maintain a \"computer searchable data base\" for the documents, orders, pleadings, etc. generated in this case. This permits a voidance of time-consuming manual searches and assists counsel in locating decades old documents, orders and pleadings through key word searches. 3. The PCSSD believes that the clippings review helped supply a more cogent and refreshed context for many of the events which surrounded the drafting and legislative journey of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Given Arkansas' singular lack of formal legislative history, the PCSSD believes that the results of these efforts fall within the broad framework of Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 452284-v1 7 4. The docket review was to locate orders, pleadings and Court of Appeals - decisions which bore upon the issue of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and other potential issues. 5. The fee petition contains no \"block billing\" whatsoever. Most if not all of the alleged \"block billings\" are clearly described and invariably relate to a discreet issue or activity. Conclusion. Significantly, the State does not contend that any time was wasted or that excessive time was recorded. The absence of such an argument helps to bring the issue full circle to the core question' of: Was the time reasonably expended toward the end of securing relief from a State created process which both violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court? Having reviewed the State's response, the answer to this question appears to be clearly \"yes\" . But for the State's consideration of, passage of and activation of this detachment statute, there would be no fee petition for this Court to consider. 452284-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ______ +--------1,-------- M. Atto cial Sch 8 I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 452284-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 UJonesIII 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. All of the matters contained herein are responsive to positions and statements made by the State as respects the fee petition of the PCSSD. 2. All of the time entries for which the PCSSD seeks reimbursement were directly related to and in furtherance of prevailing on the issue of the Jacksonville detachment effort. 3. The activities which the State characterizes as \"file maintenance\" are actually on-going efforts to maintain a computer searchable database for all of the documents, orders, pleadings and other paper generated in this case to promote efficiency and avoid wasted time in retrieving such documents, particularly documents which are several years old. 4. The clippings review was both necessary as a historical and legal exercise but was particularly time-consuming because it involved, among other matters, an era during which the State still had two statewide newspapers, generated news stories on the \"school 453181-v1 case\" on an almost daily basis, and involved hundreds of newspapers stories for the period of time in 1989 reviewed. 5. The \"document review\" was appropriate to locate those pleadings, orders, etc. which might have significance for the interpretation and implementation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 6. The fee petition does not contain any block billing. The time entries are clearly described and all relate to the legal effort to defeat the detachment issue. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 10th day of October, 2003. My Commission Expires: dean\"ie Lacour, Notary Public Pulaski County, Arkansas My Commission Exp. 12,20.2008 453181-v1 Public 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 453181-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 NEIL CHAMBERLIN October 14, 2003 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. lO ili Street St . Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED OCT l fl 2003 OfflCEOF O~tGRi'GATIOtl M0Nff08Ul6 RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans: Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief and Appendix in the above - referenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann -Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appeal \\ clerk. oct.14 . 03 st Regards, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No . 0 3 - 3 0 8 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. _MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS/MOVANTS (APPELLANTS) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR BRIEF AND APPENDIX Comes the Appellants, the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for thei r Motion for Ex tension of Time in Which to File Their Brief and Appendix, state: 1 . On or about August 20, 2003, Appellants filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited Review Requesting Suspension of the Rules pursuant Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Motion for Emergency Stay of Judgment o f the District Court. This request came immediately following the decision of the District Court which was adverse to the Appellants. Appellants had received approval from the Arkansas State Board of Education to proceed with an election concerning detachment from Pulaski County Special District. The election was to take place on September 16, 2003. The request for expedited review and the stay was denied by this court. 2. Leading up to the filing of the appeal and the Motion for Expedited Review, Appellants' counsel had spent significant time preparing for and appearing in front of the Arkansas State Board of Education, the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the Federal District Court. Appellants' counsel has been and continues to work on the case on a pro bona basis. Appellants' counsel is in a partnership with one other attorney and two staff members. The issue of detachment, and the litigation leading up to the current appeal, has taken a significant amount of office time and attorney time to pursue. Following the denial of the stay, Appellants' counsel essentially had to get back to work on matters which pay the bills. 3. The need for expedited review of the case has become moot. The election date has passed and the next possible election upon which the issue of detachment could appear on the ballot would be a school election occurring in September of 2004 or the general election occurring in November of 2004. 4. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' brief and appendix is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel himself has been \"strapped\" in court appearances and dealing with trial dates and briefing schedules in numerous cases from August 20, 2003 until October 13, 2003. 2 (b) Appellants' counsel's administrative assistant was out numerous days in late September undergoing medical treatment and was on vacation October 6 through October 10. (c) Appellants' counsel has also spent significant time since August 20, 2003 dealing with Legislative issues related to education because of his service as a State _Representative in Arkansas. The Arkansas Legislature is dealing with the impending State Supreme Court deadline dealing with the inequities and inadequacies of the Arkansas Public School System. 5. Appellants request an extension of time until November 6, 2003 in which to file their brief and appendix. A short extension will allow Appellants to properly prepare the appeal. Appellants' counsel does not believe any further extensions will be necessitated short of his death. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7 76 Telephone (501) 9 -9081 Telefax (501) 9 By: Wil CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with suff/Ft prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this day of October, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Via Fax@ 376-9442 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 3 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 Via Fax @ 374 - 4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax @ 375 - 1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 340-8285 4 Via Fax @ 375-1027 Via Fax@ 371-0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340-8282 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Telephone 682-2586 By: Via Fax \u0026amp; 682-2591 l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appealmotion tor extension.oct.14 . 03 5 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS lNTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 6 2003 UTILE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By: , DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPE:CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET Al.. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATIIERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS On July 29, 2003, I .received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal yea.r.1 I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2003. THIS DOCUfvic.1'-11 c:NTEH~C, ON JOC!\u0026lt;ET SHEET ,N COMPLIANCE NITH feLE 58 i~N~~mC[ oN_j_O t~/(} 3 BY~ t, t vJ~k~ UNITED STATESD!STIUCDGE W~l. R. WILSON, JR. 1Althou~ the proposed budget was oriJ?inally presented in April, pursuant to an order of this court, action was postponed in consideration of any decisions made by the 8th Circuit while - the case was on appeal. Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2002-'13 Budget 2002-03 \u0026amp;pendltures 2003-04 Budget 200.00 184.66 2,459.00 ,~ .. . .. , ., /J,J, last year, the budget includes gUErSt parking and reimbursement to support staff ror the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount bud,eled at $175. The remainder is for travel and lodging associated with the two training events explained above in Due and Fees, one for $1 ,132 and the other for $1,152. amounts that are the average of the previous costs for each of lhelie two events. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgmeints. 2002~1 Budget 2002-03 Ellpendltures 2003-04 Budget 544.00 544.00 712.00 '---------- ... , Our Insurance has increased to the ;amount shown. We were unable to find an underwritel\" at a lower rate. Page 7 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2002-03 Budget 2002.03 Expenditur'ff 2003--04 Budget 91,166.00 92,935.16* 80,018.00 ..... ,..,.,,_ .. \"Expenditures exceeded budget Ill; an unforeseen result of provisions In Act 11 of 1999, which govems certain aspecla of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Orop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of Iha 2002-03 fiscal year. Below is a breakdown by categoiy of each employee's 2003-04 budgeted fringe benefits. Increases in this category are due in part to recently-enacted legislation that changed retirement contributions. Some decrease resulted from Ms Mar:,hall's entrv into T-Droo. - Name car so,:tat Retire Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Slloct Total Allowance 8ec:1Jrtty meni !Qtlon\" lne. lndemnit.)' Term Benefits Marshall 1.800.00 7,119.82 1,208.22 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 13,024.79 Jones 960.00 4.573.78 -0- -0- -0- -0- --0- --0- 5,533.78 Powell 1,200.00 5,451.79 9,281 .48 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.0Z --\"\"'\"\"\"'' ......  .. --- .... _ --.. - --.-- .... ....... , ..... ., ...- -.-~,., ,._. ... .~ . .. -.................... _.. ................ ~_. ... .... ... _._, ______ Smith 1,200.00 5,481 .79 9,281 .48 2.478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.02 Ramer 0.00 4,030.71 6,849.57 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.86 62.88 13,7n.03 , Bryant 0.00 2,235.25 3,798.47 2,478.43 27.60 250.32 60.98 62.88 8,913.91 Act 11 of 1999 403.08 684.97 1,088.05 T~I 5,180.00 2!1,286.22 . 31 ,104.19 12,392.15 204.24 '  1,251 .6Q 3Q4.80  314.40. so.011.00 . \"Rates for hospitalization have increased this year, but the exact proportion that will be charged for each employee will not be known until LRSO negotiations have been finalized. F,,r budget preparation, we have estimated the Increase at 10%. Staff Development: Serv:ices petfonned by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. ---~ -- -03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 0.00 0.00 ., ... -  .. -... , ... _..,.,. ..... - - . .... --.... ~--~-- - 2003-04 Budget 0.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of atn expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2002-03 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 - ---------  -- ---Hh - Page6 Repairs and Maintenan1te; Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original :rtate or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2002.()'3 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 400.00 408.85 400.00 ----- - -- -~- Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 2002--03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ----- -- Salaries: Salaries are the :amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2002~3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 110,770.00 422,618.40\" 405,419.00 .. *ExpendilUres exceeded buoget as an unforeseen result of proV1s1ons in Act 11 of 1999, Which governs certain aspects of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of the 2002-03 f1SCal year. Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2003-04 salary, reflecting a 2% base increase for Ms. Marshall and, for the remaining employees, a 3.29% base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. - -.. -  N\u0026amp;Jine of Employee 2002-03 Salary 2003..CJ4 salary AnriMarshall 116,688.00 119,022.00 Melina Guldin 1 21 ,842.00 0.00 Gene Joneti 2 57,021.00 58,828.00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 70,196.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 70,196.00 .. --- ----- --..   --'- --- Polly Ramer 51 ,011 .00 52,689.00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 29,219.00 ..,.,. __. _, ., ... _...,.._..,J,. ,., J_,._,._. ___ _.. . ,. . .. ..........,. .-..~ ....- ---.--\"\"' Act 11 of 1999 s 5,269.00 . Totial 410,770.00 405,419.00 'Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, 1?1ected to receive payment ror annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 3Polly Ramer will complete her 28111 )'8ar under Iha Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 30. 2004 and will enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan fr-Drop) on that date. Act 11 of 1999 entitles Ms. Ramer to receive the amount noted. which is compensation for unused leave, as she enters TDrop. Pages - Management Services: S,ervices performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. I-~  3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditur9s 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. ~ - - 3Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 80.00 79.94 121.00 -- The budget covers the cost of !he 1\\rkan\u0026amp;as Democrat-Gazette, a daily source of current information on events that directly affect the school districts we monitor. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and bindmg, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 4,902.74 6,000.00 Professional and Technkal Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 ..-~-- - Rent: Expenditures for lea.sing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use . .... ~ ....... 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-G4 Budget 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,880.00 Page4 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expmse categories are from the Arkansas School F'inancial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postag,:. ~ 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00 -~ ~ We were able to reduoe this budgeli category by arranging to operate on fewer phone lines. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such as conference registration fees. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 ExpenditurN 2003-414 Budget ..... 439.00 439.00 735.00 The allotment for 200304 includes regis1ration fees for two professional events that are integral to maintaining staff skills that directly serve the mission of ODM. One is the International Association of Facilitatons, a one\u0026amp;-a-year intense training event in which Ms, Marshall hes participated fur a number of years to hone her facmtatlon ekilla by learning and pracliclng new techniques and methodologies fur facilitation, negotiation, promoUng dialogue, team building, problem solving, and conflict resolution among the parties, school perBOnnel, and patmna. The second is the National Counselors' Conference for ODM associate Ms. Powell, who is a nationally board certifl8d counselor. The conference provides professional development pertaining not only to counseling, but to special education, gifted and talentEd education, alternative learning, discipline, and achievement, all areas that she is charged with monitoring. Equipment: Expenditure:; for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. , ......... dget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-414 Budget 0.00 0.00 500.00 One of our printers, an old machine, has quit working. The repair service has told us the machine is not salvageable due to Its age. The amount budgeted in lhis categ~ry is to replace the printer, which is indispensable office equipment. Food Services: Ex:pendi1tures for food or preparation and serving of food. which may include catering. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---~--- Page3 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR2003-04 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order ,'.)f June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a. per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order ofDet:-ember 12, 1990: ... [11he office previ,:msly known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/02 %of Total 200~ 2002-03 2003-1)4 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Crull Estimated Allocation (Budget Budget not spent) PaymJlt LRSD 25,430 48.43 177,217 724 176,493 --~ .... NLRSO 8,796 16.75 61,292 250 61,042 PCSSD 18,283 34.82 127,415 520 126,895 - - '\" \"- State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 NIA 200,000 _,_,,,,_ .. Total .52,509 100.00 565,924 1,494  564,430 This chart shows that the 2003-04 Budget Allocation, the 2002-03 Credit and the 2003-04 BudgetPayment are apportioned among the three school dilitricts according lo last year's OCtober 1 enrollment numbers. After the finel 2003-04 enrollment has been tallied, we wiU adjust the figures according~, and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2003-04 budget Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to detennine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share ofODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contriibutes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the cU1Tent fiscal year. . ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONIT., O. RING. BUD-GET FOR 2003-04 Rf:VENUE 2002-03 2002-03 2003-o4 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansa1; 200,000;00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - LRSO Budget alloca~,t\u0026gt;n 184,295.00 184,295.00 177,217.00 Minus credit fn:,m previous year ________4_., 4 ___,_7__0__9___.0___0__ _ ........4..4...,.7..0...9....0...0.. . 724.00 ..... .......................... Equals LRSD's share of the budget 139,588.00 139,586.00 176,493.00 NLRSD Budget allocati,:,n 63,740.00 63,740.00 61,292.00 Minus credit frc,m previous year 15,463.00 15,463.00 250.00 ----------------------- uunuon onuu ............. ________________ Equal!! NLRSD's share of the budget 48,277.00 48,277.00 81,042.00 PCSSO Budget allocati,;,n 132,503.00 132,503.00 127,415.00 Minus credit frtrn previous year 32,144.00 32,144.00 520.00 OOOHOO OOOH o  o      n o ............................ Equals PCSSO's share of the budget 100,359.00 100,359.00 126,895.00 - Interest 0.00 5,441 .10 0.00 Total Revenue 580,638.00 585,979:10 565,924.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the chart above is the unspent amount of our previous year's OUdget, including bank interest eaml!d. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted ;illocatlon. Both that allocaUon and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous yea(s October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enro!lment number.; for the current year become available. -  ' EXPENDITURES 2002-03 2002--03 2003-04 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00   .- __,-, , .Y  \"-_, Dues and Fees 439.00 439.00 735.00 ,_.., _____ -- Equipment 0.00 0.00 500.00 Food Seivices 0.00 0.00 0.00 Management Seri,icea 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 -Pe-riodicals 80.00 79.94 121.00 Printing \u0026amp; Blndln{1 6,000.00 4,902.74 8,000.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 -- ------- -.. Rent 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,860.00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 408.85 400.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salaries 410,no.oo 422,618.40 405,419.00 Benefits 91,168.00 92,935.16 80,018.00 -- ------ Staff Developmerlt 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplies 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 Tfl!vel 200.00 184.-66 2,459.00 Insurance - 544.00 544.00 712.00 Total El(pendltu~s 580,538.00 584,485;42 565,924.00 Difference (Income minus Expenditures) 0.00 1,493.68 0.00 TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are l pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wils U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, E'I'. AL. RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 16, 2003 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This responds to the Court's Order dated October 16, 2003, regarding the ODM proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. I am authorized to state that so long as the allocations proposed are not changed, the PCSSD has no objection to the proposed budget. 455118-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October}, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 455118-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower . 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair UttleRock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville A aneRebick - Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 October 31, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:l larkedu.slale.ar.us RECEIVED f\\!OV 3 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 11~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,#92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Scott Smith, certify that on October \u0026amp;\u0026gt;-rl.\\ , 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2003 Bas~d on'th.~ 'iqfor,friatio~'availab!e. at .Septen.,~( 301'2003, the ADE, calcuiated the Equaiizat,oi;iJl:ilridin9tor i=Y63i64;:sob;ecf fo:penoic adjustmerlfa. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_196","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","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":["2003-10-01"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"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/196"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECE!V.ED STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM NOVl 8 2003 OCTOBER 1, 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING joo1 - CENTRAL TOTALFOR:CENTRAL 1002-HALL TOTAL FOR: HALL joo3 - MANN M/S TOTALF OR:M ANNM IS i JOOS-PARKVIEW I TOTALFOR:PAR~'VIEW LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL J 09 7 6 188 214 7 2 2 0 111 141 678 10 7 13 162 153 2 0 0 118 120 S76 11 4 111 130 3 3 2 120 12S 507 12 6 3 96 78 2 2 0 83 79 350 557 575 ,,~\n}- 13 9 4 2 432 465 '8'1 2,111 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF BM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 09 10 11 12 3 158 159 4 4 116 140 2 104 109 3 4 103 79 9 '313 1) 12 12 18 16 9 16 47 13 57 0 22 27 395 0 0 27 41 366 0 24 28 294 0 0 46 16 272 119 112 1,327 ,,3l GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 06 07 08 GRADE 09 10 11 12 3 5 91 54 5 4 6 84 63 3 3 6 3 88 S7 2 15 -4113 8 AF AM BF BM HF HM 0 0 0 0 AF AM BF BM HF HM 4 4 87 63 6 4 3 4 81 68 6 3 3 6 84 5.9 6 4 0 0 0 2 NF NM 0 0 0 0 NF NM 3 0 0 0 78 54 59 60 79 S2 216 166 ~-\ny WF WM 0 0 0 0 WF WM 62 61 73 51 74 50 294 285 289 868 .,:so 7. TOTA~1 TOTAL\\ .. .J 29S 290 286 ---------------- 6 4 72 64 0 71 36 260 16 18 1~ 324 254 23 12 4 g'1~ 2 280 198 .,ni 1,131 ,: 17 -- --------------- ------- --- - ----  ----------------- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page I of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 006-BOOKER GRADE AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 24 32 0 0 0 26 20 103 02 0 24 30 0 3 0 0 22 19 99 03 21 24 2 0 20 16 87 04 2 34 30 2 0 0 23 23 116 05 0 0 37 26 7 0 0 0 32 16 118 K 0 24 25 4 0 14 13 83 TOTAL FOR: BOOKER 5 2 164 167 15 7 2 0 137 107 606 5,s?, gl ~1\u0026gt;\\ c).~ \\007 - DUNBAR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 06 5 4 84 70 4 8 0 0 28 55 258 07 6 7 76 71 7 8 0 40 47 263 08 7 4 64 74 5 3 0 0 34 45 236 TOTAL FOR: DUNBAR MIS 18 15 224 215 16 19 0 102 147 757 ii ( 9 ,..,'3~\n)., I~ 008 -FAIR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 0 138 166 3 2 2 25 30 367 10 0 110 Ill 5 4 0 2 19 19 271 II 0 0 73 98 2 4 0 19 16 213 12 0 0 66 70 2 0 12 20 172 TOTAL FOR: FAIR l 0 387 445 11 12 1 6 75 85 1,023 I  ~\\ ~~ r, f-FO~~T HTS_ MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 06 0 0 100 103 3 0 0 27 30 264 07 91 90 3 2 0 0 34 26 248 08 0 109 89 3 0 0 41 25 269 TOTAL FOR: FORST HTS MIS 2 l, 300 282 9 4 0 0 102 81 781 1~7 ,4'V l\u0026lt;J p LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 2 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER l, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1010 - PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! I 06 2 0 58 66 0 0 0 52 43 222 07 0 76 81 0 0 0 37 50 246 08 2 2 73 79 0 0 0 49 51 257 TOTAL FOR: PUL HTS MIS 4 ,o 3 207 226 2 0 0 138 144 725 40( -433 .?id\" 011 - SOUTHWST MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 75 76 2 0 0 2 159 07 0 0 94 93 0 0 0 3 192 08 0 0 83 77 3 0 0- 3 168 TOTAL FOR: SOUTHWST MIS 1 ,o 1 252 246 3 5 \u0026gt;\\ii 0 0 6 ,, 5 519 qG,7o 012 - MCCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 2 166 138 4 0 0 .9 6 326 10 0 0 117 109 4 3 0 0 5 10 248 11 0 0 100 116 3 4 0 0 4 6 233 12 0 0 118 72 . 1 0 0 0 3 5 199 TOTALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 d' 2 501 435 9 11 0 0 21\u0026gt;.fl27 1,006 ,q?,7 . f) q~l.P 013 - HENDERSN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 3 81 77 2 10 0 0 7 5 186 07 3 84 95 8 I 5 0 12 12 231 08 0 3 86 105 10 0 2 14 21 246 ---- ----------- --- io7o TOTAL FOR: HENDERSN MIS \\-4 7 251 f{,77 15 35 l 2 33 11 38 663 ~ r iOI5 - CLOVRM /S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL: I 06 0 104 111 13 21 0 0 4 5 259 07 0 118 102 13 14 0 0 . 8 6 262 08 0 102 126 15 13 0 0 5 8 270 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR MIS 0 3 324 339 41 48 0 0 17 19 791 i\n/7 qr i{3 ft~ -- --- - -- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 3 ofl6 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 016 - MABEL MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 70 74 4 3 0 0 20 25 196 07 0 89 83 3 4 0 0 26 36 242 08 0 91 79 3 3 0 14 24 216 TOT AL FOR: MABEL MIS 1\n3 1 250 236 10 10 0 60 r,:85 654 -,/7u\n..~~ I :::\u0026gt; 017-BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 21 18 4 0 0 2 51 02 0 20 26 4 0 0 0 53 03 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 35 04 0 0 18 22 0 0 0 2 44 05 0 0 18 22 0 0 2 45 K 0 0 19 32 3 0 0 4 3 62 p 0 ... 0 20 12 0 0 1 I 0 35 TOTAL FOR: BALE 0 'A-\u0026amp;1 132 150 14 8 2 8 ('/ 9 325 ~71 t?,if' I 1018-BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! OJ 0 0 11 18 0 0 3 2 36 02 0 0 20 29 0 0 5 2 58 03 0 0 30 27 0 0 0 3 3 64 04 0 20 22 0 0 0 6 2 52 05 0 0 20 21 2 2 0 ' 0 3 3 51 K 0 27 23 2 0 0 0 4 2 59 p 0 0 9 6 2 0 0 0 0 ~ 18 TOTAL FOR: BRADY 1 137 146 8 s 0 24 15 338 ,g\u0026gt;j7o\nj3 J~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 4 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1020 - MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! I 01 2 18 17 2 6 0 0 IO 8 64 02 4 0 16 18 3 4 0 0 IO 10 65 03 23 16 4 0 0 8 9 63 04 0 15 IO 3 3 0 15 7 55 05 0 17 14 2 0 0 5 IO 50 K 2 17 14 5 0 0 9 7- 56 p 2 2 JO 2 0 0 0 0 '7 18 TOTAL FOR: MCDERMOT 12~~ 6 116 11 16 19 0 58 52 371 ~(. 7. ~o ,,o \\021 - CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 3 25 17 2 2 0 17 19 87 02 2 16 32 2 0 13 21 89 03 0 0 28 18 0 2 0 0 10 27 85 04 0 26 21 0 3 0 0 13 24 88 05 19 27 0 3 0 IO 17 79 K 2 1 14 26 0 0 17 11 73 TOTALFOR:CARVER 633 7 128 141 4 12 3 80 119 501 ~-\u0026gt;{7, f:\u0026gt;-1.RI ,q~ 1022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! OJ 0 0 17 25 2 0 0 47 02 0 0 28 14 0 0 3 48 03 0 0 18 18 2 2 0  ' 0 3 2 45 04 0 0 17 18 0 0 0 4 I 41 05 0 0 17 17 0 2 0 0 3 40 K 2 0 9 18 3 0 4 3 41 p 0 0 13 ~~ 20 0 2 0 0 1 I 0 q~\n. 36 TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 2 0 119 '130 7 11 0 17 11 298 cg.\u0026gt;/1 ~\\ ~J. ~r, --------------------------------------------- LRSD INFORMATION SER VICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page5 ofl6 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL \\023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 11 13 2 0 0 0 3 30 02 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 4 3 25 03 0 0 11 12 0 0 0 0 2 2 27 04 0 9 11 0 0 0 0 4 5 30 05 0 0 12 7 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 K . 1 12 11 0 0 0 0 4 7 36 p 0 12 7 0 0 0 7 7 J 35 TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2i 2 77 68 2 2 0 0 24a?}9 206 7e. fo f).j~ Jo24 - FORST PK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 2 8 8 0 0 0 0 22 28 69 02 9 13 2 0 0 20 19 66 03 6 11 0 0 0 9 16 45 04 0 2 11 9 0 0 0 0 8 11 41 05 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 22 14 51 K 7 4 0 0 0 20 23 57 p 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ,~ 7 ~ 18 TOTAL FOR: FORST PK s ,i 7 48 ,oo 52 1 3 1 111 118 ~Gfq 347 ~~ft} jo2s - FRANKLIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL!. 01 0 24 39 0 0 0 , 0 0 2 66 02 0 0 29 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 03 0 27 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 04 0 0 18 26 0 0 0 0 3 48 05 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 0 0 40 K 0 0 31 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 p 0 30 22 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 q(.,.7, 54 TOTALFOR:FRANKLIN 3 0 177 196 0 0 0 0 3 5 384 11  3 1r1-a ~ ------ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 6 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1027 -GIBBS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! I 01 0 2 13 JO 0 0 0 II 9 46 02 16 9 0 0 0 0 6 12 45 03 0 2 19 17 2 0 12 14 68 04 3 19 15 0 0 0 18 JO 67 05 0 13 14 0 0 0 9 10 48 K 0 0 9 IO 2 0 0 0 7 12 40 TOTAL FOR: GIBBS 4 7 89 75 6 2 1 0 63 67 314 ,!S~b , ~o jo2s - CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 01 0 0 23 32 6 9 0 0 3 3 76 02 0 0 34 23 3 7 0 0 4 3 74 03 0 0 23 33 6 7 0 0 4 74 04 0 0 26 28 5 8 0 0 4 4 75 05 0 0 23 28 2 3 0 6 5 68 K 0 0 32 31 8 3 0 0 3 5 82 p 0 0 IO 16 3 3 0 0 2 2 36 167\" TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 0 0 171 191 33 40 0 26 23 485  ~ I ..,\njo29 -WEST IIlL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 28 15 0 0 0 5 0 49 02 0 0 19 16 2 0 0 7 46 03 0 0 16 15 2 0 0 4 5 43 04 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 4 3 46 05 0 0 23 16 0 2 0 0 7 6 54 K 0 0 18 15 0 0 2 3 40 p 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 2 2 18 TOTAL FOR: WEST HIL 0 0 128 104 7 5 0 31 20 296 '7'17. /P- J-3,y ~I LRSD INFORMATIONS ERVICESD EPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 7 of 16 .... , ' ., STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL I 1030 - JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL' 01 0 0 14 16 0 0 0 0 14 19 63 02 13 16 0 0 0 19 16 67 03 0 0 13 15 0 0 0 0 22 17 67 04 0 16 14 0 0 0 0 20 18 69 05 0 0 18 10 0 0 0 0 12 19 59 K 0 9 13 0 0 0 0 19 18 60 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11 18 TOT AL FOR: JEFFRSN 2 ~ 2 84 r 84 1 0 0 0 118 403 'i/o jl, 0 031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 19 28 7 6 0 0 2 3 65 02 0 0 21 28 7 2 0 0 0 59 03 0 0 19 24 3 0 0 3 55 04 0 0 22 20 3 3 0 0 0 49 05 0 0 20 18 3 0 0 0 0 42 K 0 0 25 35 7' 8 0 0 2 78 p 1 I 0 13 8 4 5 0 0 0 .., 3 ' 34 TOTALFOR:CLOVREL l 0 139 161 32 32 0 1 s 11 382 ,9 0 (/ \"I 032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 10 3 2 0 . 0 2 5 35 02 0 0 8 16 0 0 4 4 34 03 0 0 5 10 0 0 4 9 30 04 0 0 12 6 3 0 0 13 4 39 05 0 0 g 6 0 0 0 2 18 K 0 0 5 13 2 2 0 0 3 6 31 p 0 \"' 0 5 2 2 0 0 0 4 5 18 # TOTAL FOR: DODD 0 0 s\\ 9 63 13 7 0 0 32 34 205 ac\u0026gt; (..P LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 8 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1033 - MEADCLIF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 15 18 2 0 0 3 5 44 02 0 16 21 3 0 0 3 4 49 03 0 0 20 23 0 0 2 3 50 04 0 16 19 3 0 0 5 4 49 05 0 0 13 14 3 2 0 0 5 3 40 K 0 0 25 25 3 2 0 0 2 3 60 p 0 0 12 15 5 0 0 2 0 35 1'11\u0026lt;) TOTALFOR:MEADCLIF 1 117 135 14 15 0 0 22 22 327 ~I ::\u0026gt;b'Y 034 - MITCHELL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 27 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 02 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 03 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 04 0 0 24 18 0 0 0 0 44 05 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 39 K 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 p 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 18 TOTALF OR:M ITCHELL 0 0 127 123 0 0 0 3 1 255 fVi) ..-,,c::\n0 035- ML KING GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 22 21 0 2 1 . 0 18 20 87 02 0 20 23 0 0 0 0 21 14 79 03 2 20 28 0 0 18 13 84 04 3 2 26 22 0 0 0 20 14 88 05 25 23 0 0 18  16 86 K 2 2 25 21 0 0 0 0 23 15 88 p 0 3 17 I 19 0 0 0 20 .., 12 72 .. ~~o TOTAL FOR: ML KING 9 12 155 157 0 4 2 3 138 104 584 30\n1')-/ _\n.').,/ LRSD INFORMAT JON SERVICESD EPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 9 of 16 .. -- -- .. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1\n2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1036 - ROCKFELR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ i 01 0 14 20 0 0 0 9 II 56 02 0 0 15 19 0 0 0 7 9 51 03 0 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 10 4 43 04 0 0 16 10 2 0 0 7 8 44 05 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 9 6 44 K 0 2 13 17 0 0 13 9 56 p 0 , 3 24 I 23 0 2 0 20 u 26 V 99 TOTALFOR:ROCKFELR 0 11 6 3 5 2 1 75 i 73 393 1:)81 1..J 037 - GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 27 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 02 0 0 15 16 0 3 0 0 3 4 41 03 0 0 28 18 0 0 0 0 48 04 0 0 26 25 0 0 0 0 53 05 0 0 23 _I 8 0 0 3 5 51 K 0 0 17 17 2 0 0 2 40 p 0 ... 0 18 710 5 0 0 0 l r 0 TOTALFOR:GEYERSP 0 .J 0 154 il24 8 6 0 0 11 11 314 '1 c) I ~1 ~'er' 038-PUL HT E GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF' NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 15 7 0 0 0. 0 8 39 . 02 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 42 03 2 11 II 0 0 0 0 11 12 48 04 2 0 13 10 0 0 0 0 12 9 46 05 15 11 0 0 0 0 12 14 54 K 0 9 II 0 0 0 8 8 38 p 0 I I 2 n, 7 0 0 0 0 3 49\n5 ,'t' 7, 18 ~~fl TOTAL FOR: PUL HT E 4 ,1 6 71 69 0 1 0 0 66 68 285 ,, 0 ,~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 10 ofl6 STATEWIDEINFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL I 1039- RIGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! ! i OJ 0 0 28 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 02 0 0 26 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 03 0 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 04 0 0 24 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 0 0 30 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 K 0 0 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 p 0 0 22 13 0 0 0 0 0 \" 36 TOTAL FOR: RIGHTSEL 0 0 171 120 0 0 0 0 0 1 292 ,~l 0 ~91 1040 - ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 01 0 0 12 15 2 0 3 4 42 02 0 0 II 11 4 0 0 6 6 39 03 0 0 13 14 2 2 0 0 4 5 40 04 0 7 24 2 2 0 0 3 2 41 05 0 12 7 0 4 0 0 3 28 K 0 0 21 14 2 3 0 0 4 7 51 p 0 q 1 JO \"'I II 5 3 0 0 2 / 4 .s 1o 36 /.,~7 o TOTAL FOR: ROMINE 1 .\n./I 2 86 96 14 23 1 0 25j129 277 ,~~ 1041 - STEPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 42 44 0 0 0 ' 0 0 2 88 02 0 50 36 3 2 0 0 3 2 97 03 0 0 37 36 0 0 0 76 04 0 36 42 0 4 0 0 0 84 05 0 0 33 27 3 2 0 0 0 0 65 ------ K 0 0 38 43 0 0 0 0 83 p 0 ..? 0 21 5j 32 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 1'81,. 54 TOTAL FOR: STEPHENS 257 260 8 8 0 6 5 547 cp\"' 19 ~,1 1/ i ' -----------. - - LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT  Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 11 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 042 -WASHNGTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 3 22 25 7 3 0 0 8 6 75 02 28 19 2 2 0 0 4 4 61 03 2 3 20 20 5 6 0 0 8 9 73 04 0 15 21 5 2 0 0 7 3 54 05 21 21 6 3 0 0 9 9 71 K 2 19 31 9 3 0 0 5 10 80 p 4 2 17 .., 10 2 0 0 8 8 52 TOTALFOR:WASHNGTN u '1911 142 147 35 9t 21 0 0 49 9\".14 9 466 ~~7 043 - WILLIAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 4 18 17 0 0 0 0 7 19 69 02 15 19 0 0 0 16 16 69 03 5 7 26 17 0 0 0 0 15 14 84 04 3 5 30 17 2 0 0 12 18 88 05 2 6 21 29 0 0 0 16 17 92 K 2 2 16 15 0 0 0 11 12 59 TOTAL FOR: WILLIAMS 17\u0026gt;? 25 12,6, 114 4 2 0 0 77 96 461 I ~ 1044 - WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 22 23 2 0 0 0 2 50 02 0 0 12 22 0 0 l. 0 2 2 39 03 0 2 13 22 0 0 0 0 0 2 39 04 0 0 20 27 2 0 0 0 2 52 05 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 0 42 K 0 0 17 18 3 0 0 0 3 2 43 p 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL FOR: WILSON 0 2 110 143 8 3 0 6 10 283 r,? !) ::\n~ LRSD INFOR1'1ATIONS ERVICESD EPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 12 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 17 0 0 0 0 4 3 37 02 0 0 22 13 0 0 0 0 4 40 03 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 2 2 36 04 0 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 34 05 0 0 20 12 0 0 0 0 34 K 0 0 16 21 0 0 0 0 2 40 p 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 0 2 2 36 TOTA L FOR:W OODRUFF 0 0 118 113 0 0 0 1 ~D7 1~514 257 ~' 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 19 14 0 0 0 2 3 40 02 0 0 16 17 0 3 0 0 3 40 03 0 0 19 12 0 0 0 38 04 0 0 10 19 2 0 0 0 2 7 4.0 05 0 0 13 16 0 0 0 0 3 35 K 0 0 16 13 0 0 4 38 p 0 4 I 7 0 0 0 2 5 3 (,1/o 18 1 t:\u0026gt; TOTAL FOR: MABEL EL 1 1 97 98 6 3 1 0 18 24 249 ,-\n- fib ..i.J\n,..\nlo47-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 7 3 28 24 6 0 () . 0 18 14 100 02 3 6 20 22 0 3 0  0 16 16 86 03 2 0 20 13 0 3 0 0 11 16 65 04 5 0 16 18 4 3 0 0 16 . 15 77 05 22 19 2 0 0 13 12 71 K 7 2 25 25 2 2 0 0 16 18 97 p 2 ~ 2 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 3 --:\n l ,... 18 ---- t:fJl  TOTAL FOR: TERRY 27 14 134 128 14 12 0 0 93 92 514 t,1 ~(p'J-' ,~s ----- -- -- ---------------- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page J3 of16 .. :,--'\u0026lt;.,..,.,. :: :..,J STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 3 2 13 15 2 0 22 25 84 02 0 2 10 16 0 0 0 36 36 IOI 03 0 13 7 0 0 0 0 14 36 71 04 0 14 20 0 0 0 17 22 75 05 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 18 24 74 K 0 5 11 0 0 26 35 80 p 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 ,o 5 5 8 ~ 18 TOTALFOR:FULBRIGH 5 ,i 5 74 87 3 3 2 0 138 1 6 503 ~,?~ J(t, ,a\n. 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 21 24 5 2 0 0 19  17 89 02 0 0 23 16 0 0 0 7 13 60 03 19 26 3 0 0 12 12 75 04 0 27 16 2 2 0 0 10 IO 68 05 0 19 16 2 0 0 0 12 14 64 K 3 0 10 26 5 2 16 14 78 p 0 0 3 'I 8 0 0 0 0 5 \"7 2 /. , .. 18 TOTALF OR:O TTERC R 5 1:)3 122 1 2 18 7 1 81 82 452 ,5\u0026amp; 7, j ~? ,t:?\u0026gt; 051 -WAKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM . TOTAL 01 0 0 34 28 12 0 ' 0 0 0 79 02 0 0 18 17 4 0 0 0 41 03 0 0 25 30 6 8 0 0 0 70 04 0 0 25 24 2 2 0 0 0 3 56 05 0 0 23 15 0 0 0 41 K 0 0 22 28 6 3 0 0 0 60 TOTALFOR:WAKEFIEL 0 0 147 142 24 27 0 0 2 5 347 tf~1 _I J Ci 1 --------------------------------- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 14 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 052-WATSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 37 47 0 0 0 88 02 0 0 38 32 0 3 0 0 0 0 73 03 0 0 35 30 2 0 0 0 2 0 69 04 0 0 36 34 0 0 3 76 05 0 0 39 35 0 0 0 77 K 0 0 34 40 2 0 0 0 78 p 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 36 TOTAFLO RW: ATSON. 0 5 1 236 235 8 6 0 0 6 5 497 q{\n)o '11 J) 725-AGENCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 9 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 5 12 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 ~ 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 7 A\\\n~\nJ'e\" \" 05 0 0 1 /O 6 0 0 0 0 4-\u0026gt;il 3 14\n}~ , ~ o' Jf f7 06 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 )1/ 07 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 3 13 rll,c:\u0026gt;o)~ 08 0 0 6 -9-1 7 0 0 0 0 1Cf 1 15 ~3 09 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 0 3 26 10 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 20 ]] 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 II H ~--- '1 12 0 0 0 !\n)O I 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;l 0 1 g:-d K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 TOTALFOR:AGENCY 0 0 25 62 0 0 0 0 27 31 145 00?0 '7 6'6 --------- -------------------- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 15 of 16 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 A), C- r(),()r,I~ 08 0 0 0 4 al 12 0 0 0 0 0 ,3- 2 18~~ 91lr. 09 0 0 IO 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 10 0 0 4 JO 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 11 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 tjol- P.Jc ... I I I I 12 0 0 0 0 ~~ J 0 0 0 0 0 (., 2 3 (,I J 1,l., TOTAL FOR: ALC 0 0 22 64 0 0 0 0 0 g 94 0 ~ 767-ACC LP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ------ 10 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 16 II 0 0 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0 0 37 38 0 0 0 0 6 82 1~70 TOTAL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 64 56 0 0 0 2 /C\u0026gt; 8 131\n.o GRAND TOTAL: 225 228 8752 8733 536 531 35 29 3188 3234 25,491 ~ ,,,0 ) ,1$-- ~ 6 ~ 1'1i (.,,\u0026gt;1~ 'r-J.o t-._o - J ...,,I. , I, -s\u0026lt;-1 10-8-S 'Lr,,,Y\n)~ a-s,-9/ fl ),.J.,~ Aj'\"~/ t:) \u0026lt;g7 ~~ /-3/~ ,...,l,.)u~ rn,-/1 i:1 D 0 I -- I 1 '.:) f 11:\n3 97 C.~, ~-1/ ~~o-/5 ------------------ ------ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page 16 ofl6 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2003 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT W/O METRO FINAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 22 26 698 711 62 61 5 2 243 268 2098 02 16 17 661 672 40 50 2 262 261 1982 03 17 22 660 661 40 50 3 2 218 258 1931 04 23 17 680 676 44 43 2 254 242 1982 05 10 13 664 614 38 34 3 0 242 237 1855 06 14 12 664 635 33 49 0 0 219 218 1844 07 15 18 715 696 38 47 3 220 243 1996 08 16 14 706 705 35 34 0 4 240 230 1984 09 12 15 756 778 29 24 6 4 230 268 2122 10 15 21 600 612 35 28 2 244 247 1805 II 12 12 495 535 23 31 2 3 242, 227 1582 12 15 11 492 404 17 18 2 216 164 1340 K 27 15 631 714 74 38 6 4 248 259 2016 330 .,,320 ~ p 11c i3\"1 5\" 28 24 2 2 110 ,l 112 C 7 954 GRAND TOTAL: 225 228 8752 8733 536 531 35 29 3188 3234 25,491 ~ ~ r\n'a -~Ii\u0026lt;. 0\n: I,. ,,._ 1--r /-:\n9,:\n.., \u0026lt;i?\n7G c\u0026gt;\n.3,118 I 1~1 l.8lc --y\n,J:\n, ~3~ 1\n091 /,)~~/ ~79/ 71/o r(l ,r\n~c.- J/1:JJ~ ,/ 339 -t C:-?-1 I,\u0026lt;?~(!). C,, 710 G,?~ I\n,S?i-3/ !0~'77 c:.,~t..l ~~-'--15 (,,~, /4\nec.-.r\n..,.,,,,/:\ns... (., 7:\nL ~, 7I~\n,, ,q I_ t~.?~ I t.,1J  LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Page I of 1 Main Identity From: To: Sent: \"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Paramer@aristotle.net\u0026gt; Thursday, November 20, 2003 11 :25 AM Subject: Rockefeller Pstudents October 1, 2003 State Report GRADE LEVEL RACE/GENDER K\nOUNT P1 BF ~ P1 BM 3 P1 WF 12 P1 WM ~ P2 AM 1 P2 BF ~ P2 BM ~ P2 WF ~ P2 WM ~ P3 AM 1 P3 BF ~ P3 BM ~ P3 HM 1 P3 WF ~ P3 WM 11 P4 AM 1 P4 BF 8 P4 BM 10 P4 NF 2 P4 WF 7 P4 WM 8 GRAND TOTAL: Nancy :Morgan System .'A.na{yst Litt{e 'Rock Scfwo[ 1Jistrict 810 West :M.arkliam Litt{e 'Rock .'Arkansas 72201 (., 1 I '1 1 I\n\u0026amp; I I 1 18 .3 ,-s 99 /.fP\"} I ~  t,) 0 Page 1 of 2 \u0026gt;11 ,, 4f., (, , qCf 11/20/2003 email: nancy.morgan@frsa.org 'Te[eyfione: (501) 447-1050\n:ax: (501) 447-1157 Add Emotion Icons to your Emails! ..__I_ _ c_lick_H_e___r_e_ l g ~:~@ @f Page 2 of2 11/20/2003 12/12/2003 16:32 501-4472951 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 December 12, 2003 .Mrs. Polly Ramer Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 1 Union ational Plaza 124 West Capital Avenue - Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Ramer\nLR SD SRO PAGE 01/01 j lFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVlS\n:ERVlCES 1 unious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent rhone: (501) 447-2955 l:-Mail\njunious.babbsla11.-sd.org I This notice is to request Little Rock School Dist:ict capacity numbers for the 2003-04 school year be consistent v..ith those reported for 2002-03. j Building renovations are being completed that v#ilrle quire adjustment. Updated information is to be provided. I If questions surface, feel free to contact me. cc: Don Stewart Uec U4 03 08:28a NLRSD Student Arra1rs 5017718001 Of.ice of Student Affairs North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francicalj.JacksonJ Director ******************* FROM:_R_/jh_7 _t10v/J _C_'~------~ FAX: _______ PHONE: _______ _ COMENT~---------------- This fax is4page (s) including the cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please call our office at (501) 771-8010. p. 1 ,' J Dec 04 03 08:28a NLRSD Student Affairs Dec 04 03 08:0la .. N~_R\u0026gt;~~LANT SERVICES !  Building Capacities 2003-2004  5017718001 5017718079 Location Building Capacity West 1351 East 1254 Lakewood Middle 628 Ridgeroad Middle 591 Rose City Middle 446 Poplar Street Middle 839 Argenta Academv 159 Amboy Elementary 373 Belwood Elementary 213 Boone Park Elementary 489 Crestwood Elementary 374 Glenview Elementary 237 Indian Hills Elementary 510 Lakewood Elementary 329 Lvnch Drive Elementary 420 Meadow Park Elementarv 210 North Heights Elementary 527 Park Hill Elementary 305 Pike View Elementary 390 Seventh Street Elementarv 475 p.2 p.2 9-:\n}tr - - - - I d Of.ice of Student Affairs North Little Rock School Dzstrict 2 700 Poplar Street North Lzttle Rock, AR 7211 S-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francicalj. Jackson, Director DATE: Nov. 18, 2003 TO: Polly Ramer, ODM Office RE: NLRSD Pupil Enrollment FAX __ 3_1_1-_0__1___0_0_ PHONE: _________ _ ******************* Robin Mccarroll for Fran Jackson FROM: _________________ _ FAX 111-8001 PHONE: 771-8010 ---------- ------------ COMENTS: I apologize for taking so long. The report printed ----------------------- and the pages broke in the wrong_ p_l a_c_e_. _ th~~ re f ore,aa Th ' to type iQ numbers in a couple of places. This fax is_}j-__page (s) including the cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please call our office at (501) 771-8010. IOOBTLLTOS - I Amboy Elementary ~restwood Elementary J:akewood Elementary North Heights Elementa,:y Seventh St_r:_eeFti ne Ar:.!:.?. PoQlar Stree_t Middle Rose Cit}'. Middl~ NLRHS-East Cam12us Distn_q 2002-TOTALS Pupil Enrollment by School October 15, 2003 Belwood Elementary Glenview Elementar)'. L}'.nch Drive Elementar:y Park Hill Element_a,:y Lakewood Middle ~,:genta Academy NLRHS-West CamQUS l?i_~trict 2093 II [)_,strict 2001 Totals II Boone Park Elemental}' Indian Hills Elementar:Y-Meadow Park Elementaey Pike View Elementa,:y Ridgeroad Middle Charter D1stn_g 2POO Totals North~itt ck Public Sctio (Ret'!:i::.o _to__ _tc p ot f!i!4\u0026lt;\nl ..__Octobe1r5 , 2003 P Enrollment rRc-K / Was reporteu -- .. - -- --,-- .... ent of Education October 15, 2002 /..3 LIii /?~ ,di District Totals 1-!W White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 703 115 111 221 228 18 9 1 01 668 131 114 216 175 10 18 3 1 02 701 131 128 197 213 15 14 1 2 03 687 113 116 209 217 14 1 4 3 04 657 123 104 193 200 22 13 1 1 05 710 130 122 218 203 15 15 2 4 l1 06 672 124 120 215 199 8 5 1 07 739 121 132 288 219 18 16 LJ1 08 672 117 132 215 178 17 9 2 2 09 n3 152 160 242 192 13 8 5 1 10 8-78 - 187. 1 A/\n2'i4 220 14 10 2 4 1 11 511 127 120 130 118 8 5 1 1 1 12 572 133 170 112 136 3 10 2 6 Totals tB92t3 1704 1715 2650 2498 175 143 22 27 5 4 '7'137 38.23% ~~~ 57.56% ~c 3.56% ~~5 .55% .10% 1008Tl.l.1DS I North Little Rock Public Schools (R~tU.P'! .t.o 1:_01? .\u0026lt;?J-~pag~) October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 650 128 110 199 188 8 15 0 1 1 0 01 687 130 128 193 21d 14 10 1 1 0 0 02 662 112 104 212 208 11 8 4 2 0 1 03 648 115 104 197 198 19 13 1 0 1 0 04 691 125 117 219 201 13 11 2 3 0 0 05 673 124 129 205 195 12 6 1 0 1 0 06 679 119 116 198 219 11 13 1 0 2 0 07 697 12:n::::IE 222 190 12 8 2 2 0 0 08 746 151 152 243 183 8 6 2 1 0 0 09 755 164 168 212 181 16 13 0 0 0 1 10 772 175 151 239 181 9 10 3 2 1 1 11 590 132 176 124 147 2 6 2 1 0 0 12 609 159 149 120 169 3 3 1 3 0 2 Totals _8. 859 1761 1738 2583 2470 138 122 20 16 6 5 39.50% 57.04% 2.93% 0.41% 0.12% OCTOBER 1, 2001 DISTRTCT TOTT.LS. f.R._tu=:-_i _~ ~ ~.Q.P o,\n...~9..~j- CURRENT SCHOOL hSSIGKHENTS COUl-nY: PULASK:i DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DI3TRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASinN/l'l AM llW/1'.LS NH G:aAO TOTAL M F u F M F M r H F p\n706 138 126 203 211 13 12 1 2 0 0 o, 655 114 10S. 195 27 -8 9 4 n n . n 02 661 127 101 204 11 10 1 2 1 0 03 711 132 127 211 218 10 10 1 2 0 0 0~ 693 119 131 228 194 12 7 0 1 1 0 05 682 123 117 199 221 10 9 1 0 2 0 06 664 110 104 226 205 10 6 0 2 1 0 07 765 165 153 236 188 10 9 3 1 0 0 08 682 154 151 199 170 13 5 0 0 0 0 09 660 155 128 210 152 9 4 1 0 0 1 10 an 194 194 242 218 6 13 3 5 0 2 11 668 154 187 9 3 0 1 0 0 12 625 156 157 123 165 5 10 1 6 1 1 TOTALS 9059 1845 1750 2630 2553 126 107 16 22 6 4 Percentage 39.68% 57.21% 2.57% 0.42% 0.11% 1008 l lL 105 .... C,,,.c::::\n.,z\n,:F-- \"5 OCTOBER 2, 2000 DISTRICT TOTALS (Return to top o~.ru,J_ CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMEHTS COUNTYP: ULASKI DISTRICT: NORTHL ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GAAOES PAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F J 164 4 8 71 76 3 2 0 0 D 0 K 669 117 100 213 22 3 4 0 1 1 Ol 647 124 105 194 209 6 0 1 1 0 02 711 138 117 216 218 1 6 1 2 1 1 03 659 124 127 205 188 5 0 0 1 0 04 675 107 126 201 220 8 1 0 2 1 05 627 101 108 205 191 0 3 0 1 06 658 127 117 219 181 7 5 1 1 0 0 ()7 656 143 143 180 176 9 4 0 0 0 1 08 610 127 134 187 151 3 6 1 0 0 , 09 756 173 172 201 190 7 9 2 2 0 0 10 854 180 17) 242 24) 9 6 0 1 0 0 11 621 157 153 129 ''\" 6 8 1 4 1 2 12 529 137 134 111 135 2 5 1 4 0 0 ){ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SC!iOOLS 8836 1759 1717 2574~ 79 12 18 7 8 TOTALS 39.3% 58 2.1% .)% .2% W/0 8003 1638 1609 2290 74 8 18 6 7 GRD J/K 40.6% 56.9% 2.1% .3% .2% 1008 T ll l OS OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEI\\ *6002-050 CORRI:NT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI OISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:AMBOY ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am ~~-/\u0026lt;(.d/ White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala e::::1-, I 0 Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F Ml F K 54 9 3 22 20 01 62 14 8 16 23 1 02 60 11 9 16 23 1 03 52 6 5 24 16 1 04 51 7 6 22 15 1 05 63 14 9 18 22 Totals ~ 61 40 118 119 I 1 2 1 II 0 o I 0 OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA 16002-053 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COOIITY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BELWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F Ml F K 33 5 4 18 6 01 28 4 3 10 11 02 30 7 3 8 10 1 1 I 03 22 3 3 6 9 1 04 20 2 3 9 6 05 29 6 2 9 10 2 Totals  162 27 18 60 52 2 3 .2 5 http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/amboy _ elementary.him 11/6/03 lDDBllllOS OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA J,6002-054 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNt!ENTS COONTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am I-Ml.,_\n.~( (, White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a I 3- I Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F Ml F K 67 1 1 25 40 01 59 4 35 19 1 02 69 2 1 31 34 1 03 65 3 1 26 34 1 04 58 2 1 24 29 1 1 05 43 1 22 19 1 Totals ~ 12 5 163 175 1 5 1 OCT06ER 15, 2003 LEA 6002-055 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY G!U'.DE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F Ml F Ml F Ml F K 60 17 19 17 7 01 49 17 18 10 3 11 I 02 76 27 27 13 8 11 I 03 64 24 23 9 8 04 44 18 14 5 5 1 I I 1 I 05 49 12 22 6 9 Totals 342 115 123 60 40 1 11 2 l / http://www.n1rsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/boone__park_elementary.htrn 11/6/03 lOOBTll TOS OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA ll6002-056 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:GLENVlEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F Ml F K 22 2 3 6 10 1 01 25 3 2 8 12 02 30 4 5 12 9 03 30 2 3 15 10 04 34 3 2 14 14 1 05 42 3 4 22 13 Totals 183 17 19 77 68 2 I 7 ,....,2 , C, OCTOBER 15, 2003 LE *6002-051 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOLI: NDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY GRADES l'AN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F Ml F K 73 32 22 5 12 2 01 84 27 31 13 11 1 1 02 68 27 24 5 8 1 1 2 03 88 30 33 5 15 1 2 2 04 75 29 30 10 4 1 1 05 84 32 31 10 7 1 1 2 Totals 472 177 171 48 57 4 4 4 7 I I J http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/glenview _ elementary .htm 11/6/03 lDOBllltDS doE=Eo ED Bl AO~ OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA *6002-058 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGm-lENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F Ml F K 60 14 24 8 10 2 2 01 64 26 23 5 9 1 02 61 14 22 13 9 2 1 03 53 18 14 8 9 1 2 1 04 57 21 12 7 13 2 2 05 49 15 12 13 7 1 1 Totals 344 108 107 54 57 9 7 1 1 I I I OCTOBER 15, 2C03 LEA 116002-060 CURRENT SCHOCL ASSlGNMENTS COl.JNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRl'.DE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F Ml F K 53 3 4 25 20 1 01 56 6 3 30 16 1 02 51 2 4 20 24 1 03 51 4 4 24 17 2 04 63 2 5 28 28 05 55 6 5 25 19 Totals 329 23 25 152 124 3 2 http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/Jakewood _ eJementary.htm 11/6/03 lDOBllllOS Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals Totals 23 26 46 32 21 26 174 ......, ' Totals 74 68 65 75 78 91 451 OCTOBER 1~, 2003 LEI\\ i6002-061 CURRENT SCHOOL IISSIGllMENTS COUNTY:PDLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is M F M F Ml F Ml 4 9 10 3 3 10 10 5 6 13 21 1 I 4 3 12 11 I 1 11 2 1 9 8 1 I 3 3 5 15 21 16 58 75 2 I 1 11 1 -i OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA t6002-063 CURRENT SCHOOL IISSIGNiiENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NORTH HElGHTS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN:K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is M F M F M F Ml 11 9 9 28 11 6 7 6 15 20 6 14 9 8 18 14 10 6 5 11 22 21 8 8 19 10 11 16 14 8 14 14 21 25 9 8 65 58 96 124 58 50 http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/meadow _park_ elementary.htm lDOBl ll lDS Am Ind/Ala Ntv F Ml F I Am Ind/Ala Ntv F Ml F 11/6/03 CCTOSER 15, 2003 LEA 4 6002-064 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:PULASIU DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPhN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F Ml F K 45 9 13 9 13 1 01 41 5 12 14 9 1 02 43 13 7 12 10 1 03 42 8 7 13 14 04 46 11 9 13 13 05 48 12 5 13 12 4 1 1 Totals 265 58 53 74 71 6 2 1 / .. 1 OCTOBER 15, 2003 L!\nA *6002-065 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCP.OOL:PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY GRl\\DE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 77 7 9 35 25 1 01 61 14 5 25 13 3 1 02 49 9 12 16 11 1 03 57 6 9 21 21 04  55 5 10 19 19 1 1 ~ 05 70 11 11 18 25 1 2 1 -1 Totals 369 52 56 134 114 5 3 2 2 1 http://www.n1rsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/park_hill_elementary.htm 11/6/03 01  d TOOBTU.105 OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA 46002-069 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYP: OLASKI DISTRICT: NORTHL ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Am Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F Mf F K 62 1 33 27 1 01 45 1 25 19 02 53 1 20 32 03 56 24 32 04 55 2 1 22 30 05 61 2 3 36 20 Totals 332 7 4 160 160 1 II I OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA #6002-0S9 CURRENT SCP.COL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYP: ULASKI DISTRICT: NORTHL ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SFAN:06 White Am Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F Mf F 06 668 124 119 214 197 8 5 1 Totals 668 124 119 214 197 8 5 1 http://www.n1rsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/seventh_street_fine_arts.htm 11/6/03 lOOBlL.llOS OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA !16002-010 CURRENT SCHOOL hSSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PDLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F Ml F 07 321 87 97 62 69 3 3 08 328 95 102 72 51 4 2 1 1 Totals 649 182 199 134 120 7 5 1 1 I OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA *6002-077 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F Ml F Ml F Ml F 06 4 1 1 2 07 101 6 1 49 44 p 08 107 2 4 49 50 11 11 09 7 5 2 Totals 219 8 6 104 98 1 11 1 I OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA lt6002-072 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COCiNTYP: O:.ASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LlTTLE ROC!'. SCHOOL:RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F Ml F M F 07 317 28 34 117 106 15 13 3 1 08 237 20 26 94 77 . 13 7 Totals 554 48 60 211 183 28 20 3 1 /] .., 0 21  d 1008llll0S OCTOBER 1, 2001 LEA j6Q02-0?6 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 06-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM INO/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F 11 F M F M F 11 F 05 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 07 21 2 1 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 08 20 4 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 09 41 10 3 23 5 0 0 0 0 10 54 8 3 22 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 43 8 7 16 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 28 5 5 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 213 37 19 100 52 3 1 0 0 4/ 0 Percentage 26.29% 71.36% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA #6002-0,S CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY: POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 09-10 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 734 143 157 227 183 12 7 4 1 - 10 722 161 171 186 179 12 9 1 2 1 - Totals 1456 304 328 413 362 24 16 5 3 1 http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/argenta _ academy .htln 11/6/03 lDOB l ll lOS / e\u0026gt;-19 ~r I/'\nt.,\u0026amp;o/ Pl-,) tJ - :\u0026gt; ?--\n:' .P - ?) ~ ~ ~/ qo1' ,t' -,\nf gr ?I :?~\n)~ -f 1_\n/. \u0026amp; /C/ t9IJ)\n..) - I\nI,., I I / 1)\n:- o- I ~ 3'~ er~!~ c\nJ~c?~\n$? -'~ -p-\n19 ~o P'\"...J ? ) ,. \nJr /C~ 3\n-1,,.,,.) o- y .:5 i)-r Q u)P_,,) /97 ~ ?'- 1:3~ ~ ___.-:-:= ---\n1Y 3 ~,./\n3 0 ~\n9/ 1 ?o  OCTOBER 15, 2003 LEA f6002-076 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NLRHS-WES'.1' CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 11-12 White Am Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F Ml F 09 32 9 3 10 7 1 1 1 10 156 26 15 68 41 2 1 1 2 11 511 127 120 130 118 8 5 1 1 11 12 572 133 170 112 136 3 10 2 6 Totals 1271 295 308 320 302 14 17 4 9 1 11 _.,\ni\n).-- , () Home To place information here, contact webmail@Jnaj1.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-west_ campus.btm I l/6/03 lDOBlll lOS Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 01 Adkins Elementary 6003090 PK* 4 (, 2 6 16 7 1 I 0 20 t~?o RECEIV K 14 5 12 7 0 0 38 1 10 8 7 5 0 0 30 NOV2 O 20{ 2 7 10 15 6 0 0 38 3 10 4 5 8 0 0 27 4 4 8 11 9 0 0 32 OFRCEOF fallFaillllN MDBt 5 ~  1 ~ Q 1 29 SCHOOL TOTAL ~ ,pl 43 60 '\" 51 1 \n-1 214 48.13% 51.87% i.--- (INCLUDING PK) --- SCHOOL TOTAL ~ q.5~ ~ 1Z ~ 0 I 1 -19-4- 49.48% 50.52% i.--- 03 Baker lnterdistrict 6003092 K 26 24 4 9 5 4 72 1 17 22 7 6 2 3 57 2 21 19 4 7 1 4 56 3 24 15 5 4 1 0 49 4 21 13 8 6 1 0 49 5 16 I 13 1  0 2 38 SCHOOL TOTAL 125\ni?\n106 29 t,1 38 10 J,~ 13 321 79.13% 20.87% ,.,,,,.,- 02 Crystal Hill Magnet 6003093 PK* 14 ~i:\n. 12 12~\" 14 0 ,\n- 2 54 ..y 8:, 'D K 36 20 30 20 1 0 107 1 33 24 29 24. 1 1 112 2 41 22 26 34 3 1 127 3 26 21 22 25 1 1 96 4 23 24 34 26 0 4 111 5 24 20 28 29 2 3 106 6 26 19 21 20 i Q 88 SCHOOL TOTAL 223 ~'66162 202 ?ct/192 !!!, J~ 11 801 50.81% 49.19% i.---- (INCLUDING PK) -~- -- SCHOOL TOTAL 209j{/ 12,2 J.!QIY9,.!l! .!.Qc ? .!.Q -74-7 50.74% 49.26% ..........-- 05 Bayou Meto Elementary 6003094 K 27 28 0 1 2 5 63 1 41 28 1 1 0 3 74 2 33 35 3 2 3 1 77 3 40 35 1 0 3 0 79 4 33 36 0 1 2 0 72 5 31 36 0 1 2 2 72 6 0  1 Q Q 0 Q 1 SCHOOL TOTAL 205\nJO 199 5 11 6 12 )3 11 438 97.49% 2.51% .....- Page 1 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL ~ Black 42 Clinton Magnet School 6003095 PK* 16 :-. 15 15 e,,..2,2 2 .\nl-- 0 70 :5~~ K 22 23 36 27 1 0 109 1 25 22 26 22 0 5 100 2 11 16 16 20 3 1 67 3 20 11 29 20 1 1 82 4 22 18 21 19 5 4 89 5 26 23 34 33 Q  118 SCHOOL TOTAL .... 142 \".J 128 177\n-, 163 12 ,..., 13 ~~% 53.54%  (INCLUDING PK) -t? SCHOOL TOT AL ~ J-'?\u0026gt;9~ ~?J?'J\n!!! 10 '1~ 13 -56-5- 46.37% 53.63% - 11 Dupree Elementary 6003099 K 21 8 16 10 1 2 58 1 19 22 18 7 1 2 69 2 16 11 11 7 0 0 45 3 14 16 8 7 0 0 45 4 13 19 11 10 1 0 54 5 17 I\" 11 8 14 2 3 55 SCHOOL TOT AL 100 ,v 87 72 ~,, 55 5 1-Y !.. 326 -61-.04% 38.96% v' 15 Harris Elementary 6003102 PK* 2 ~ 6 6 4 0 0 18 ,\nSt-7 K 3 2 13 21 0 0 39 1 2 3 19 14 0 0 38 2 4 2 11 13 0 1 31 3 6 0 5 11 0 0 22 4 2 1 16 11 0 0 30 5 1 1 14 15 1 Q 32 SCHOOL TOTAL 20 ,., 15 84 89 1 1 210 17.62% 82.38% ....-- (INCLUDING PK) -- - .!! ~~ -~ SCHOOL TOTAL 9 78 85 1 1' 1 -19-2 15.10% -8-4.90% .....-- 18 Jacksonville Elementary 6003103 K 12 16 28 21 2 3 82 1 28 13 25 22 3 4 95 2 20 9 29 21 2 1 82 3 13 15 19 20 2 3 72 4 17 12 23 17 3 3 75 5 9 1 23 26 1 ~  76 SCHOOL TOTAL 99 /1 80 147\n/''\" 127 13 ? 16 482 43.15% 56.85% v Page 2 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 21 Landmark Elementary 6003104 K 18 17 14 9 0 0 58 1 10 14 13 13 0 0 50 2 14 6 11 12 0 3 46 3 11 16 12 11 0 0 50 4 8 16 10 14 1 1 50 5 ~ pl j1_ 1Q ~o 11 Q IP 1 43 SCHOOL TOTAL 70 81 70 l 70 -1 5 297 52.86% 47.14% ---- 22 Lawson Elementary 6003105 K 20 18 3 6 0 0 47 1 26 19 3 5 0 0 53 2 17 18 5 3 0 0 43 3 15 17 7 3 0 0 42 4 21 12 3 4 0 1 41 5 10 ~ 11 4 1 Q Q 29 SCHOOL TOT AL 109\n}f 95 25 ff) 25 0 I . 1 255 80.39% 19.61% V 23 Tolleson Elementary 6003106 K 19 14 7 8 0 1 49 1 24 16 8 17 2 4 71 2 11 14 7 5 1 2 40 3 20 18 5 14 1 2 60 4 22 12 11 10 3 0 58 5 18r14 10 14 z r:?-~ Q 63 SCHOOL TOTAL ~ ~ 48 11~ 68 14 9 341 65.98% 34.02% ,-.- 28 Oak Grove Elementary 6003108 PK* 21 ,\n./Cf 28 10 g 1 ..i/ 3 72 ,:::\n)~/4 K 28 14 2 9 1 1 55 1 20 19 8 7 0 0 54 2 14 21 6 2 1 0 44 3 20 9 6 1 0 0 36 4 13 15 8 3 2 1 42 5 6 17 8 8 1 0 40 6 12 18 6 5 1 0 42 SCHOOL TOTAL 134\n..1?141 54 ql 1.1. 7 I\"-' 5 385 74.55% 25.45% ....- (INCLUDING PK) -~ -- (f SCHOOL TOTAL 113 ~\"J, 113 44 -?1 35 6 ?5 2 -31-3- 74.76% 25.24% ......- Page 3 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male ~ TOTAL White Black 31 Robinson Elementary 6003110 K 17 11 5 4 3 3 43 1 18 26 7 6 2 4 63 2 21 20 12 8 4 3 68 3 18 21 12 13 2 0 66 4 26 14 8 7 4 0 59 5 24 O 14 11 101 .1l 1 1 65 SCHOOL TOTAL 124 ~ 106 56 51 16 p111 364 70.60% 29.40% ..,,,-- 34 Scott Elementary School 6003111 K 8 8 1 2 1 0 20 1 9 7 1 1 0 0 18 2 6 4 1 0 0 0 11 3 11 8 2 1 0 0 22 4 12 4 1 1 0 0 18 5 7 2 i J Q Q 14 SCHOOL TOTAL 53 Yll' 33 8 1!, 8 1 0 103 84.47% 15.53% -i..---- 37 Sherwood Elememtary 6003112 K 27 21 20 9 1 1 79 1 16 19 7 10 0 0 52 2 23 31 7 9 0 0 70 3 26 18 12 11 0 1 68 4 21 23 8 16 0 0 68 5 14 24 _ I ~ 1 ~ Q 56 SCHOOL TOT AL 127 .-1.,-:3135 ~ J/') ~ 64 2 2 393 67.94% 32.06%...,.... 39 Sylvan Hills Elementary 6003113 K 23 19 7 16 2 1 68 1 15 14 13 12 0 0 54 2 17 28 8 16 2 0 71 3 18 16 16 10 0 3 63 4 16 18 13 13 2 2 64 5 14 12 10 C 16 Q ~ J 55 SCHOOL TOTAL 103 JI0107 67 16 83 6 9 375 60.00% 40.00%  19 Jacksonville Middle School 6003116 6 92 88 80 66 4 4 334 7 99 87 78 67  J 339 191 ~ - SCHOOL TOTAL 175 158 ,,(' 133 9 \u0026amp; 7 673 -56-.76% 43.24% .....- 48 Jacksonville Jr High 6003117 8 97 97 66 74 6 5 345 9 86 d'/ 97 75 68 ~ J 333 SCHOOL TOTAL !Ef ~ 141 \" .\n,142 10 ,'g 8 678 58.26% 41.74% ......- Page 4 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL ~ Black 13 Fuller Middle School 6003120 6 60 54 57 65 4 2 242 7 62 56 70 67 1 1 257 8 45 J 47 52 52 ~ 1 200 SCHOOL TOTAL ~,?- lli 179 ~ 3184 8 ,~1 699 48.07% 51.93% ~ 40 Sylvan Hills Middle School 6003122 6 84 82 66 71 7 4 314 7 104 78 53 67 6 5 313 8 94 77 57 ~ 61 . ~ 298 SCHOOL TOTAL 282 ~a 237 ~? ~ 18 ~1 13 925 59.46% 40.54%  20 Jacksonville Sr High 6003123 10 81 103 60 68 0 0 312 11 89 67 48 52 0 0 256 12 69 65 55 58 Q Q 247 SCHOOL TOTAL 239 .\u0026gt; 235 -1,6 3 ~- 178 0 0 815 -58-.16% -41.84%- 47 Mills University High 6003125 9 65 63 89 82 3 1 303 10 51 61 59 59 0 3 233 11 45 42 63 60 1 3 214 12 54 \u0026gt;/ 43 52 54 i i 207 SCHOOL TOTAL 215 ,.,,... 209 263?-I 5 255 6 ,~ 9 957 45.87% 54.13% V 29 Oak Grove Jr/Sr High 6003126 7 62 38 23 29 2 2 156 8 41 32 28 29 3 1 134 9 61 41 34 17 1 2 156 10 37 37 20 19 1 2 116 11 49 34 22 16 2 1 124 12 44 ,...,4 6 20 15 ~ 1 129 SCHOOL TOTAL 2946,\"' 228 147 '11 125 12 \"'.) 9 815 66.63% 33.37% V 32 Robinson Sr. High 6003127 9 54 53 51 42 2 3 205 10 59 51 52 31 0 0 193 11 48 47 28 46 0 0 169 12 33 41 22 A 11 Q 1 114 SCHOOL TOTAL 194#192 153 ,\n'r\u0026gt; 136 2 ( 4 681 57.56% 42.44% ,._... 41 Sylvan Hills Sr High 6003128 9 98 73 76 81 12 4 344 10 93 70 56 66 9 3 297 11 87 71 56 56 3 6 279 12 71 87 38 37 1 i 236 SCHOOL TOTAL 349 (_/l 301 226\n., 1\"240 25 ,)f'i\u0026gt; 15 1156 59.69% 40.31 % V 45 Cato Elementary 6003129 Page 5 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male ~ Male Female TOTAL ~ Black K 22 11 6 4 0 0 43 1 12 22 7 8 0 1 50 2 25 27 9 9 1 2 73 3 23 20 5 7 2 1 58 4 18 20 8 11 1 3 61 5 14 -~ 19 8 ~ 1 .~1 51 SCHOOL TOTAL 114,?'i 119 43 q 47 5 8 336 73.21% 26.79% ....- 46 Pinewood Elementary 6003130 K 14 27 13 14 0 1 69 1 15 16 16 10 4 3 64 2 21 20 8 17 2 1 69 3 20 14 15 14 1 1 65 4 14 17 6 16 1 0 54 5 30 .is 1l 17 ,.., 1d Q Q 77 SCHOOL TOT AL ~ :)~ !!.! 75 1\"'\" 84 8 I\n6 398 60.05% 39.95% ....---- 08 College Station Elementary 6003135 K 7 3 13 10 0 1 34 1 1 5 10 10 1 0 27 2 6 3 5 5 0 0 19 3 12 11 6 8 1 39 4 16 10 15 9 1 52 5 7 1l 16 15 1 i 1 52 SCHOOL TOTAL 491~ 44 ~I 57 4 4 223 45.29% 54.71% ....- 49 North Pulaski High 6003136 9 85 67 55 38 4 4 253 10 63 64 33 34 6 5 205 11 68 52 47 39 6 2 214 12 83 49 26 33 1 5 197 SCHOOL TOT AL 299 _,.. 232 161 144 17 ~ 16 869 -64-.90% 35.10% '-' 27 Arnold Drive Elementary 6003137 K 18 20 12 4 4 1 59 1 14 18 7 9 5 5 58 2 20 18 5 9 1 2 55 3 15 15 6 14 2 3 55 4 16 20 7 4 3 4 54 5 11 1Q ~  1  40 SCHOOL TOTAL 94 101 45 a 45 16 2,l, 20 321 71.96% 28.04% Page 6 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 17 Oakbrooke Elementary 6003139 K 32 16 4 5 2 2 61 1 24 12 9 4 1 3 53 2 21 20 8 11 2 1 63 3 13 19 12 6 0 1 51 4 15 20 4 9 2 0 50 5 26 'g 20 10 ! 1 t?I  72 SCHOOL TOTAL 131 l~ 101 47 qi 44 8 13 350 74.00% 26.00% .....- 36 Northwood Middle School 6003140 6 78 77 31 40 3 1 230 7 76 55 42 24 7 2 206 8 81 J./0 78 36 ~ .ll 9. 19 .1 232 SCHOOL TOT AL 235 ~ 210 ~ ~t\u0026gt; 95 15 4 668 69.46% 30.54% i.--- 51 Murrell Taylor Elementary 6003141 K 17 15 14 20 2 0 68 1 16 14 15 12 0 1 58 2 13 11 14 13 0 0 51 3 14 13 11 16 1 2 57 4 16 12 15 8 1 0 52 5 22 10 1_ 20 1 1 72 SCHOOL TOTAL ~(/~~ fil (1 ~ fill ~ 4 ~ JM 50.84% 49.16% ........- 52 Pine Forest Elementary 6003142 K 29 32 5 11 2 80 1 35 26 11 10 2 2 86 2 35 34 10 6 2 0 87 3 29 24 14 5 0 1 73 4 32 34 7 7 1 2 83 5 20 17 7 7 0 0 51 6 35 18 8 ,r 14 1 r?-1 77 SCHOOL TOTAL 215 ~tfl) 185 62 /'d 60 8 7 537 77.28% 22.72% v- 50 Robinson Middle School 6003143 6 67 45 26 24 1 2 165 7 52 41 34 20 3 5 155 8 67 43 37 35 6 Q 184 SCHOOL TOTAL 186 r,\\~ 129 97 ,1~ 79 6 ,~ 7 504 65.08% 34.92% ..,...... Page 7 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 53 Bates Elementary 6003146 PK* 9 I 8 5 I 10 4 0 36 j,, ,?\" b K 24 22 28 18 1 0 93 1 18 24 23 20 1 1 87 2 29 15 28 17 1 1 91 3 19 20 21 24 2 2 88 4 29 19 21 20 2 2 93 5 16 19 23 21 l ~ 84 SCHOOL TOTAL ...,I- 144 \":l 127 149 ~ 130 13 ,i~ ! 572 51.22% 48. 78% I/\" (INCLUDING PK) - - -- 135 ?~119 t.?1 1~ SCHOOL TOTAL 144 J 120 9 9 -53-6 50.7 5% -49.25% _... Page 8 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL ~ Black TOT AL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PK* 66 71 54 I 66 8 5 270 55.56% 44.44/c -- K 484 394 293 265 31 27 1,494 1 448 413 290 255 25 42 1,473 2 446 414 259 252 29 24 1,424 3 437 376 256 253 20 23 1,365 4 430 397 269 251 36 28 1,411 5 381 355 283 309 25 37 1,390 6 454 402 295 305 23 .11 1.493 ELEMENTARY 3,080 2,751 1,945 1,890 189 195 10,050 61.84% 38.16% TOTALS W/0 PRE-K ELEMENTARY 3.146 2,822 1,999 1,956 197 200 10,320 61.68% 38.32/c TOTALS WITH PRE-K 7 455 355 300 274 24 18 1,426 8 425 374 276 282 24 12 1,393 9 449 394 380 328 26 17 1,594 10 384 386 280 277 16 13 1,356 11 386 313 264 269 12 12 1,256 12 354 331 213 214 I 11 1,130 SECONDARY TOTALS 2,453 2,153 1,713 1,644 109 83 8,155 58.84% 41.16% DISTRICT TOTALS JO/' 11,'J? !j71.t 18,205 ~% ~%v W/0 PRE-K 5,533 4,904 3,658 3,534 298 278 DISTRICT TOTALS ~ 18,475 ~% ~0/4 ...,.- WITH PRE-K IMPORTANT NOTES: PK \"PRE-K\" CHILDREN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATE'S OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT COUNT FOR THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT THE ALPHA ACADEMY WAS NOT REPORTED, BECAUSE THE STUDENTS WERE COUNTED AS PART OF THE SCHOOL WHICH THEY WOULD NORMALLY ATTEND. Page 9 of 9 Date: 11/18/2003 06/03/2003 10:04 501-4'30-1102 PCSSD PLAN DDPT PAGE 02 SUMMARY OF BUILDING CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENTS Revised May 2. 2003 PULASKI COUNn' SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I (APRIL 28, 2003) I SCHOOL CAPAC In' RECOMMENDED f 2002-2003 INFORMATION SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT (JAN. 7, 2003 SHEET) (APRIL 28, 2003 INFO) HIGH SCHOOLS JACKSONVILLE HIGH (10-12) 826 1,025 1,360 (FOR 9-12) I 1,127 MILLS HIGH 908 780 1,130 NORTH PULASKI HIGH I 826 900 1,050 OAK GROVE HIGH (7-12) 795 935 1,130 (FOR 9-12) I 537 ROBINSON HIGH I 594 556 770 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 1,055 I 998 1,120 I I MIDDLE/JR. HIGHS FULLER MIDDLE I 664 I 945 1,360 JACKSONVILLE JR.. (8-9) I 620 800 990 JACKSONVILLE MIDDLE (67) 643 I 800 980 NORTHWOOD MIDDLE 651 964 1,030 J ROBINSON MIDDLE I 451 486 650 / SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE I 901 925 1,080 /.,f) I I ,,,_I / ./ ? ELEMENTARY ADKINS I 216 370 I 526 ' ARNOLD DRIVE I 347 420 453 BAKER I 268 330 428 BATES I 612 800 863 BAYOU METO 460 660 697 CATO I 367 576 800 CLINTON I 615 833 I 840 COLLEGE STATION I 212 I 340 I 439 CRYSTAL HILL 757 I 820 I 870 DUPREE 310 I 465 498 HARRIS I 175 I 525 906 JACKSONVILLE I 487 I 785 850 LANDMARK I 306 568 711 LAWSON I 242 I 325 I 372 OAK GROVE I 385 I 476 626 OAKBROOKE I 309 500 553 PINE FORREST : 505 556 I 554 PINEWOOD I 410 523 677 f ROBINSON I 387 450 I 544 SCOTT 108 I 280 294 SHERWOOD I 355 I 460 I 561 SYLVAN HILLS 393 456 I 606 TAYLOR 348 450 566 ,, TOLLESON 342 570 561 / I -\n'.\nA. / 7 ,-, ~ ~ENROLLMENT INFORMATION BASED ON 3RD QUARTER / 11 2002-2003 ENROLLMENTD ATED MARCH 21, 2003 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 4, 2003 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mrs. Marshall: NOV 7 21123 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 Attached is the October 1, 2003, enrollment count for Pulaski County Special School District. Guidelines for racial balance for the 2003 - 2004 school years are: 20 - 47.5% at the elementary level and 20 - 51.5 % at the secondary level. Pre-K enrollment is not included in the elementary racial balance guidelines. The following schools are outside the racial balance guidelines: ...,AdkinsE lementary - 51.87% Clinton Elementary- 53.54 % \\-flarris Elementary- 82.38% '-:la cksonville Elementar - 5~ Lawson Elemen:t\u0026amp;Y- 19. 61 % ,,-Scott Elementary-15.53% vCollege Station Elementary- 54.71 % vfuller Middle - 51.93 % --Mills University Studies - 54.13% Sincerely, Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity \u0026amp; Pupil Services ac c Dr. Don Henderson Dr. Brenda Bowles Houston Yuille Sam Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor Date: November 18, 2003 To: Brenda Bowles From: Ann Marsh~ Re: PCSSD 2003-04 Enrollment Numbers One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Via Fax As you know, we're in the process of collecting October 1, 2003 enrollment figures from all three local school districts for our annual report on enrollment and racial balance. Our recent conversations with you and others who gather enrollment data for the PCSSD reveal a problem that begs resolution before we can proceed further with our report. Last year, the district's pre-K students at Landmark and College Station initially were not included in the enrollment count provided to us, even though those students had been part of the count each previous year. Our inquiry revealed that the student assignment office had reasoned that children in HeadStart classes, which aren't funded by the district, shouldn't be included in the student tally. When I asked Dr. Henderson for clarification of the discrepancy last year, he made the decision to count the HeadStart students, so we again included them in our report. This year, we're aware that the numbers we've received from the PCSSD include the pre-K students at Landmark but not at College Station. I'm concerned about the apparent inconsistency in the figures provided us, not only among schools, but from one year to the next. The district is certainly free to change the way it counts its enrollment, but we ask that the superintendent be involved in making that decision. Please discuss this matter with Dr. Henderson, explaining your views of the pros and cons about including HeadStart students, since they affect racial balance as well as enrollment totals. If the district wishes to discontinue including HeadStart students in its count, we're perfectly willing to accept that decision and will simply make a note to that effect in our report. However, regardless of the district's chosen approach to counting students, I ask that it be consistent from one school to the next within any given year. Please notify us of your decision and provide us with recalculated numbers for all affected schools as soon as possible, as the lack of complete information is delaying our report. Thank you very much. cc: Karl Brown Don Henderson BG PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 18, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL Mrs. Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mrs. Marshall: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 RECE\\'JED NO'Jz o 2003 OfflCEOf t)ESEGREGt,~\\O1\\t0Ut!4O i\\lKG Attached is a copy of our revised October 1, 2003 enrollment figures. After conversing with Dr. Henderson, the District's position is not to include Pre-K Headstart students or students in the District's Pre-K program in the enrollment report. If you have any other questions please call me. Sincerely, Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education cc: Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent of Education Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor Date: November 19, 2003 To: Brenda Bowles -From: Ann Marsha. Re: PCSSD 2003-04 Enrollment Numbers One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Via Fax Thank you for your prompt response to my request for clarification of the district's enrollment numbers in relation to pre-K students, specifically those enrolled in HeadStart, as well as for a consistent count from school to school and for appropriately revised numbers. The difference we note between the figures we received today and those previously provided is that the total number of students is 4 7 less than reported earlier: all 31 Pre-K students at Landmark no longer appear in the report and the count of pre-K students at Bates has shrunk by 16 (from 52 to 36). Your cover letter reads that, \"the District's position is not to include Pre-K Headstart students or students in the District's Pre-K program in the enrollment report.\" I've underlined the part of the statement that we find confusing, because the school-by-school figures still show the same pre-K enrollment at Adkins, Bates, Crystal Hill, Clinton, Harris, and Oak Grove elementaries. Do you intend to exclude all pre-K students or not? Do you consider that your October 1, 2003 enrollment is 18,205 or 18,475 (totals that appear on your latest set of figures) or some other number? Please furnish us the figures that accurately reflect the district's decision about its student count. Also, please briefly explain why the district has chosen to count--or not count--any or all pre-K students so we can make the appropriate notation in our report. Thank you. cc: Karl Brown Don Henderson 11/20/2003 17:23 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 02/03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 20, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL Mrs. Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72.201 Dear Mrs. Marshall: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 As stated in my previous letter, the District will not include Headstart students or PCSSD Pre-K students in the October 1 enrollment count. The total K-12 enrollment reported for October 1, 2003 is 18,205. The District receives no fu.nding from the state for Pre-K students. Therefore, those students are not included in the count provided to the Arkansas Department of Education. The Headstart program is not funded by the District. The staff, materialseverything needed to run the program-are funded by outside agencies. The only thing the District provides is building space. Therefore, those students are not included in the total enrollment reported to the state. The nine-page enrollment report, used for multiple purposes, identifies the total enrollment for grades K-12. Toe District Pre-K enrollment also appears on that report. You will note that the school's total including District Pre-K students is highlighted in yellow. The last line in each school section identifies the school total enrollment (Pre-K not included). Page nine is a summary of the District's student enrollment. Pre-K is again highlighted in yellow, for October 1, 2003. Please note the yellow highlight in ,the red framed box, which clearly states that Pre-K children are not included in the state's October 1, 2003 count. 11/20/2003 17:23 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE You raised questions regarding the changes in Landmark and Bates Pre--Kt otals. The Pre-K program at Landmark is not a District program\ntherefore, those 31 students are excluded from the revised report. Bates has two District Pre-K classes with a tot.al enrollment of 36 students. The 16 students excluded from the revised report are enrolled in a Headstart class. We appreciate your attention to the details of this report. Hopefully, this clears up any confusion regarding student enrollment. Sincerely, Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education cc: Dr. Don Henderson Karl Brown Sam Jones PAGE 03/03 f:!ulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 School/Grade 01 Adkins Elementary PK* K 1 2 3 4 5 SCHOOL TOT AL 03 Baker lnterdistrict K 1 2 3 4 5 SCHOOL TOTAL 02 Crystal Hill Magnet PK* K 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCHOOL TOT AL White Black Male Female Male Female 6003090 4 ~ 2 6 /3 7 14 5 12 7 10 8 7 5 7 10 15 6 10 4 5 8 4 8 11 9 ~  ~ ~ ~IOI~ ~ //!~ 6003092 26 24 4 9 17 22 7 6 21 19 4 7 24 15 5 4 21 13 8 6 16 13 1 6 125\n?~/106 29 (s,138 6003093 14 .\n24, 12 12 ~\" 14 36 20 30 20 33 24 29 24 41 22 26 34 26 21 22 25 23 24 34 26 24 20 28 29 26 19 21 20 223\n:f.S 162 202 ~9-/192 05 Bayou Meto Elementary K 6003094 27 28 0 1 3 1 0 0 Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCHOOLT OTAL Page 1 of 8 41 28 33 35 40 35 33 36 31 36 0 1 205-\u0026gt;/o4 199 5 1/ RECEIVED NOV7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING Other GRADE Percentages Male Female TOTAL ~ Black 1 I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 1 1 c:P----'! 5 4 2 3 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 10 ~~ 13 0 c\nl.. 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 4 2 3 i Q ~ _\nl\n)..g 20 \u0026lt;\n-5,,h\u0026gt; 38 30 38 27 32 29 V 214 48.13% 51.87% 72 57 56 49 49 38 321 79.13% 20.87%.__ 54 ..i/8?0 107 112 127 96 111 106 88 ....- 801 50.81% 49.19% Date: 10/29/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 42 Clinton Magnet School 6003095 PK* 16 .? 15 15 37 22 2 .,\nl. 0 70 ~~7. K 22 23 36 27 1 0 109 1 25 22 26 22 0 5 100 2 11 16 16 20 3 1 67 3 20 11 29 20 1 1 82 4 22 18 21 19 5 4 89 5 26 23 34 33 0 i 118 V SCHOOL TOT AL 142 ~10128 177_aJ./ 0 163 12\nP. 13 635 46.46% 53.54% 11 Dupree Elementary 6003099 K 21 8 16 10 1 2 58 1 19 22 18 7 1 2 69 2 16 11 11 7 0 0 45 3 14 16 8 7 0 0 45 4 13 19 11 10 1 0 54 5 17 11 8 14 2 3 55 ...... SCHOOL TOTAL 100 1\u0026amp;1 87 72 ,~1 55 5 ,~ 7 326 ~% 38.96% 15 Harris Elementary 6003102 PK* 2 6 6 u 4 0 ( 0 18 5t,?. K 3 2 13 21 0 0 39 1 2 3 19 14 0 0 38 2 4 2 11 13 0 1 31 3 6 0 5 11 0 0 22 4 2 1 16 11 0 0 30 5 1 1 14 15 1 Q 32 .... SCHOOL TOTAL 20 ~~ 15 84 /'?~ 89 1 ~ 1 210 17.62% 82.38% 18 Jacksonville Elementary 6003103 K 12 16 28 21 2 3 82 1 28 13 25 22 3 4 95 2 20 9 29 21 2 1 82 3 13 15 19 20 2 3 72 4 17 12 23 17 3 3 75 5 ~ 1. 23 ~ 26 1 i 76 SCHOOL TOTAL 99 11~ 80 147 J, 127 13 ~1 16 482 43.15% 56.85/.\n21 Landmark Elementary 6003104 PK* 7 (, 9 4 1-11/ 0 1 0 31 ~'\n\u0026gt;-7. K 18 17 14 9 0 0 58 1 10 14 13 13 0 0 50 2 14 6 11 12 0 3 46 3 11 16 12 11 0 0 50 4 8 16 10 14 1 1 50 5 9 12 10 11 Q 1 43 - SCHOOL TOTAL 11 J/$1 90 74 ,~~ 80 2 1 5 328 53.05% -46.95% Page 2 of 8 Date: 10/29/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 22 Lawson Elementary 6003105 K 20 18 3 6 0 0 47 1 26 19 3 5 0 0 53 2 17 18 5 3 0 0 43 3 15 17 7 3 0 0 42 4 21 12 3 4 0 1 41 5 10 o\u0026gt;t 11 4 1 Q Q 29 ...- SCHOOL TOTAL 109 ~ 95 2s ~o 25 0 1 255 80.39% 19.61% , 23 Tolleson Elementary 6003106 K 19 14 7 8 0 49 1 24 16 8 17 2 4 71 2 11 14 7 5 1 2 40 3 20 18 5 14 1 2 60 4 22 12 11 10 3 0 58 5 18 14 10 H. I Q 63 SCHOOL TOT AL 114\n..o~8 8 48 ,,l( 68 14 a:~ 9 341 65.98% 34.02-% 28 Oak Grove Elementary 6003108 PK* 21 ..l/1 28 10 Ii 9 1 .JI 3 72 ~,/4 K 28 14 2 9 1 1 55 1 20 19 8 7 0 0 54 2 14 21 6 2 1 0 44 3 20 9 6 1 0 0 36 4 13 15 8 3 2 1 42 5 6 17 8 8 0 40 6 12 18 6 5 0 42 .,.,, SCHOOL TOTAL ~,a1G !,!! 54 'f6 44 7 ,~ 5 385 74.55% 25.45% 31 Robinson Elementary 6003110 K 17 11 5 4 3 3 43 1 18 26 7 6 2 4 63 2 21 20 12 8 4 3 68 3 18 21 12 13 2 0 66 4 26 14 8 7 4 0 59 5 24 0 14 12 j]_ 1 1 65 - SCHOOL TOT AL 124 a.~ 106 56 ,01 51 16 ~1 11 364 70.60% 29.40% 34 Scott Elementary School 6003111 K 8 8 1 2 1 0 20 1 9 7 1 1 0 0 18 2 6 4 1 0 0 0 11 3 11 8 2 1 0 0 22 4 12 4 1 1 0 0 18 5 I f. f. J Q Q 14 - SCHOOL TOT AL 53 i~ 33 8 It., 8 1 0 103 84.47% 15.53% Page 3 of 8 Date: 10/29/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female ~ ~ Male Female TOTAL White Black 37 Sherwood Elememtary 6003112 K 27 21 20 9 1 1 79 1 16 19 7 10 0 0 52 2 23 31 7 9 0 0 70 3 26 18 12 11 0 1 68 4 21 23 8 16 0 0 68 5 14 24 ~ 9 1 \u0026gt;I Q 56 ...... SCHOOL TOTAL 127 ~'?\u0026gt; 136 62 1?J~ 64 2 2 393 67.94% 32.06% 39 Sylvan Hills Elementary 6003113 K 23 19 7 16 2 1 68 1 15 14 13 12 0 0 54 2 17 28 8 16 2 0 71 3 18 16 16 10 0 3 63 4 16 18 13 13 2 2 64 5 14 O 12 10 o 16 Q J 55 ~ SCHOOL TOT AL 103 ~\\ 107 67 ,~ 83 6 /? 9 375 60.00% 40.00% 19 Jacksonville Middle School 6003116 6 92 88 80 66 4 4 334 7 99 87 78 67 . J 339 SCHOOL TOTAL 191 lfa~175 158 d-11 133 9 I~ 7 673 -56-.76% 43.24/4 48 Jacksonville Jr High 6003117 8 97 97 66 74 6 5 345 9 86 97 75 68 1 J 333 ...... SCHOOL TOTAL 183 i1 1 194 141 \")i\"':\u0026gt;14 2 10 I~ 8 678 58.26% 41.74% 13 Fuller iddle School 6003120 6 60 54 57 65 4 2 242 7 62 56 70 67 1 1 257 8 45 ~ 47 52 52 J 1 200 ...... SCHOOL TOTAL .!EJ ill 179 ~~~ 184 8 ,~ 4 699 48.07% 51.93% 40 Sylvan Hills Middle School 6003122 6 84 82 66 71 7 4 314 7 104 78 53 67 6 5 313 8 94 77 57 ~ 61 . 1 298 282 ~\\~ 237 ~I ..... SCHOOL TOT AL 176 31 199 18 13 925 59.46% 40.54% 20 Jacksonville Sr High 6003123 10 81 103 60 68 0 0 312 11 89 67 48 52 0 0 256 12 69 ~ 65 55 58 Q Q 247 163 ~\n.JI1 18 ...... SCHOOL TOTAL -239 ~') -235 0 0 0 815 58.16% 41.84% Page 4 of 8 Date: 10/29/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Mfil!! Female TOTAL White Black 47 Mills University High 6003125 9 65 63 89 82 3 1 303 10 51 61 59 59 0 3 233 11 45 42 63 60 1 3 214 12 54 4 43 52 ~ 54 .f. .f. 207  SCHOOL TOTAL 215){, ~ 263 '- 1 255 6 15 9 957 -45.87% 54.13% 29 Oak Grove Jr/Sr High 6003126 7 62 38 23 29 2 2 156 8 41 32 28 29 3 1 134 9 61 41 34 17 1 2 156 10 37 37 20 19 1 2 116 11 49 34 22 16 2 1 124 12 44 46 20 15 1 1 129 v SCHOOL TOT AL 294~~E! -147 ~1~1-25 12 ~I 9 815 -66.63% ~% 32 Robinson Sr. High 6003127 9 54 53 51 42 2 3 205 10 59 51 52 31 0 0 193 11 48 47 28 46 0 0 169 12 33 41 22 17 Q 1 114 194 ]'6~192 153 .?g~ 136 ....... SCHOOL TOTAL 2 lA 4 681 ~%~% 41 Sylvan Hills Sr High 6003128 9 98 73 76 81 12 4 344 10 93 70 56 66 9 3 297 11 87 71 56 56 3 6 279 12 71 87 38 37 1 2 236 ....... SCHOOL TOTAL 349 t.,d' 301 226 4~~240 25 ~o 1s 1156 ~%~% 45 Cato Elementary 6003129 K 22 11 6 4 0 0 43 1 12 22 7 8 0 1 50 2 25 27 9 9 1 2 73 3 23 20 5 7 2 1 58 4 18 20 8 11 1 3 61 5 14 19 8 . 1 1 51 .,,, SCHOOL TOTAL 114 ~\":?)11! 43 9o 47 5 ,~ 8 336 -73.21% ~% 46 Pinewood Elementary 6003130 K 14 27 13 14 0 1 69 1 15 16 16 10 4 3 64 2 21 20 8 17 2 1 69 3 20 14 15 14 1 1 65 4 14 17 6 16 1 0 54 5 30 17 .1I ,~13 Q ,4 Q 77 -- SCHOOL TOTAL 114 ~~\n!11 75 84 8 6 398 60.05% -39.95% Date: 10/29/2003 Page 5 of 8 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 08 College Station Elementary 6003135 K 7 3 13 10 0 1 34 1 1 5 10 10 1 0 27 2 6 3 5 5 0 0 19 3 12 11 6 8 1 1 39 4 16 10 15 9 1 1 52 5 I .11. 1.. 15 1 1 52 .,,.-- SCHOOL TOTAL 49 q3 44 65 ),,~ 57 4 '3 4 223 45.29% 54.71% 49 North Pulaski High 6003136 9 85 67 55 38 4 4 253 10 63 64 33 34 6 5 205 11 68 52 47 39 6 2 214 12 83 49 26 33 1  197 .,,.-- SCHOOL TOTAL 299 ~~\\ 232 161 ac!\u0026gt;144 17 ~~ 16 869 64.90% 35.10% 27 Arnold Drive Elementary 6003137 K 18 20 12 4 4 1 59 1 14 18 7 9 5 5 58 2 20 18 5 9 1 2 55 3 15 15 6 14 2 3 55 4 16 20 7 4 3 4 54 5 11 10 8  1  40 --- SCHOOL TOTAL 94 19':2101 45 ~o 45 16 ,~ 20 321 71.96% 28.04% 17 Oakbrooke Elementary 6003139 K 32 16 4 5 2 2 61 1 24 12 9 4 1 3 53 2 21 20 8 11 2 1 63 3 13 19 12 6 0 1 51 4 15 20 4 9 2 0 50 5 26 ~ 20 10 g 1  72 .__ SCHOOL TOT AL 131 ,:~ 107 41 C:,I 44 i ~, 13 350 74.00% 26.00% 36 Northwood Middle School 6003140 6 78 77 31 40 3 1 230 7 76 55 42 24 7 2 206 8 81 78 36 \u0026gt;j 31  1 232  SCHOOL TOTAL 235 J/ 1210 109 ~\" 95 15 ,~4 668 -69.46% 30.54% Page 6 of 8 Date: 10/29/2003 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL White Black 51 Murrell Taylor Elementary 6003141 K 17 15 14 20 2 0 68 1 16 14 15 12 0 1 58 2 13 11 14 13 0 0 51 3 14 13 11 16 1 2 57 4 16 12 15 8 1 0 52 5 22 10 1!! 20 1 1 72 ....... SCHOOL TOT AL i 1'73 ~ l ,1~ l ~ 9 ~ J.M. 50.84% 49.16% 52 Pine Forest Elementary 6003142 K 29 32 5 11 2 1 80 1 35 26 11 10 2 2 86 2 35 34 10 6 2 0 87 3 29 24 14 5 0 1 73 4 32 34 7 7 1 2 83 5 20 17 7 7 0 0 51 6 35 18 8 14 1 1 77 SCHOOL TOT AL 215 .\u0026gt;Jc$\u0026gt;1 85 62 ,._\n,.. 60 8 16 7 537 77.28% 22.72%- 50 Robinson Middle School 6003143 6 67 45 26 24 1 2 165 7 52 41 34 20 3 5 155 8 67 43 37 35 i Q 184 SCHOOL TOT AL 186 i15 129 97 (/~ 79 6 /?\nI 7 504 65.08% 34.92% 53 Bates Elementary 6003146 PK* 11\n).\n. 11 14\n:i.-5 11 4 ~ 1 52 ..\n?I. K 24 22 28 18 1 0 93 1 18 24 23 20 1 1 87 2 29 15 28 17 1 1 91 3 19 20 21 24 2 2 88 4 29 19 21 20 2 2 93 5 16 ~ 19 23 ~ 21 1~ ~\"? J 84 i.-- SCHOOL TOTAL 146 ~1 130 158 ,,.Y\u0026gt;1 31 10 588 -50-.85% 49.15% Page 7 of 8 Date: 10/29/2003 '  Pulaski County Special School District Enrollment for 1 October 2003 White Black Other GRADE Percentages School/Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female TOTAL ~ ~ TOT AL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT 15 ....- PK* 75 83 67 77 9 6 317 54.57% 45.43' K 484 394 293 265 31 27 1,494 1 448 413 290 255 25 42 1,473 2 446 414 259 252 29 24 1,424 3 437 376 256 253 20 23 1,365 4 430 397 269 251 36 28 1,411 5 381 355 283 309 25 37 1,390 6 454 402 295 305 23 14 1,493 ELEMENTARY 3,080 2,751 1,945 1,890 189 195 10,050 61.84% 38.16% TOTALS W/O PRE-K ELEMENTARY s, ,9 .....-- TOTALS WITH PRE-K ~ 2,834 2,012 1,967 198 201 10,367 61.62% 38.38/4 7 455 355 300 274 24 18 1,426 8 425 374 276 282 24 12 1,393 9 449 394 380 328 26 17 1,594 10 384 386 280 277 16 13 1,356 11 386 313 264 269 12 12 1,256 12 354 331 213 214 ?. 11 1,130 SECONDARY ..J,~t:\u0026gt;(p 3)351 I~\nl., - TOTALS 2.453 2,153 1.713 1,644 109 83 8,155 58.84% 41.16% DISTRICT TOTALS ~ 4,904 W/O PRE-K ~ ~ 298 278 ~ ~% ~% DISTRICT TOTALS WITH PRE-K 307 284 18,522 ~% IMPORTANT NOTES: PK PRE K' CHILDREN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATE'S OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT COUNT FOR THE PULASK COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT THE ALPHA ACADEMY WAS NOT REPORTED, BECAUSE THE STUDENTS WERE COUNTED AS PART OF THE SCHOOL WHICH THEY WOULD NORMALLY ATTEND. Page 8 of 8 Date: 10/29/2003 Ms Margie L Powell PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Sixteen Year Enrollment Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring The highlighting in this section indicates that a school is outside the ra,pa baa guidelines for the year: blue highlighting shows that the proportion of black students is above the maximum guideline, while yellow hig fighting show that the proportion of black students is below the minimum. According to PCSSD 's Pupil Personnel Department, the October 199 e rollmentfig res the district submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education were too high and, therefore, inaccurate. Despite asserti , the u bers repo tedfor October 1, 1992 remain the official tally for 1992-93. Beginning in 1994-9 5 for reporting purpos , the PCSSD counte tuden a result, the individual secondary school otals reflect more #ude s than tend g the alternative school in the student's home school enrollment. As ua y attended eaczh school. For the 1998-99 school year, the PC$S collected and reported its e rollme tin only two categories   ad of the three established categories (Black, White, and Other). he district also too!o its 1998- enrollment c nt on Octobe.l~E-im-temt7J}\"-f ~ The PCSSD reorganized the grade s-truc re at some ofi schools for the 1997-98 scho  In 1997-98, the district reorganized the 'ksonvil junior highs (grades 7-9). ac o 8-9, and Jacksonville Junior High orth be cam middle school, serving grades result, 6'h graders from seven elementary schools (Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jackso  , inewood, and Taylor) were reas gne to Jacksonville Middle School.  In 2001-02, the district converted Fuller, Northwood, Robinson, and Sylv. Ji,' s j nior highs into middle schools, which moved most remaining elementary 6'h graders into middle schools and 9'h graders into senior highs. Some sc qols were not affected by the 2001-02 reorganization: Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest elementaries continued serving grades K-6\nJacksonville Middle, grades 6-7\nJacksonville Junior, grades 8-9\nJacksonville High, grades 10-12\nand Oak Grove Junior/Senior High, grades 7-12. As a result of the reorganizations, some schools had population shifts in 1997-98, others changed in 2001-02, and a few schools were not affected at all by either reorganization. In the chart below, the symbol  denotes the year in which a school's student population was affected by the district's conversion to middle schools. School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Adkins Elem Black 163 149 130 136 153 153 155 125 119 117 133 119 133 158 137 111 White 223 216 226 209 262 254 236 215 190 164 166 124 130 110 100 101 Other 6 4 7 5 4 6 3 3 2 3 3 3 9 2 Total 386 371 360 352 420 411 397 343 312  283 299 246 266 271 246 214 ./ % Blk 42 40 36 39 36 37 39 36 38 41 44 48 50 58 56 52  Page C-1 PCSSD Enrollment School I 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Arnold Drive Elem Black 61 71 65 57 69 81 94 93 83 85 92 100 104 831 86 90 'white 310 306 338 346 310 253 263 281 296 298 300 270 303 247: 195 f--- 260 Other 10 8 5 11 14 18 6 2 8 26 33 37 29 36 ------\n- Total 371 387 411 408 390 348 375 380 381 391 392 396 440  380 362 --z9t- %Blk 16 18 16 14 18 23 25 24 22 22 23 25 24 22 24 28 Baker Elem Black 58 79 86 67 75 74 72 85 75 65 60 55 50 45 45 67 (lnterdistrict school) -- -- ~ White 248 215 205 201 208 220 231 232 239 250 275 280 269 227 219 231 -Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 --- 1 4 1 1 0 1 7 23 --+-- Total 306 294 291 268 283 294 304 318 318 316 335 336 319  273 271 321 301 I 241 I I 18 I ---j I % Blk 19 27 25 27 25 27 24 21 16 16 16 I 171 21 - Bates Elem Black 364 329 291 350 307 270 289 I 273 252 263 243 214 400 322 313 I 289 (Includes a specialty prog.) ,__. Whrte 379 358 3391 382 369 329 260 I 212 211 199 181 156 350 281 j 282 -.!-r9- Old Bates closed after ~ 1999-00\nt he new Bates, Other 11 8 5 4 0 1 0 1 4 1 5 14 I I 13 23 which combined the Total 743 698 638, 737 680 599 550 485 464 I 466 424 371 755  617 I 608 588 students from old Bates v and Fuller Elem, opened for %Blk 49 47 46 47 45 45 53 56 54 56 57 58 53 52 51 49 Bayou Meto Elem Black 15 11 14 10 8 7 7 10 16 16 15 12 15 18 12 11 f--- -- -- I Enrollment affected by I White 583 587 581 599 638 641 611 608~ 585 567 521 529 436 427 404 middle school conversion r--- beginning with 1997-98 ~ther 4 1 2, 2 \u0026lt; 21 1 17 10 13 51 12 18 12 23 when some 6\"' graders ~--598 I 614 I - 602 596 611 648 649 639 I 635 628 582 538 556  472 451 438 transferred to middle I I schools. % Blk 3 2 21 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3  Cato Elem Black I 115 139 156 142, 136 125 121 119 I 118 116 I 141 I 149 136 90 103 90 White I 519 516 498 519, 510 443 I 399 431 I 415 406 369 I 361 362 297 263 233 Other I I 1 1 2 4 1 3 2 9 7 14 I 13 I 14 15 13 Total I 634 656 655 663[ 650 569 523 552 542 I 529 510 524 I 511 +401 I 381 I 336 %Blk I 18 21 24 21 21 22 23 22 22 22 I 28 28 27 I 221 27 I 27 Page C-2 PCSSD Enrollment School I 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Clinton Elem ~ck I ! I 325 I 329 345 382 397 378 352 328 333 340 (lnterdistricst chool) - - White I 321 I 317 374 344 327 353 347 295 251 270 - ... - Opened for the 1994-95 Other i I 15 15 20 21 28 27 22 24 25 school year. 1--- -- I---- Total I 661 661 739 747 724 759 726  645 I 608 635 f----- + - I I ._ % Blk 49 50 47 51 55 50 48 51 55 54 College Station Elem Black 100 96 105 105 109 111 135 I 128 134 I 124 136 133 94 110 146 122 (Includes a specialty White 88 141 171 203 213 164 177 I 177 179 157 165 118 I 125 97 95 93 program) 21 41 10 : al : Other 5 31 4 2 4 9 8 10 7 8 I Total 188 242, 279, 310 326 277 316 309 323 289 301 260 227  217 248 I 223 I % Blk I 53 40 38 341 33 40 43 41 41 I 43 45 51 l 41 51 59 55 Crystal Hill Elem Black 307 321 352 367 359 365 369 382 354 372 360 394 (lnterdistricst chool) White  I  467 425 435 416 416 381 377 399 396 361 393 385 Opened for 1992-93 school --+ ~ +--- year. Other 2 0 4 7 3 3 8 6 11 11 22 Total 776 746 791 790 778 749 746 789 756 744 764 801 -- I % Blk 40 43 45 46 46 49 49 48 47 50 47 49 Dupree Elem Black 93 93 86 103 104 93 97 119 113 91 103 114 90 104 109 127 I--- - White 395 351 312 319 337 322 322 337 316 266 238 227 209 1-85 207 187 Other 26 16 9 17 13 16 6 9 13 18 17 14 13 12 +-- - Total 488 470 414 431 458 428 435 462 438  370 341 359 316 303 329 326 % Blk 19 20 21 24 23 22 22 26 26 25 30 32 28 34 33 39 Fuller Elem Black 354 334 314 308 298 296 248 216 222 237 210 230 - .. - - (Includes a specialty White 256 252 246 221 226 177 183 165 149 152 150 174 program) --+ + Other 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 Closed after the 1999-00 ----+--- -- school year\nstudents Total 610 587 560 529 524 473 431 381 375 393 360 409 - +- - !- reassigned to Bates. %Blk 58 57 56 58 57 63 58 57 59 60 58 56 Page C-3 PCSSD Enrollment School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 I 94-95 I Harris Elem Black 220 197 200 205 216 226 144 Enrollmenta ffected by White 467 4331 413 395 327 253 I 185 middle school conversion beginning with 1997-98 Other 3 3 5 3 0 2 when some 6th graders Total 687 633 616 605 546 479 331 transferred to middle schools. % Blk 32 31 32 34 40 47 44 Jacksonville Elem Black 264 254 232 230 232 234 281 White 535 530 566 600 604 514 453 Other 12 19 14 11 15 25 Total 799 796 817 844 847 763 759 %Blk 33 32 28 27 27 31 37 Landmark Elem Black 294 264 260 231 240 228 213 (Includes a specialty White 333 298 306 291 278 270 286 program) Other 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 627 563 566 522 518 498 499 % Blk 47 47 46 44 46 46 43 Lawson Elem Black 54 63 53 53 45 49 69 White 302 271 292 278 276 255 236 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 356 334 345 331 321 304 305 % Blk 15 19 15 16 14 16 23 Oak Grove Elem Black 65 69 79 69 111 107 94 White 490 503 493 445 358 331 338 Other 0 1 1 0 0 3 Total 555 572 573 515 469 438 435 %Blk 12 12 14 13 24 24 22 95-96 96-97 97-98 I 98-99 I 99-00 161 161 147 146 139 158 135 121 94 73 6 7 8 4 325 303 276 240 216 50 53 53 61 64 311 305 271 294 261 427 416 309 299 213 14 10 12 12 752 731  592 593 486 41 I 42 46 50 54 200 219 209 198 160 284 285 252 240 190 0 0 1 1 484 504 462 438 351 41 43 45 45 46 60 47 40 42 39 248 247 241 229 207 0 0 0 2 308 294 281 271 248 19 16 14 15 16 103 101 90 98 108 346 316 337 316 285 2 4 4 11 451 421 431 414 404 23 24 21 24 27 00-01 01-02 135 110 89 60 7 1 231  171 58 64 302 298 257 266 3 15 562 579 I 54 51 186 173 226 193 8 4 420  370 44 47 46 44 216 186 0 3 262  233 18 19 99 93 313 289 11 7 423 389 23 24 02-03 118 I 54 0 172 69 259 211 25 495 52 147 188 5 340 43 46 211 1 258 18 109 279 6 394 28 03-04 173 35 2 210 82 274 179 29 482 57 154 167 7 328 47 50 204 1 255 20 98 275 12 385 25   \\ Page C-4 PCSSD Enrollment School I 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93.94 94.95 95-96 I 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Oakbrooke Elem Black 161 1721 139 114 108 123 100 104 I 110 111 120 102 120 105 103 91 5201 I White 500 505 514 483 474 I 348 1 344 \\ 335 346 358 286 240 195 193 238 - ..__ l- I I I 11 I Other 1 0 1 3 1 7 8 11 2 2 6 10 21 Total 661 678 659 629 592 600 449 455 453 468 478 390 362  306 306 350 -- - --+ %Blk 24 25 21 18 18 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 33 34 34 26 Pine Forest Elem Black 83 90 97 98 104 91 88 102 98 95 111 115 96 96 110 122 White 511 - 534 579 559 414 343 I 3661 390 348 378 377 389 I 358 367 365 400 I I I Other 1 1 1 al 0 1 61 10 I 17 16 19 14 13 15 Total 596 625 6771 658 518 434 \\ 455 \\ 498 I 456 490 488 520 473 477 488 537 - % Blk 14 141 14 15 20 21 I 19 20 21 19 I 23 22 20 20 23 23  Pinewood Elem Black 158 168 169 173 188 178 160 177 191 169 156 151 159 164 155 159 -- White 519 443 447 452 408 394 376 385 340 279 274 256 249 232 234 225 - -- -, -- Other 3 3 6 23 8 13 17 12 12 9 10 17 12 14 --- Total 677 614 619 631 619 580 549 579 543  460 430 416 418 413 401 398 -- -- -- -- %Blk 23 27 27 27 30 31 29 31 35 37 36 36 38 40 39 40 Robinson Elem Black 95 97 97 100 104 98 84 96 80 94 86 72 102 82 101 107 f--- White 379 352 335 339 310 312 303 291 302 308 305 296 293 262 261 230 -- --- Other 1 1 4 6 1 ___2J 0 0 1 2 4 7 18 27 r -- --- Total 474 450 433 443 420 411 388 387 382 403 391 370 399  351 380 364 %Blk 20 22 22 23 25 24 22 25 21 23 22 19 26 23 27 29 Scott Elem Black 71 75 71 69 67 50 51 49 45 50 52 47 48 39 25 16 White 142 128- 136 136 123 97 107 87 82 67 87 95 94 90 96 86 Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Total 213 203 207 205 191 147 158 136 127 117 139 142 142  129 124 103 %Blk 33 37 34 34 35 34 32 36 35 43 37 33 34 30 20 16 Page C-5 PCSSD Enrollment School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94.95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Sherwood Elem Black 122 123 109 116 1161 115 108 126 106 97 113 115 130 93 115 126 I I I I White 444 395 339, 326 372 334 347 334 308 I 283 277 281 242 2231 223 263 I I I - Other 0 0 1 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 4 5 4 4 f--- - Total 566 518 448 443 490 450 459 463 416 381 390 397 376  321 342 393 - %Blk 22 24 24 26 24 26 24 27 25 25 29 29 35 29 34 32 V Sylvan Hills Elem Black 125 138 125 126 130 157 90 109 101 112 133 104 144 114 153 150 - ____, ...---- White 611 607 669 621 598 518 329 331 310 297 277 248 282 206 210 210 --t Other 10 8 8 7 10 5 4 11 4 6 9 16 14 15 I---- ~ Total 736 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 413 410 358 435  336 377 375 f--- %Blk 17 18 161 17 181 23 21 25 24 27 32 29 33 34 41 40 Taylor Elem ~ck 112 107 130 112 1081 122 141 149 165 155 132 124 139 141 165 176 3o81 I White 329 346 3371 306 264 266 I 270 230 I 261 218 230 212 192 I 186 173 '-- I I I I I I I Other 2 11 5 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3, 11 9 I I I I I I I Total 441 455 4681 423 420 388 409 420 I 397  417 350 355 353 3361 362 358 35 I 42 l - %Blk 25 24 28 26 26 31 34 37 38 35 39 42 46 49 Tolleson Elem Black 84 83 126 137 136 127 124 I 115 128 120 124 86 101 92 121 116 I -+- White 457 442 4261 418 425 405 374 429 402 347 338 283 286 2481 202 202 rther I 8'. 53: i .,\nI ---\u0026lt;\" I 271 141 11 01 0 27 I 23 26 23 I 16 23 I +--- I Total 541 5521 566 566 569 544 530 494 462 392 413  363 339 341 \u0026gt;-- 161 I ---t % Blk 15 22 24 24 24 25 21 24 24 27 22 24 25 36 34 Sub Total - Elem Black 3,231 3,201 3,1341 3,111 I 3,471 I 3,436 3,642 I 3,726 3,693 3,621 3,704 3,509 3,535 3,2141 3,371 3,453 I -- White I 9,0221 8,729 8,774 8,679 8,8241 7,992 7,752 7,715 7,443 I 7,028 6,804 6,315 6,377 I 5,558 j 5,397 5,262 Other 125 92 89 1151 75 1471 121 141 I 183 208 229 I 265 278 367 Total 12,253 12,0551 12,0001 11,879 12,4101 11,503 11,541 11,562 I 11,211 I 10,832 I 10,508 10,032 10,141 9,097 9,046 9,082 %Blk 261 271 261 26 281 30 32 32 I 33 33 35 35 35 I 36 37 38 Page C-6 PCSSD Enrollment School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Alpha Academy - Black 16 17 16 16 22 21 * 36 63    Secondary White 50 48 39 31 26 27 46 70 Opened for 1992-93 school year. Relocated and Other 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 renamed during the 1998- Total 66 65 55 47 49 48 86 137 99 school year. % Blk 24 26 29 34 45 44 42 46 Fuller Middle Black 375 398 404 411 425 410 424 432 384 381 358 343 345 340 372 363 (Includes a specialty White 452 462 428 440 497 530 485 444 446 467 449 355 383 341 316 324 program) Other 5 5 12 13 9 9 7 13 13 9 7 9 4 12 Total 827 865 837 863 935 949 918 883 843 861 807 707 735  690 692 699 % Blk 45 46 48 48 45 43 46 49 46 44 44 49 47 49 54 52 Jacksonville Middle Black 128 142 181 172 184 182 195 201 244 257 273 247 271 284 281 291 Reorganized from grades 7- White 439 463 534 444 458 401 414 434 399 477 449 383 392 374 375 366 9 to grades 6-7 beginning Other 10 15 10 12 11 10 0 10 7 7 8 14 18 I 16 with 1997-98. Total 567 615 730 626 654 594 619 635 653  741 722 637 671 672 674 I 673 Blk 23 23 25 27 28 31 32 32 37 35 38 39 40 42 42 43 Jacksonville Junior Black 174 166 156 180 202 202 186 181 200 307 309 I 275 300 278 269 283 Reorganized from grades 7- White 486 444 420 403 381 355 338 323 318 453 487 447 402 390 359 377 9 to grades 8-9 beginning with 1997-98. Other 10 10 17 19 9 10 8 11 15 5 1 4 12 18 6601 I Total 620 586 600, 602 566 534 512 529 775 I 796 727 703 672 640 678 261 I % Blk 27 27 30 34 36 35 35 38 40 39 38 43 41 42 42 Jacksonville High Black 266 237 283 282 296 290 327 368 322 314 325 341 306 340 348 341 (Includes a specialty White 920 821 817 743 727 660 641 614 642 648 626 I 559 551 542 502 474 program) I Other 23 50 26 0 17 24 16 14 17 I 20 14 15 7 0 Total I 1,1861 1,081 1,150 1,051 1,023 967 992 998 I 978 979 951 920 871 I 897 I 857 815 % Blk 22 22 25 271 29 30 33 37 33 32 34 37 35 38 I 41 42 * At the time the district collected its October 1998-99 enrollment data, no students were assigned to the alternative school because the district was in the process ofrelocating it. **According to PCSSD data, the district did not report the number of students enrolled in the Alpha Academy because the students were counted as part of the school which they normally attend.  / Page C-7 PCSSD Enrollment School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 Mills High Black 322 309 300 291 279 276 333 359 (Includes a specialty White 463 397 3831 344 342 289 351 383 program) Other 4 2 4 61 6 10 10 I--- Total 785 710 685 639 627 571 694 752 %Blk 41 44 44 46 44 48 48 48 North Pulaski High Black 145 146 154 170 182 178 215 206 White 721 666 634 647 640 647 601 599 - Other 10 11 11 15 13 28 11 - Total 866 822 799 828 837 838 844 816 '-- 171 I 191 25 I I % Blk 18 21 22 21 25 Northwood Middle Black 168 183 191 214 236 221 230 232 White 746 772 7421 729 690 711 731 736 f--- I I Other 10 7, 10 13 16 14 15 +--- Total 914 965 940 953 939 948 975 983 %Blk 18 19 20 22 25 23 24 24 Oak Grove Junior and Black 116 160 223 210 215 217 213 244 Senior High White 820 822 801 715 695 652 622 I 643 ~ 11 31 1 51 0 7 12 I I I 1,027 1 869 I 899 I Total 936 9831 926 915 842 -- I I %Blk 12 16 22 23 23 25 25 27 Robinson Middle Black ! 88 126 115, 108 110 132 I 133 111 I White 395 4261 353: 323 3011 353 I 339 356 I Other I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 4831 5521 468 1 I 431 4111 485 472 468 I % Blk I 18\\ 23 251 25 211 27 28 I 24 I 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 400 366 321 264 216 425 391 395 368 305 11 9 11 70 836 766 716 643 591 48 48 45 ' 41 37 202 206 186 183 197 570 601 547 546 441 15 14 20 30 -,. 787 821 733 749 668 I 26 25 25 24 29 218 189 189 201 211 678 617 604 576 554 22 25 29 26 918 I 831 793 806 791 I 24 23 24 25 27 226 204 203 209 212 681 661 644 614 623 -----4 12 15 10 13 919 880 847 833 848 25 23 24 25 25 113 136 138 104 144 321 I I 323 332 I 348 333 I 1 0 1 31 435 I 459 470 453 480 26 I 30 I 29 23 30 01-02 437 I 499 1 30  966 45 275 ~ 655 38  968 28 221 I 509 22  752 I 29 233 606 I 15 8541 27 159 I 341 I 51  505 I 31 I 02-03 03-04 467 518 447 424 14 15 - 928 957 - 50 54 273 305 568 531 41 33 882 869 -+-- 31 35 201 204 477 445 19 19 697 668 - 29 31 243 272 - 553 522 I 20 21 816 815 30 33 143 176 - 300 315 8 13 451 504 32 35 V / Page C-8 ' . PCSSD Enrollment School I 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 I 01-02 02-03 03-04 Robinson High ~ck 95 93 1101 105 113 871 81 90 I 122 122 I 118 123 I 1131 1871 207 289 I I I I White 352L 363 356 306 294 267 244 270 316 298 I 316 297 332 430 403 386 f-- -I-- Other 1 0 1 1 o' 0 1 1 3 2L- 41 21 2 6 ~ 447 457 466 412 408 354 325 361 439 423 434 422 449  619 612 681 +--- 1/oB lk 21 20 24 25 28 25 25 25 28 29 27 29 25 30 34 42 Sylvan Hills Middle Black I 218 219 227 199 229 243 224 255 289 257 315 284 331 372 344 375 White 781 762 7201 749 694 669 616 592 577 606 622 592 l 567 518 506 519 - I I I I Other I 1 95~1 5 9 7 8 11 I 5 al 11 15 201 28 31 - 999 1 Total 982: 953 932 9191 848 858 I 871 871 937 887 913 +910 I 878 925 - 25 1 26 I --\n-t % Blk 22 22 24 21 26 30 33 30 34 36 41 I 39 41 Sylvan Hills High Black 163 170 212 198 192 209 219 225 217 211 207 207 199 320 389 466 (Includes a specialty White 785 724 741 698 678 584 583 571 581 563 516 526 513 728 704 650 program) --+-- -t- Other 6 4 5 4 5 11 11 12 11 3 0 7 17 40 r Total 948 900 957 901 874 798 813 807 810 785 723 736 712  1,055 1,110 1,156 l--- %Blk 17 19 22 22 22 26 27 28 27 27 29 28 28 30 35 40 Sub Total - Sec. Black 2,258 2,349 2,556 2,540 2,679 2,664 2,780 2,904 2,937 2,950 2,942 2,817 2,908 3,446 - 3,537 3,883 White 7,360 7,122 6,929 6,541 6,447 6,166 5,965 5,965 5,954 6,105 5,987 5,657 5,466 5,933 5,510 5,333 \u0026gt;--- j--- Other 81 112 102 97 93 131 103 127 137 I 132 195 181 190 224 r--- Total 9,618 9,552 9,597 9,183 9,223 8,923 8,876 8,972 9,018 9,192 8,929 8,606 8,569 9,560 9,237 9,440 ~ %Blk 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 32 33 33 34 36 38 41 Grand Total Black 5,489 5,550 5,690 5,651 6,150 6,100 6,422 6,630 6,630 6,571 6,646 6,326 6,443 6,720 6,908 7,336 White 16,382 15,851 15,703 15,220 15,271 14,158 13,717 13,680 13,397 13,133 12,791 11,972 11,843 11,491 10,907 10,595 - Other 206 204 191 212 168 278 224 268 320 340 424 446 468 591 - Total 21,871 21,607 21,597 21,062 21,633 20,426 20,417 20,534 20,295 20,024 19,437 18,638 18,710 18,657 18,283 18,522 %Blk 25 26 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 33 34 34 34 36 38 40 Page C-9 -~v ~ I . ) /)/4 ' l .,,Jr__ /?~~ -\n.r. / / .) /J7 ~-/\u0026gt; 1 2/7:5 - 7 /J-- /-:J --\n}D~ / ' ~ I 1~1? - /4C:77 ~,~~ 11 I l j I 11\n, 14\nt,~ -t: 9o.~ /~ e\u0026gt;?5 I I' t!?':/4 ~?.. d . ~ I lfl I I ill i II ., I I I I I l  - - J --- - I JAN-08-0W3 E0D4 :2b PM I-AXN O. SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT January 7, 2003 HlGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 Jacksonville 780 Mills North Pulaski 900 Oal\u0026lt; Grove Jr./Sr. 935 Robinson (2additional classrooms) 556 998 Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH/MIDDLE SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACllY 945 Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle 800 Jacksonville Junior 800 Northwood Middle 964 Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) 486 300 Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle 925 ELEMENTARY SCHOO\\\n SCHOOL CAPAClTY 370 Adkins 420 Arnold Drive 330 Baker 800 Sates 660 Bayou Meto 576 Cato 833 Clinton 340 College Station 820 Crystal Hill 465 nupree 525 Harris 785 Jacksonville 568 Landmark 325 Lawson 476 Oak Grove 500 Oakbrooke 556 Pine Forest 523 Pinewood 450 Robinson 280 Scott 460 Sherwood 456 Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor 450 570 Tolleson P. 02 J.(csi ,,I 0110:\nJOJ 1-----m------------ - I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED November 13, 2003 NOV1 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mrs. Marshall: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 RECEIVED NOV1 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING Sylvan Hills Middle School, Sylvan Hills High School, and Robinson High School are not available options for M-to-M transfers for the remainder of the 2003- 2004 school year due to capacity concerns. Secondary M-to-M school options include: Jacksonville Middle School, Northwood Middle, Robinson Middle, Jacksonville Junior High, Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, and Oak Grove Jr./Sr. High. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services 0~~~ Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education From:-=/('---'---'---Return D Keep or Toss~ ( Post-ii\" 7668 C3M 1993\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_1077","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1077"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting October 2003 (\") -0 .\u0026gt; m\ntJ rr--r-..\n3: Oz o\u0026gt; E5~ m..,\ntJ C: -z\non o,--5\u0026lt; r-z (\")\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; \u0026gt; F :E\n::: m -o ,-\ntJ no On 3m: mo -c: ~~\ntJ ,- cl ~\ntJ::::I ~m z\no (\")\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; m :E m h= 0,- 3:\ntJ mm --o u,0 ..\no C: ... ooo ~...\nij ~ ~8\noz cl :3\noo ~il\nz (\") m\ntJ \u0026gt;m  -0 \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;O C:\ntJ -0 ... =-\"'!!? (\")\nti =Im \u0026gt;(\") ~g Oz ~::! fl 0 z \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\ntJ ma, ~ -\nti -0\n,_\u0026gt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;~ ..,.,z\ntJm O\no :I: \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; (\")\n=I -0 ,-.oo m z \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; I. 11. 111. IV. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING October 23, 2003 5:30 p.m PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Performance - Western Hills Choir REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Chicot Elementary School - Douglas Harrison \u0026amp; Jane Harkey UAMS College of Nursing - Dr. Cheryl Schmidt Dunbar Magnet Middle School - John Bacon Fellowship Bible Church - Rachel Morse, Patty Evans, Ray Williams Fulbright Elementary School - Rita White, Deborah Mitchell Arvest Bank - Cathy Harville LRSD Middle and High Schools - Marian Lacey Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids (PARK)- Kareem Moody \u0026amp; Tamra Patterson Woodruff Elementary School - John Callahan, Janice Wilson Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts - Ginny McMurray, Ann Chotard \u0026amp; Mary Smith C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update n-.:, .) \u0026gt;:m:0 ,,-, --\u0026lt; 3: Oz o\u0026gt; ::o::0 o-\u0026lt; m-n ::0 C: -z ::on o--\u0026lt; r-0 Z n U\u0026gt; \u0026gt; F :E\n= m-.:, ,- ::0 no On 3m:mo - C: ~~~ 0 J= ::o:::l J=m Z::0 n U\u0026gt; m :E m h= 0,.... 3: ::0 m_.m., u,0 --\u0026lt; ::0 C:--\u0026lt; OS!! m::o Zm --\u0026lt; n ~8 ,, z o::! ::00 J=~ z n m ,f,) ma, J= . ::0..,\n._\u0026gt; en~ -nz ::Om 0\nc\ncen n\n=,.., p::\nen mz en Regular Board Meeting October 23, 2003 Page2 V. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Election of Officers B. Minutes: Regular Meeting - September 25, 2003 Special Meeting - October 9, 2003 C. Resolution in Support of the City of Little Rock Bond Election D. Personnel Changes E. Annual Report: 2002-03 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Federal Award: Emergency Response Crisis Management Grant B. First Reading: Policy Revisions ACBB - Equitable Student Assignment JC - School Attendance Zones JCA - School Choice VII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Revisions to the District's Drug Testing Program VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. First Reading: Policy DGA - - Authorized Signatures B. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Refunding Bonds C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: X. XI. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions EMPLOYEE HEARINGS ADJOURNMENT \u0026gt;n -c . m\no ......... ...-... _,\n1: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ m..,\no C: -z\non o-\u0026lt; I= ~ n en \u0026gt; I= ~\n= m-c .....\n:c no On\nl:m mo - C: ~~\n:c ..... oJ\nJ:cm =1 z\n:c n en m ~ m h= 0,...\nr:\n:c m_..m,, enO -\u0026lt;\n:c C: .... ~~ z\n:c .... ~ ~8 :Oz .., =I 0 J~ zn m\n:c \u0026gt;. m..,, en o .C.,,: .\n.:.c. :-\u0026lt;!!! n\n:c =Im \u0026gt;n :::l8 Oz ~~ r\u0026gt; 0 z en\no ma, i \no \"C\n,,\n\u0026gt; en~ \"T'IZ :Cm O\no\nr: en n= =I \"C ,::::\nen mz en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME / PERFORMANCE 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS WELCOME / STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 October 23, 2003 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Chicot Elementary School and UAMS College of Nursing Dunbar Magnet Middle School and Fellowship Bible Church Fulbright Elementary School and Arvest Bank LRSD Middle and High Schools and Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids (P.A.R.K.) Woodruff Elementary School and Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts !\" 5 \":r' C \u0026gt; !D \"...' C 0 m .z. . \u0026gt; \"\"'' ~ z\nc .~.. f\u0026gt; a, C 8 !!l C \"0\" ~ m !== a, r Oi z (J o-\ng e o.... r= me (\"):z ~~... C\n,: Partners in Education Proposal Chicot Elementary School and UAMS College of Nursing Chicot Elementary School and UAMS College of Nursing have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education and health of the students at Chicot as well as the education of the UAMS nursing students. Chicot commits to the following partnership activities:  Help promote nursing as a profession to Chicot students.  Help UAMS College of Nursing meet its goal of community service.  Acknowledge UAMS College of Nursing as a Partner in Education in school publications.  Help UAMS College of Nursing students meet their learning contracts.  Help junior nursing students have a positive hands-on learning experience with children.  School nurse will spend time with nursing students who are interested in the area of school nursing. UAMS College of Nursing commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide clerical help in organizing school nurse's files.  Help at registration with immunizations.  Help with student physicals.  Donate clothing for students.  Help with translation when possible. !\" \u0026lt;a \u0026lt;J) :r C:  !l' !!l C: 0 m :!:i \u0026gt; \u0026lt;J) \u0026lt;J) ~ z\nc ~.... f\u0026gt; CD C: 8 m.... .C,,: 0 ~ m != CDC\" oc ~~ .,,:i:\n:oC or ffi~ C') :z ~~ \"t C\n, PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN DUNBAR MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL AND FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH - 2003-04 Dunbar Magnet Middle School may: 1. Have students from the Seminar class teach international games and provide international snacks to the home school elementary age students during their instruction time during Women's Bible Study on a weekday (or another group of Fellowship's choice). 2. Give individual students, representing a variety of cultures or a Dunbar advanced choral group, the opportunity to speak or perform for a gathering at the church (not on a Sunday morning). 3. Have members of the Garden Club, under the supervision of adult sponsors, weed and or plant in a designated garden area of the church to add beauty. 4. Have members of Y-T eens, under the supervision of Ms. Greenlee, participate in a service project at FBC (ex. cleaning out closets, baking, etc.). 5. Recognize Fellowship Bible Church as a Partner-in-Education in monthly school newsletters and at school functions. Fellowship Bible Church may: Building Use Support: 1. Make an area of the church available to the staff for their beginning of the year teambuilding, half-day meeting at no charge (Thursday, August 7 - 8:00- 12:30). Members of the church will also provide lunch for the staff that day, as well as a small gift (survival kits) for each staff member to express the value placed on them and the job they do. 2. Allow the mentors and mentees to use the FBC gym for several hours in January during their annual \"Fresh Start Field Trip\". Volunteers will be provided to assist with games and walklimbing, as well as to provide lunch. Mentoring/Teaching Support 3. Try to provide at least 15 mentors for students at the school. These mentors will hopefully include many who participated during the 2002-03 school year, as well as new mentors. Each mentor will make a commitment to meet with one student for 1 hour weekly to assist in tutoring, encouragement, accountability, and modeling a positive lifestyle. Experienced Fellowship mentors, in conjunction with VIPS (Volunteer's in Public Schools), will train and facilitate the mentors throughout the year. Recruitment and sign-up will be in August/September, the 2-hour training session will be in September, and mentoring will begin in October for new mentors and September for returning mentors. 4. Request that members of international short-term missions teams from the church speak to Social Studies and International Studies classes following their trips abroad, whenever possible. 5. Try to provide at least 10 counselors for the Abstinence-Based Education Program that will take place for 1 week during the school year. Volunteers will be small group leaders for a 1 %-hour session on 3 days. 6. Provide support and training for the fathers of Dunbar students, in conjunction with the Dads of Dunbar. This might be accomplished by small practical \"give-aways\" to dads during their monthly come-t~lunch dates and through 1 or 2 \"Dads of Dunbar nights\" at the schoo! where a 1 or 2-hour seminar on manhood o, fathering is provided by a teache, !D \".....'. C 0 m .z... .. \u0026gt; c\"\":'''i z\ni: mz ...... f) a, C 8 .m..... C \"0 ~ m from Fellowship, coupled with the PTA offering practical options for ways to become involved with your children. Physical Labor/Materials Support 7. Challenge members of the church to participate in several smaller-scale physically intensive projects chosen by the Dunbar administration during the SHAREFEST weekend in November. PARTICIPATION IN SHAREFEST IS YET TO BE DETERMINED, BASED ON THE ONGOING RENOVATION OF DUNBAR AND PRIOR SHAREFEST COMMITMENTS MADE BY FBC. 8. Participate in ongoing support throughout the year as small needs are transmitted (ex. food staples for the nurse, etc.) !\" \u0026lt;- 0 ~ c:: )\u0026gt; !D .u..,. c:: C m ~ )\u0026gt; u, u, c:\nz 3: .zm.. . r\u0026gt; a, c:: g .m... .c.:.:, ~.... m S@p 11 03 04:31p SEP-11-2003 15:47 Mart~~ R1t~ Whit@ ARJ EST BAH~ 501 - 36 7- SlSO Partnership Proposal Ar\"t'est Bank and Fulbright Elementary School Arn~t Bank commits to the following partnership :Activities:  MeJttoring/T\\ltoring - dedicatu,g 10- 5 employees or .:r,ore to a,me :o Fulbright once a week to help reentor and/or tutor siutJcnts  Job S'nadowU\\i  Career Da.y Speakers  VIPS Reaaing Day  41h Grace Benchmark Celebr.1t:oo - 500.00 donation  5\"' Grade Celebration - proVlde hot dogs/buns and large cooker and 110l ur.teers  provide popcorn machine and volunteers fur Fall Carn\nval  provide pizza for [irS\\ honor roll  pro.,\nde ice cream fof se::ond honor ro U  help with e,cpenses or bcation fo\n\u0026gt;kate party -:or mcrd honor roll  Accelerated Reader progi:am  'l'coV\\de ipr:akcrs for parent worlcfaops on topics such as ~vini for c:olleGC Fulbright Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities:  Acknow:edge A.rvest 9ank as~ Partner 11\\ E:i\\lcat1on  lnvne the ':\u0026gt;ank to school e\"cnts  lnvi e the b~\\\n. to sh.a.re inforroatio:i about their services at dc:signatec. PT A meetings _}'. 3 f'  C CTR P.32 !\" '- 0 \"::c' C: \u0026gt; !JI ~ C: C m z... . \u0026gt; \"\"'' c:5 z 3: .zm.. . ~ CD C: 8 .m... C: \"0 .~... m SEP-22-200$ 12 :47PM FROM-P .A.R.K ~1 ,niitmi i50156258'7 M22 P 003/003 F-110 Partners in Education Agreement P.A.R.K. gives/Schools receive:  Tutoring for 250 stu\u0026amp;.\u0026gt;nts  Positive after school environment  Academic support  Scholarships for 250 students  College \u0026amp; workforce preparation  ACT preparation  Mentors  Leadership opp01tuniries  Provide student incentives (le: high grades and improvement in clusses rewarded)  6-weck Summer Enrichment Program  Recognition of Teachers, Counselors and Staff  Community Service hours of250 students  Offer opporrunities to students for creative expressions (le: Art work, poetry, singing, talents)  Approved facility use for school faculty Schools give/P .A.R.K. receives:  Student information (le: grades, behavior, progress)  Access to statistical information  Access to test scores  Cumculum \u0026amp; Curriculum training  ACT packets  Training  Transportation support !'\" \u0026lt;a (/) :r C: \u0026gt; !ll (/) -\u0026lt; C: 0 m ~ \u0026gt; (/) (/) G'i z 3: m z -\u0026lt; r\u0026gt; tD C: 0 G) m -\u0026lt; C: \"C ~ m Partners in Education Proposal Woodruff Elementary School and Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts Woodruff Elementary School and Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts have formed a partnership through a 21 st Century Community Learning Center grant designed to enhance the education of the students at Woodruff. Woodruff commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide student artwork and projects for display.  Allow older students to usher at events.  Promote Wildwood's activities to the Woodruff community.  Gardening class will provide assistance during intercession. Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts commits to the following partnership activities:  Students and community members will be invited to attend dress rehearsals or performances of Wildwood Festival productions, including Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience and Verdi's Rigoletto in May and June of 2004. Singers involved with the productions will discuss the show and provide a backstage tour.  Young Artists will present an informance at Woodruff Elementary in the spring of 2004.  Serve as a field trip site for students and community members. Volunteer garden docents will be available to give tours of the gardens and discuss the plants.  Consult with Woodruff as needed on other arts activities that are a part of the grant program.  Display student artwork and projects. !==' ....\nc n \u0026gt; rn \u0026lt;- 0 ~ C: \u0026gt; !1' !!l C: .m0z. . \u0026gt; \"i\":'''i z 3: m .z. . ,, a, C: 8 .m.. .C.,,: 0 .\u0026gt;.. m ~n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: fDirectors FROM: onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodmanffe SUBJECT: October 2003 Construction Report - Bond Projects Bids were received on October l 0th for the additions to Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School. The low bidder's price was within the budget, and the otice of Intent To Award letter has been sent to the contractor. This project consists of a seven-classroom addition, a cafeteria addition and a new athletic field house. Bids were received on October 15th for the five-classroom addition to Brady Elementary. The bids are under review by the Director of Facility Services and the Director of Procurement. The drawings and specifications are to be completed in the ovember- December time frame for the modification, renovation and addition to Mitchell Elementary. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !\" .z... m\n,\n, ~....  c:: C ::\n0\n,\n, :,-, .... C') :zc 0  -\u0026lt; c:: ~ m  ' \u0026lt; m r-\n,\n, mo C'\u0026gt;c:: :o::!--\u0026lt; z~ ~~ ~ =l \"Tim i\"i\n,\n, men\n,\n, en C') !\"' !I:: z c..:.:. emn :\nln ~~ r- m ::o en a, i\n2 Oc:: :Z:--\u0026lt; Ci5\n:z: en cm:: CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I Est. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Baseline Renovation ___ ____ $953,520 Jul-04 Central 7Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 . Dec-05 ,_D_u_n_b_ar -------~R_en_o_v_a_tion_/addition $6,161 ,950 Aug-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J_. A_. F_air ________ ,__ dd' . $ Ir_o_om_ a_ ItIon ___ _______ 3,155,640_ __ Forest Park R eplace window units w/central HVAC $485)5-8 -- Feb-04 Oct-03 Mabelvale MS Renovation ____ ______ $6,851 ,621 Dec-03 Mann Partial Replacement ______ $11~500~000 --- McClellarl ---Classroom Addition $2,15f622 - Parkview - -.Addition -- $2,121,22~ Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation - --- $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. ~ - Renovation - - - ---- $3,755,041- Souti,west ~----_ ~dition ___ __-_-_-__ $2,000,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase -II - -~- $2,725,000- Wakefield -- Rebuild -- --- ___ $5,300,000-- Williams Renovation ____ _ ____ $2,106,,.4..:.9=-=2=----- :::~~~s ~~~~=-~~:~k~~~t~:~::~~:on -- $1~\n:\n:\nBOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION FALL/ WINTER 2004 Dec-03 Jul-04 Jun-04 A~g-04 Aug-04 Aug-04 ~-04 Jul-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Nov-03 I I I EsT. -Completion Facility Name Project DescriPtion Cost Date Bra\u0026lt;:!L__ ___ Addition/renovation ___ $973,621 Jun-04 Mitchell Renovation -- $750,000---- Auq-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:sT. -Comp1etIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation -~- ___ Unknown Rightsell Renovation -- ____ $660,000 _ Unknown Wilson _ __ Energy monitoring system insta.liation --+- Unknown Woodruff ParkinQaddition $193,777 Unknown Facility Name Administration Administration Administration BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. CompTeT1on Project Description Cost Date Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Fresh air system --$55,000 Aug-03 --i=Tre alarm ___ --1- $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation I ~ May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. ~rgy monitoring system installation ' $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting --1- ~.ooo Dec-01 Badgett -- ~ Partial asbestos abatement I $237,237 Jul-01 Badg~ --~ ~re alarm ___ _ _ ~-- $18,250~ Aug-02 Bale ---aassroomaddition/renovation ___ $2,244,524-- Dec-02 Bale ___ ~ ~ nergy monitoring system --- I Mar-02 :::: _ _ ~~~~ roof replacement ---+ $:::/:\n7 _ ~:~:~~ !\" z --\u0026lt; m\n,:, z \u0026gt; r- \u0026gt; C: 0\n::l\n,:, =\" ci ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ~ m \u0026gt; ' \u0026lt; m rm- :oc (\") C: :o::!--. z~ Qs\nQ::1 -nm c'5\n,J m\"'\n,:, en (\") !%' !I: z C: --\u0026lt; m en ~(\") Q~ ,-m :c (I) a,:\n2 0 C: Z--\u0026lt; 05\nz (I) C: m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker 'Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 . Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement i $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm I $34,501 I Mar-02 Brady Energy efficient lighting i $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement I $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring svstem installation I $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot I $111,742 Aug-03 -- Central Parking Student parking I $174,000 Aug-03 -- Central/Quigley - Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 ~~ Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 1 Aug-03 -- Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Central - Ceiling and wall repair I - --$24,000-- Oct-01 -- - I Fire Alarm System Design/Installation i $80,876 I -- Central Aug-01 -- -- -- - Central Front landing tile repair I $22,4~ Aug-01 -- Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting __ $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lightin_g_ I $189,743 Jul-01 --- Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1 ,393,822 Nov-02 -- $90,665 _ Dodd _Energy efficient lighting I Aug-01 Dodd _!\u0026gt;.sbestos abatement-ceiling tile I ---m-6,29_9 __ Jul-01 Dodd _Replace roof top HVAC _!?15,570___.__ Aug-02 -- - T Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services - -- -- Fire alarm I $12,0~ - Aug-03 Fair Park - HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-02 - - Fair Park Energy efficient lighting_ Aug-01 ~ $90,162 - - - $59,310~ - Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling Aug-01 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting ~ 77,594 Apr-01 - --$10,784 - J. A. Fair Press box Nov-00 J. A. Fair - Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 -- - $38,000 - J. A. Fair Athletic Field~provement - Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 - -- J. A. Fair - - Roof repairs $391 ,871 - Aug-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park --- - ---+ - $119,788 May-01 - Energy efficient lighting Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbright -- Energy monitoring system installation --- $11 ,950 Aug-01 -- - -- Fulbright Aug-02 - Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright - Parking lot ~0~000 Sep-02 Fulbright ---- Roof repairs - - $200,000 - Oct-02 - Franklin - Renovation $2,511 ,7~ Mar-03 - ---- ----- Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76.!.447 Apr-01 --- ---- -+-- - Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11 ,770_ Jul-01 --- Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 - Sep-01 - --- -- Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall - --- $42,931 Jul-01 -- Energy efficient lighting - - Hall Energy efficient lighting - $296,707 - Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 - - - Hall Intercom ~- Feb-01 -- Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 - --- Henderson Roof replacement gym $107.!.83_5_ ~-01 - Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aua-01 2 r1\" z --t m\no z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C: 0 ~\no :,-, c=l :,: z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: \"C 0 ~ m \u0026gt; ' \u0026lt; m ,-\no mo (\") C: ::!--t oz~ ~~ ~ =l -,,m i\"i\no men\no en (\") ::\n!I' le z C: --t m en -\u0026lt; (\") ~~ ,- m\no en CD g 0 C: Z--t 05 (i\nZ en C: m Facili Name Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proect Descri tion Asbestos abatement Phase 2 Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm Parking lot Energy monitoring system installation Replace HVAC units Asbestos Abatement Est. Completion Cost Date $250,000 Aug-02 $109,136 Jul-02 $43,639 Oct-01 $1,630,000 Nov-02 $269,588 Jul-01 _.c..$..1_2.c,..1 .._50 ___A ug-01 $300,000 . Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann --- Energy efficient lightin-g - $107,0_0_0__ Aug-02 Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan $106,598 Dec-02 Renovate bleachers ---- $134,793-:- Aug-01 Asphaltwa~ Walkway canopie_s ______ _ The total $1 .8 million is what has been -~Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing~-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-______ projects listed ~ial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Athletic Field Improvement $38,000~ Irrigation System $14,750 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 McClellan ----- Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek ~ Stadium stands repair--- - $235,000 Intercom ----===-_ $46,000 __ ~::~\n~ee:~~et~~i~~\n~ units -- -+ -- $:\n::~~~ - - - Fire alarm -+- $16,1~ Asbestos abatement - .,. -- $253,412 Engergy e-ffic- ien-t -lig-hting --+---- $88,2_9_7~- Replace cooling tower - $37,203--- Replace shop vent system ~ - $20,000 - Energy monitoring system installation --$17,145 Energy efficient lighti~ $103,642 -Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 _ --- --+----'-- HVAC renovatio_n_____ _ ___ _\n$_237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting - --- $81 ,828 Asbestos abatement -=_-=_-=._-=.__ $10,000 Otter Creek --- Parking lot ----+- $138~_02~ 6ciassroom addition 1 $888,778 Otter Creek-Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Parking lmp-r-ov_e_m_e_n-ts_ ______ __. - ~ 42~541 HVAC controls -~~----=-::::::::::::::::::::_--,--_ $210,000 Roof replacement $273,87~ Exteriorlights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 ~ rgy monitoring system installation $5,2~ -- Firealarm -.------$25,000 Move playground _,__I $17,00~ ___ E_nergy efficient lighting $84,898 Energyefficient lighting- ----.-- $137,0~ Replace roof t-op-=H-V_A_C,,,_ _____-~ _:1 - $539,175 Parkin addition $111 ,742 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Au -02 3 !Tl .z.... m\n,:, z ~ \u0026gt; C 0 :::. 0\n,:, :n ..... 0 ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C \"C 0 ~ m \u0026gt;' \u0026lt; m  r-\n,:, mo Oc ::!--1 ozili ~ f,: ~=l \"Mm c'5\n,:, m\"'\n,:, \"' !I\" !I: z .C... . m \"' CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 23, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 Security/Transportation I Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest -=====----:--Ac-scb-e-s-to_s_ab_a-te_m_en_t--------1---,---$\"\"2'c-8:-, 1,--3-:c-8:- 1I -------A=u--g- --o=--0=-1 Southwest New roof , $690,000 Oct-03 S-:o-_u.t,,h.._w_e_s-t,- --_______E~ n.:..:e.:..r:.\"g\"yL..::e...f:.f.:ci1cc::ice::.n:..:.t.:..:l.:i.g.s\"h-'ct:i:n:.:g\nI $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage/ street widening I $250,000 I _ Aug-03 Student Assignme~ Energy monitoring system installation ' $4,830 _ Aug-02 Student Assig~n_m_e_n_t ____Fi re_ al_arm ________  ___ $9,000 _ Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation ---~ 1 $275,000 Dec-01 Technology Upgrade - Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data ' -~- _ Nov-02 Terry- - -- ~ rgy efficient lighting I $73,850 Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking ___ ~ $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704~ __ ~p-02 Wakefield __ Security cameras 1 $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting ________ $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement I $200,000 Nov-02 Washington - Security cameras - $=1=-,-g=-o=-0=----------:-- Washington --E nergy efficient lighting -____ $165,281--=- Jun-01 --- Watson Energy monitoring system Tristallation -----=-c $8,530 Watson--- Asbestos abatement $182~,2_4_1 __ _ Watson Watson Watson - Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff - Energy efficient lighting__ _ _-=- $106,~ -- Asbestos abatement _____ $10,000 - Major re~ vation \u0026amp; addition -- $800,~ - Asbestos abatement -- - ,_ $191 ,946 __ Intercom $7,100 _ Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 - - - Parking Expansion - ----= $110_._000 Renovation $246,419 Apr-01 - Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Aug-02 4 :,,- rn z -\u0026lt; m\no z ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; c:: 0 ::\n0\no 71 M ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; c:: ~ m m \u0026lt; ,-\no mo C\"\u0026gt;c:: :o:! --\u0026lt; z~ ~~ ~ =1 -.,m ('\n::O men\no en C\") ::\n!\"' !:: z c:: m-\u0026lt; en -\u0026lt; C\") ~~ ,-m\no en a, g Oc:: ~g\nz en C: m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS October 23, 2003 To: Board of Directors From:@sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - October This is the forty-eighth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. .!=.,' m\n:o \u0026lt;J) 0 z z m I'\"\" :,-, ..... C') :c z 0 I'\"\" 8 -\u0026lt; .C. , C ~ m  'm \u0026lt; r-\n:o mo g~ ozZm ~~ ~=l -.,m c'i\n:0 mtJ\u0026gt;\n:o \u0026lt;J) C') ?J\nr:: z .C... . m \u0026lt;J) ~C') ~~ ,-m\n:otJ\u0026gt; CDO oE z-, 05 in z \u0026lt;J) C m Audit Report - October 2003 Page 2 of 2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. p \"ti m :x, en 0 zz m r- :n rl ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"ti ~ m \u0026gt; ' \u0026lt; m  r- :x, mo nc: :::j .... ozili ~f ~=I 'Tim 1'5:X, men :x, en n !l' ll: z .C..:. rn :\njn ~~ ,-m :x, en a, f2 0 C: Z-\u0026lt; 05\nz en C: m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: October 23, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Infonnation Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Other Agencies Involved Technology Report  The next round of computer replacements for schools will be ordered the first week of November.  Proposals for the distance learning center equipment at the new Technology Center were received on Tuesday, October 21. The proposals are currently under review.  Teachers registered for October 20 professional development activities online for the first time. The District is part of the state group of educational cooperatives that use the product.  EETT (Enhancing Education Through Technology) funds have been received by the District and we are moving forward with the online course development. Teachers should be able to begin the online classes by December 1.  Staff from both Computer Infonnation Services and Instructional Technology continue to be involved in construction projects that relate to technology and library improvements. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA IA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical September 25, 2003 to October 23, 2003 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. NIA !.=.,' m ::c :g zz m,- !,\".' zz C,.: ,:: c m.., 0 ~ ,. 'm \u0026lt; ,- ::c mo C') C: ~o .... z~ gf\ng:::1 -.,m lm\"i:e:Cn ::c en !Jl 31: z C: -m\u0026lt; en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: October 9, 2003 To: From: Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: Resolution Supporting City of Little Rock Bond Election At the Board's request, a Resolution in support of the City of Little Rock's 2003 Bond Issue is attached for your review and approval. bjg .!:,:\u0026gt;, m\na is z z m r-r\"  z z C: .\na .m,, 0 ~\n,-~ c\n,,\nan C: :c ~8 ~ ..... --\u0026lt;m en Z\na Cl:5 -Cc-,\nam ~ en RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock Public School District are partners in working together for the welfare of all youth\nand WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock recognizes the importance of quality education to the economic development of the Central Arkansas region\nand WHEREAS, the City supports the Little Rock School District in its mission to provide a quality education to all students in a safe and nurturing environment\nand WHEREAS, pedestrian safety around Little Rock School District schools is of paramount importance to the citizens of Little Rock\nand WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock will hold a Bond Election on November 4, 2003 for the purpose of capital improvements within the City of Little Rock\nand WHEREAS, upon passage of the 2003 Bond Issue, the City of Little Rock will upgrade sidewalks around eight of the Little Rock School District's elementary and middle schools\nNOW, THEREFORE, the members of the Board of the Little Rock School District support the renewal of the capital bond issue and encourage the patrons of the district to join in this effort. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Little Rock School District to be affixed on this 23'd day of October, 2003. President .,:,:,, m\nc ~ z z ,m... !,.\" z z ,,C....:\nc m\ng\n..c. DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 23, 2003 Board of Education ,Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. rn \u0026gt;z z ~ r\n: o m \"D 0 .\n.:.o. -\na,\n:o  ~~ zo C)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n:o nm a, s a,(/) -o '-z ~(/) lo\n\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 2 October 23, 2003 NAME Dockett-Wilson, Tammi Reason: Personal Downing, Nancy Reason: Accepted Another Position Fall, Libasse Reason: Cert. Expired Moreland, Hillary Reason: Personal Mueller, Melanie Reason: Personal Tucker-Redam, Holly Reason: Personal Brown, William POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees Lang. Art 8-24-87 6-17 CLOVERDALE EL. 9-29-03 TCHlO Elem II 8-21-89 3-18 McDermott 11-3-03 TCH925 Spanish I 8-7-03 1-02 CENTRAL 10-9-03 TCH925 Elem III 8-7-03 1-01 STEPHE s 9-19-03 TCH925 Speech 8-9-03 62-09 TERRY 10-30-03 SPE925 Elem I 8-14-00 1-04 WILSO 10-1-03 TCH925 New Certified Emplovees Math 9-10-03 1-12 CE TRAL TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 48650.00 46015.00 27056.00 26546.00 41148.00 28588.00 36756.00 annual 32352.94 prorated .).\u0026gt;, s ,... Oa, ,- C: c\"i en .-\u0026lt;. -z ~~\nc en ~ c=i ~~ C) 0 C) )\u0026gt; rn )\u0026gt; z z C: )\u0026gt; r\nc m ~ =: Personnel Changes Page 3 October 23, 2003 NAME Cherepski, Donald Holley, Marsha ONE ONE POSITION SCHOOL Multi-Medi MCCLELLAN Literacy Coach RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 9-24-03 9-10-03 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 6-06 TCH925 4-19 TCHll Resignationsfferminations on-Certified Employees Amos,Revem Reason: one Given Beard, Kenneth Reason: Retired Bradley, James Reason: None Given Child utntJon 8-11-00 CLOVERDALE MID. 9-8-03 Child utrition 9-16-88 CHILD NUTRITIO 11-15-03 Custodian 8-16-99 HALL 6-5-03 1-04 FSH5 52-20 AN12 1-02 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 37419.00 annual 30987.61 prorated 48389.00 annual 45616.83 prorated 7476.00 42396.00 10737.00 !\"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt; r-\nJO m 't, 0 .\nJ.O..\n,:,,~ ...,\u0026gt; me o\nc m- ~z ..... ~ C)\nJO ~~ .z...m (/) -!la:,\n,a  ~~ Or- zn C)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\nJO nm a:, s 0:,(/)\n:o nZ -\"' ~ \u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 4 October 23, 2003 NAME Brown, Monica Reason: None Given Blue, Kyla Reason: None Given Clark, Demetrius Reason: None Given Diffee, Dawn Reason: None Given Edwards, orma Reason: None Given Enoch, Maria Reason: one Given Foust, Vicki Reason: Health Guyton, Marcia Reason: Personal Harshaw-Cross, Roberta Reason: Personal Love, Tawanna Reason: one Given Martinez, Deborah Reason: None Given POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Instr. Aide FULBRIGHT Custodian CHICOT Child Nutrition CENTRAL Care CARE Child Nutrition GEYER SPRINGS Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Bus Driver TRANSPORT ATIO Security Officer START DATE END DATE 2-9-01 9-26-03 8-14-00 10-14-03 1-22-02 9-25-03 8-29-00 1-9-03 8-17-00 9-26-03 9-2-97 10-2-03 4-29-88 9-29-03 2-18-02 9-25-03 8-17-98 SAFETY SECURITY 11-7-03 Child utrition 4-7-03 MCCLELLAN 10-7-03 Care 8-15-03 CARE 9-26-03 SALARY CLASS 1-05 CARE 1-03 INA185 1-03 CUS928 1-03 FSH5 2-16 CARE 1-06 FSH5 1-14 FSH5 3-04 BUSDRV 28-13 AN950 3-01 FSH550 1-07 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 6.68 11635.00 11201 .00 7448.00 8.70 7532.00 7756.00 11296.00 16800.00 5751.00 6.97 ,rn. z z ,C.: r- \".m..', 0 \"...'.\n,\u0026gt;~ .., ,. mo 0m3-: ~z r- ~ C)\"' ~~ zm .... U\u0026gt; -!la:, ::o  !~ Or- zo C)-\u0026lt; ,. \"' nm a:is a:, U\u0026gt;\n: 6 nZ -c.... U\u0026gt; ,n. .\u0026gt; \u0026lt;= o\n,, \"'n C: ::c ~8 m r- !-!lm en Z,:, c,s ...,n ::om ~ U\u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 5 October 23, 2003 NAME Muhammad, Kaye Reason: None Given Rucker, Elnora Reason: None Given Seawood, Ruthie Reason: Health Terrell, Laura Reason: None Given Wells, Judith Reason: one Given Simmons, Lakisha Barber, Mae Bland, Anthony POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide MEADOW CLIFF Custodian FRANKLIN Child Nutrition BRADY Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 10-18-00 9-22-03 4-21-03 9-24-03 3-18-02 10-1-03 9-10-01 9-23-03 1-10-03 9-29-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 INA185 1-02 CUS928 1-01 FSH5 1-03 FSH5 1-02 FSH5 ew Non-Certified Employees Care 10-6-03 1-03 CARE CARE Custodian 9-18-03 1-11 OTTERCREEK CUS12 Instr. Aide 8-18-03 1-05 CHICOT INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 11635.00 10737.00 7392.00 7448.00 7420.00 6.43 18844.00 annual 17801.57 prorated 12481.00 annual 12076.21 prorated !\"' \u0026gt; z z C: r\u0026gt;- ::c m \"D 0 .:.:.c.\nr-~ -n\u0026gt; me mc:1:-: ~~ r- m C, ~ ~n zm .... U) -!l a, ::c  ~~ crzo C,-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:C a, s a, U)\n: 6 nZ _u, c.... n \u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 6 October 23, 2003 NAME Bluford, Jacqueline Brown, Johnny Brown, William Bunting, Devona Cotton, Kotto Fuller, Grady POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Custodian KING Custodian SOUTHWEST Custodian FULBRIGHT Instr. Aide FRANKLIN Custodian SOUTHWEST START DATE END DATE 9-18-03 9-24-03 9-25-03 9-8-03 9-29-03 9-24-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS928 1-11 CUS12 1-01 CUS925 1-02 INA925 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 7019.35 prorated 10329.00 annual 8532.65 prorated 18844.00 annual 14273.33 prorated 5164.50 annual 4575.07 prorated 11106.00 annual 9064.90 prorated 13399.00 annual 10206.05 prorated !'\" \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;-\no m ~ 0\no -\u0026lt; ?\"'~ .,,\u0026gt; me c\ni:: m- ~z ,-~ C)\no ~~ zm -\u0026lt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; -\na,\no . ~~ c~ z o C)-\u0026lt; m~~s a, \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\n: 0 oz _\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; .... C') \u0026gt; Personnel Changes Page 7 October 23, 2003 NAME Gibson, J annetta Hammonds, Lisa Harvell, Lola Howard, Kathy Jones, Rhonda Lambert, Danielle Lopez, Juan McManns, Cary POSITION SCHOOL Custodian START DATE END DATE 9-8-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Child Nutrition 9-22-03 CENTRAL Care 9-29-03 CARE Care 9-15-03 CARE Care 9-15-03 CARE Care 10-6-03 CARE Custodian 9-24-03 SOUTHWEST Security Officer 9-12-03 MABELV ALE MID. SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 3-08 CARE 1-09 CARE 1-05 CARE 2-01 CARE 1-01 CUS12 36-11 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4575.07 prorated 8130.00 annual 6974.93 prorated 7.82 7.24 6.68 6.67 13399.00 annual 10206.05 prorated 14065.00 annual 12287.55 prorated )\u0026gt;  \u0026lt; ..,\n= Om ..... c c'\u0026gt;(/) -..\u0026lt; z- _m !l~\n,o(/) ~ c5 0(1) z  C\u0026gt; 8 )\u0026gt; !'T1 )\u0026gt; z z C )\u0026gt; .....\n,o .m., 0\n_,o,\n,,,\ns .., )\u0026gt; mo m03:-: ~~ rm C\u0026gt; ~ ~n _z, m(/) \"=m\n,o  ~~ Or- zn C\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; )\u0026gt;\n,o nm mm(s/)\n:o nZ -(/) c.... 0 )\u0026gt;\n,,,\na o\n,,\n,on C:r ~8 m.- ~(/) z~ C\u0026gt; s -on\n,om ~(/) Personnel Changes Page 8 October 23, 2003 NAME Molden, Keith Morrison, Michelle Ochoa, Socora Osborne, Linda Quick, Theresa Robertson, Lany Robinson, Lucille POSITION SCHOOL Custodian START DATE END DATE 9-16-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Instr. Aide 8-21-03 STEPHENS Custodian 9-24-03 KING urse 9-8-03 HALL Care 9-15-03 CARE Instr. Aide 9-16-03 CLOVERDALE EL. Child utnhon 9-15-03 MCCLELLAN SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-05 INA925 1-01 CUS12 1-07 NURSES 3-17 CARE 1-01 INA925 3-01 FSH550 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4406.67 prorated 12481.00 annual 11873.82 prorated 13399.00 annual 10206.05 prorated 6330.20 annual 5637.83 prorated 9.15 10577.00 annual 9090.50 prorated 8130.00 annual 7152.62 prorated !\" \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;-\nJJ m.., 0 .\nJ.\n,,,~ ..,\u0026gt; mo o\nc m- ~z ,-~ C,\nJJ ~~ z_,m en -!l a, :,:,  ~~ 0 ,- zo C,-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\nJJ nm a, s CD en\n:o -,-,z (/) ~ \u0026gt;\n,,,~ ~~ C::::z: ~8 m,- ~~ Z\n,:, .c.,,,s.,\nJJm ~en Personnel Changes Page 9 October 23, 2003 NAME Ryan, Laverne Simms, Jeanette Stewart, Marcus Thomas, Sylinda Williams, Ardelia POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition BASELINE Child Nutrition TERRY Care CARE Child Nutrition PARKVIEW Care CARE START DATE END DATE 9-22-03 9-15-03 9-29-03 8-19-03 9-15-03 on-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 4-01 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-17 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 9601.00 annual 8236.92 prorated 8130.00 annual 7152.63 prorated 6.25 7392.00 annual 7270.82 prorated 8.33 Marilyn Jones from 5 hr Child Nutrition Worker at Jefferson to Manager Trainee at Child utrition Admin. Paul McDonald from Regular Security Officer to District Wide Security Officer. Bert Gatlin from Regular Security Officer to District Wide Security Officer. on-Certified Transfer ONE r\"' z\u0026gt; z C: \u0026gt;r ::0 .m.,, 0 :..:.0..\n,-\ns -n\u0026gt; mo o\ni: m- ~z r~ C, ::0 ~~ zm ..... (J) -M ~ a, ::a  ~~ Or zo C, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:0 ms a, (J)\n:o c-,Z _u, \u0026lt;- 0 \u0026gt; ~n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" Date: October 23, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Little Rock Board of Directors  1ams, Director of Human Resources Recommendation to implement the Exception in Hiring Practice for Mr. Roy Percy Pursuant to the Little Rock School District Employee Handbook, Section 5, the attached request from Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, with regard to hiring Mr. Roy Percy is being made to the Board of Directors. 810 'v:. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  w,~1v\n.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; c3\n::: ,- CD l\") C .-\u0026lt;. !z!? _m !I eenn\n:c en ~~ i~ C) 0 ~ rn \u0026gt;z z $,..\n.\n:c .m., 0 ~ ?-\n: o\n,,\n:c(\") C:r :!g m,- ~-men Z\n:c C) s ..,(\")\ncm ~en 10/20/2003 11:15 --- - --- -- .2Jl4475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 02/07 MEMORANDUM FACIUTY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: September 24, 2003 TO: Or. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent THROUGH: ~' ewart, Chief Financial Officer FROM: ~~f Facility Services SUBJ: Exception to t-liting Policy: Roy Percy This Directorate is asking for an exception to our current hiring-policy in order for us to hire Mr. Roy Percy at Level 49, Step 15. Facility Services Directorate has a very complicated financial organization. Our personnel are responsible for maintaining our operational budgets, grant budgets, dedicated. millage budgets, and bond monies. At the start of the funding-cycles for the bond and the dedi.cate\u0026lt;l millage, we were given authority to hire additional financial persons to assist in the tracking of these large accounts. We interviewed a number of applicants\nbut, because we were unable to offer the salary that was necessary to secure a highly qualified person for the position, we went down our priority list and hired someone who appeared to be qualified. Within 10 months, this person resigned because of her inability to understand and execute the complexities of the District's funding-system. We recently re-advertised for this position. Since that re-advertisement, we have been successful in receiving forty~four applications\nand, after a lengthy review and intervi.ewprocess, we narrowed that number down to six. Our number-one-choice applicant 1s Mr. Roy Percy, whose resume' is attached. As may be seen by Mr. Percy's resume', be bas a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Business Administration. Be has an extensive accounting background\nand, through personal interviews, scrutiny of his resume', and limited background checks that we have conducted with persons with whom he is acquainted, we have found him to be extremely qualified. However, because of his background, and the extent of his experience, it is not possible for us to offer him a position that he would be willing to consider at the District's roaxnnum hire-level of 49-12. I feel that, in order for us to hire Mr. Percy, we must be able to offer him 49-15. I ask that you review his resume' and for your concurrence in our being able to make this offer to Mr. Percy. DE:cg Cc: Beverly Williarns, Director of Human Resources Attachment HalmcsP~Y !\"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt;.\na m c3 ~ 10~2~.{_2003 11:15 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAbt. l:'.J.::!/ t'.l 1 August 22, 2003 Janet Rector, Budget Assistant Little Rock School District, Facility Services 3601 S. Bryant Street Little Roe~ AR 72204 Dear Janet: My track record in preparing budgets and payroll make me an ideal candidate for the Budget Assistant position advertised in the .Arkan.~ Democrat Gazette. I am enthused., detailed- minded and a \"people\" person. l have a deep understanding of comminnent and the accuracy needed to produce results that meet and/or exceed expectations. I would like to hear from you soon. My-interest and enthusiasm is backed by:  Over 14 years of accounting experience.  8 years of payroll preparation.  6 years of budget preparation for presentation to Board of Directors.  Over 12 years of customer services, public relations and fund raising experience with a high volume of personal contact and phone contact.  Strong analytical and problem solving skills \u0026amp; experience in handling multiple taSks.  Excellent oral and -written communication skills, which include over seven years of classroom management, presentation \u0026amp; facilitation skills and over 16 years writing letters, memos, etc.  Excellent interpersonal skills, 1 am a .. people\" person with a strong sales personality and a team player.  Over 7 years experience with MS Office, Word \u0026amp; Excel.  Powerful motivation skills and vay self-motivated to exceed expectations and inspire co-workers and the people around me to do the same. In addition, I have obtained a BBA degree and MBA degree with 8ll emphasis on business administration and management. I have enclosed my resume for your review. Again. I look forward to hearing from you real soon and can be reached at 565-3812. I look for,vard to discussing the position of Budget Assistant with you in more detail. Tbanlcs Janet! Sincerely, ~:~ Encl. \u0026gt; \" \u0026lt; ~\n::: 0 tD r- C: i\"i en .-\u0026lt;. -z _m !I eenn ::o en g\n! c5 Ozen G) ~ !\" z\u0026gt; z: C: \u0026gt; r- ::0 m c3 ~ -!I tD ::o g\n!\ng CrZO G)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:\u0026gt;:J om g:~ ~o oz - en ~ \u0026gt; __ 10/~/2003 11:15 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 04/07 ROY PERCY 5001 W. 65th Street, A-117 Little Rock, AR 72209 RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS PH: (501) 565-3812 (H) E-mail: roypercy@juno.com EDUCATION: QUALIF1CATIONS: No. of yrs. in () MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTATION (MBA) University of Central Arkansas\nConway, ~ BACBEWR ofBUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (BBA) University of Central Arkansas\nConway, AR M'.ajor:_ Business Administration, Minor: Management H\u0026amp;R BLOCK TAX CERTIFICATE (Fllll Tax Course) MANAGEMENT  Manager for department wi1h over $24 million in receivables, (4).  Supervisor for dept. with over $17 million in annual sales/ receivables, (5).  Assistant Business Office Manager, (4).  Hnman Resource Administration, (4).  Fund-Raising Administrator, (3). ACCOUNTING  Accounting Mgr., ( 4) License Section Spvsr (5). AsSt. BusineSS Office Manager, ( 4).  Full-charge accountant, (6).  Prepared annual budgets for board review and approval, (6).  Payroll prepanni.on and all federal \u0026amp; state tax reports, (8).  Firumcial Statements (monthly, qum1:erl:y, snnual), (1.2).  Accounts Payable/ Receivables, General Ledger, Subsiclim:y Ledgers, (12).  Grant accounting, grant management end preparation, ( 6).  Inventory management and control, (6).  Tax Aocountixi.g, prepared tax. returns for business and individuals, (2).  Ten key calculator, (20). CUSTOMER SERVICES/ PU'BLIC RELA.'TIONS / coMMUNfCAUON Coordinated and handled customer services for 1000 License Agents (Businesses) and over one million license purclla..scn which involved a high volume of phone \u0026amp; personal contact in a f.ast paced environment., (7). Classroom management., presentation and iaciliration\nprepared organized and conducted classroom training for potential License .Age11ts (Businesses)\n     demonstrllled ability in public spea.Jcing, (7). Fund Raising Administrator with high volume of persoual contact and phone contact, (1 )\ntelem!IJ'kcting, (2). Excellent oral and vmtten communicaiion skills, -prepared outgoing correspondence (letters. memos, ete), (16). Wrate feature articles for news publicatioo, ( l )  COMPUTE\u0026amp; LITERACY  Microsoft Excel, (7)\nMicrosoft Word,.(7)\nMicrosoft Access (Class 1 \u0026amp; II).  Peachtree Accounting, (1 ).  Compurerized Accounting and Payroll software, PC, (6)  Accuity accounting software, geo.eral ledgf'l', (2mos.). !'\" z\u0026gt; z C .\u0026gt;... ~ m 23 ~ __10/20/2003 11:16 ROYPERCY APRIL2000 Present DEC2002 APR2003 MAY 1991 MAR2000 OCT 1988 MAR 1991 MAR 1982 MAY 1988 JAN 1981 DEC 1981 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 05/07  Pagc2- PROFESSIONAL IDSTORY SELF-EMPLOYED/ Accounting \u0026amp; Management Consultant Assisted businesses on contractual basis by assessing \u0026amp; preparing accounting records, payroll, financial s1l!tements and tax accounting records\nprovided managerial consultation and handled temporary accounting assignments on contra.etual basis. H\u0026amp;R BLOCK/ Tax Associate Prepared income taxes for individuals \u0026amp; business according to fed.em! \u0026amp; state tax laws, provided tax advice, answered t.ax questions, handled customer services on a daily basis. ARKANSAS GAME \u0026amp; F1SH COMMISSION, LITTLE ROCK, ARK. Liceuse \u0026amp;Accounting Manager/ (July 1996 - Mar 2000) Supervised \u0026amp; evaluated accounting section with receivables over $24 million, supervised. mai.lroom, handled accounts payables \u0026amp; receivables fur 10 regional offices, performed weekly \u0026amp; monthly reconciliation of revenues, monitored credit card accounts, prepared \u0026amp; performed classroom training for prospective license agentS. License Section Supervisor/ (May 1991 - June 1996) Supervised, hired, trained \u0026amp; evaluated unit of 11 employees with annual :receivables over $17 million, coordinatro \u0026amp; handled customer services for over l 000 license agents \u0026amp; over one million license purchasers, reconCJ1ed accounting records, handled and implemented inventory control, developed section policies \u0026amp; procedures, trained prospettive license agents in classroom setting. Transferred to above position. OLSTEN SERVICES, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (Two Assignments) Assistant Payroll Accounourt / Coca Cola Bottling Company, (12/89 - 3/91) Assisted with payroll preparation for over 500 employees at eight locations, calculated time cards, posted payroll date utili.zmg computer spreadsheets. Accounts Rtteivnble Clerk/ Mid coast Aviation, (10/89 - Dec 89) Prepared accounts receivable reports, a-edit reports and accounts receivable invoices relating to jet fuel sales for a multitude of accounts. URBAN LEAGUE OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Assistant Business Office Mauger/ Staff Accowitant Supervised office in maru1:,att's absence, sa-ved as full charge accountant, handled gr.rots management\nprepared general ledger, financial statemeots, prepared annual budgets, payroll and all federal \u0026amp; state tax reports\nhandled payroll deductions / human resources. GYST HOUSE, INC / CRISIS CENTER OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCX, ARK. (The Urban l.ea,,\"110 of Arbnsas sponsored GYST House \u0026amp; GYST House sponsored OisL~ Orntcr of Arksnsas. The two jobs below represent velum= work performed wbile working full.time al the Urban League:. of Arkansas from Mm-ch 1982 to May 1988). Staff Accollntant / CCHUlScior, Crisis Center of Ark, (VOLUNTEER) (1/83 - 11/86) Prepared monthly financial swcmems and pn:sented smus to board of directors\nc:ounseled crisis c:i.11= concerni~ suicide, drug addiction. cnx.iecy and various needs. Fund Raisillg Administrator/ Counselor, GYST Bouse (VOLUNTEER) (3/84 - 11/86) Implemented \u0026amp; coordinated telemarketing fund raising dept. for GYST Howe drag center, counseled chemically dependent clients (group \u0026amp; individually). COMMUNTIY CONSULTANT NEWSPAPER, HELENA. ARKANSAS \"Business Representative/ Area Reporter Coordirurted. fund raising, coo.tacted CEO' s in person and by phone to raise fimds for community enhancement programs, wrote feature articles for newspaper. !'\" z\u0026gt; z ~ r:,::, m \"D 0 .:,.:.:., 10/20/2003 11:15 5014475251 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 05/07\n.. ROY PERCY REFERENCES PROFESSIONAL: Christina Pilkington, Controller, Perfect 10 Satellite Distributing Company PERSONAL: 3901 Progress Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 (501) 955-0033 (W) Mike Boyd, (Former Assistant Chief ofFiscal, Arkansas Game \u0026amp; Fish) Assistant Chief Fiscal Officer Arkansas State Highway \u0026amp; Transportation Dept. 10324 lnterstate 30 (501) 569-2411 (W) Daryl Bassett, (Former Business Office Manager, Urban League of Ark.) Commissioner, Public Service Commision 1000 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 683-5000 (W) Charles Parker, (Former Payroll Accow:rtant. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.) Payroll Supervisor Little Rock School District 81 0 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2069 (W) Carolyn Sims 4801 North Hills Blvd., Apt. 804 North Little Rock, AR 72116 (501) 753-7097 (H) Bobby Bonner, Jr. 8304 Leatrice Dr. Little Rock, AR 72227 (501) 565-1857 (W) (501)223-8331 (H) Kenneth Lowe 17321 Raines Road Little Rock, .-'\\R. 72210 (501) 455-8247 (W) (501) 455-4946 (H) !'\" \u0026gt;z z ~ r\n: a .m.., 0 ~ 1a,\na  ~\ng OrZO G)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;nm\"' a, :s a,\"' -5 \u0026lt;-z ~\"' l'\u0026gt; \u0026gt; DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 23, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Suellen Vann, Director of Communications THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject: 2002-03 Annual Report Summary: Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Rules Governing Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools, Standard 7.02.2, requires each school district to publish an annual report \"in a newspaper with general circulation in the district before November 15 of each school year, a report to the public detailing progress toward accomplishing program goals, accreditation standards, and proposals to correct deficiencies.\" Further, Standard 7.03.3.1 requires each school board, prior to November 15, to hold a public meeting to review and discuss its annual report. Objectives: To provide a summary of the information that will be included in the published 2002-03 annual report. Expected Outcomes: Budget Amt.: To raise public awareness of the district's activities and performance during the 2002-03 school year and to comply with ADE directives. Cost of publishing the annual report is about $8,600. Additional copies are printed for district use as a recruitment tool and information brochure during the school year. The summary of the annual report is provided. Major information categories in the report include academic performance and student discipline\nboth areas have been previously reported to the Board. Other information included relates to program/grant information and achievements/honors. \u0026gt; \"\u0026lt; .,,\n= Oa, r c: .-n\u0026lt;. \"-z' ~~ ::0(1) ~?i CCI\u0026gt; z  C) C C) \u0026gt;\n:o a, m  -n\n:o c: m Qz\"o' zr C) C: a,:::! oo ~?:= (/)\nto,~ c\n,, ::On C: :,: c,o -m-\u0026lt;or !!l(/) -m Z\n:o c,s \"\"o ::Om ~(/) Annual Report 2002-03 Superintendent's Message to the Community This is the fifth annual report that the Little Rock School District has prepared as an insert to inform the community about the highlights of the prior school year. Despite many challenges, the 2002-03 school year was successful in terms of growth in many academic indicators. Student learning is, and will always be, the primary focus in our schools. Teachers continue to monitor closely student performance on key state and national achievement tests. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools analyze student performance data based on specific subgroups, including race, limited-Englishproficient, free/ reduced lunch qualification and special education. While many schools experienced double-digit growth on the state Benchmark Exams, in some cases a subgroup performance might have resulted in a school being placed on school improvement. In other cases, if a school made its required improvement during the year, it remained on the school improvement list because two consecutive years of mandated growth are required for a school to be removed from the list. We are working diligently with schools that are on school improvement in order to provide the necessary resources for teachers and administrators to improve students' academic achievement. Construction continues at schools throughout the city. Many major projects, such as Hall High, are complete, while others, such as Williams, are just beginning. Students, teachers and parents have been patient as they have \"lived through\" renovations in their buildings. Entire classes have been relocated during the process at some campuses, but the end result is worth the disorder as upgraded facilities contribute to a more appropriate and functional teaching and learning environment. The declaration last fall by U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson that the Little Rock School District is unitary in all areas except program evaluation was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been held, and the district awaits the court's decision. Work continues in the final area in which the district must comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. That piece, program evaluations, is being finalized and will be submitted to Judge Wilson in the spring of 2004. The district has updated its Strategic Plan. This work, done by more than 100 community residents working in six major areas, will help to guide the district's direction in the next five years. I look forward to assisting district staff, business and civic leaders, parents and others this school year. The challenges facing our students are great and cannot be overstated. However, I believe that this community has put its support into our schools, and teachers, staff and students will benefit from knowing that public education is highly valued in our city. Morris Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent\n,o a, m -n\n,o c:m Zen !20 zrc, C: a,~ 00 ~\na\n: en ?-~ o\n,,\n,o(\") C: ::z:: c,o m-\u0026lt;,o- -~m en z\n,o C) s ~(\")\n,om ~en Academic Achievement One of the primary issues facing school districts across the state and nation is student academic achievement as measured by accepted examinations. There are two types of exams administered to students-\u0026lt;:riterion-referenced exams and normreferenced exams. Criterion-referenced exams measure student achievement on a specific curriculum or base of knowledge. In the case of students in the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Benchmark Exam is the criterion-referenced test that students take. It measures how well students are learning the mandated Arkansas standards. As of the 2002-03 school year, the Benchmark Exam was required for students in grades 4, 6 and 8. It also is required as an End-of-Course test for students who take Algebra and Geometry, and all 11 th grade students must take the End-of-Course Literacy Benchmark Exam. LRSD students recorded some significant increases at many schools on the Benchmark Exams. Benchmark results presented here indicate the percentage of students who perform at the proficient and advanced levels. There are no national comparisons on the Benchmark Exam since it an Arkansas-developed and -administered test. Grade 4 Literacy African-American White LRSD 53 90 Arkansas 46 77 Grade4 Math African-American White LRSD 35 82 Arkansas 38 76 Grade 6 Literacy African-American White LRSD 13 49 Arkansas 14 37 Grade 6 Math African-American White LRSD 8 54 Arkansas 12 50 Grade 8 Literacy African-American White LRSD 28 68 Arkansas 25 57 Grade 8 Math African-American White LRSD 4 52 Arkansas 5 33 Algebra African-American White LRSD 15 60 Arkansas 18 54 Geometry African-American White LRSD 17 63 Arkansas 11 47 11 th Grade Literacy African-American White LRSD 20 71 Arkansas 19 57 ~?I ..,\n,o c: m ZCJ\u0026gt; !20 zrC\u0026gt; C: a,::::! 00 z~ C (/) Norm-referenced exams compare student academic performance to that of a national \"norm group\" of students who took the same test. This allows a district to see how its students are doing compared to others, regardless of the specific curriculum taught in school. Students in Arkansas must take the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, as a norm-referenced exam. Stanford Achievement Exam results are stated as a percentile. For example, a percentile rank of 72 means that these students did as well or better than 72 percent of the students in the norm group who took the same exam. African-American students in the LRSD were within 1 or 2 points of their counterparts in the state at every grade level. White students in the LRSD scored 9 - 17 percentile points ahead of their peers on the Stanford Achievement Test. Grade 5 African-American White LRSD 35 72 Arkansas 37 62 Grade 7 African-American White LRSD 35 73 Arkansas 37 64 Grade 10 African-American White LRSD 30 72 Arkansas 31 55 Another exam that allows comparisons with students across the nation is the ACT college entrance exam. The district's composite ACT score climbed from 19.0 in 2001-02 to 19.5 in 2002-03. Disaggregated scores are: LRSD Arkansas Nation African-American 17.1 16.7 16.9 White 23.0 21.1 21.7 Students in the LRSD showed significant progress in many areas of all of these exams in 2002-03. When scores are disaggregated and comparisons made both within Arkansas and to other students nationally, LRSD students perform quite well. Looking at the scores for the district, state and nation on all three exams, there is an achievement gap that can be accounted for, in part, by poverty. With more than 50 percent of its students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, the LRSD continues to focus on methods to help students who are not performing well on standardized exams. Academic achievement remains the LRSD's top priority.\n:o 0:, m .,,\n:o c: m !z2 \"0 ' zrc, C: 0:, ::::! 00 z~ C \"' -~ 0:,\n:o ~\ng Cr- ZO C)-\u0026lt; ),,\nJ0 nm 0:, s -\"o\"' '-z ~\"' ~ \u0026gt; What About Schools on the School Improvement List? Readers of the local newspaper may wonder why, with LRSD student scores ahead of the state and nation in many areas on required exams, there are several schools on the state's school improvement list. There are several answers to this question. There are some schools in the LRSD which have shown significant improvement on the Benchmark Exam, but they have not reached the level of improvement (Adequate Yearly Progress, or \"A YP\") required by the state. Not only must the entire school meet the A YP, but subpopulations, such as limited-English-proficient students, students who qualify for free/reduced lunch and special education students, must meet the same A YP as all other students. Also, once a school is on the school improvement list, it must meet A YP for two consecutive years to be removed from the list. Some LRSD schools did meet A YP this year, but remain on the list until they meet A YP for a second year. All schools on school improvement, indeed all LRSD schools, continue to look closely at test results to determine areas in which to concentrate lessons in order to help students learn the necessary course material and to improve academic performance in the future. What steps are being taken to assist students in schools on the school improvement list? Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students in schools on school improvement receive supplemental services and school choice options, depending on which year of school improvement the school is placed. The LRSD offers supplemental services, which consists of tutoring by a provider selected by the Arkansas Department of Education, to students in year two of school improvement. All schools in alert status or on the school improvement list develop their school improvement plan to include proven strategies to help students build skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics. Professional development activities in these schools are geared toward improving teacher preparation to address identified student needs. Principals of LRSD schools on the improvement list are encouraged to work with principals of schools that have scored well on the Benchmark Exam in order to duplicate successful strategies. Advanced Placement Enrollment In order to improve academic achievement, the LRSD encourages students to take challenging courses. One way to do this is through enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at the high school level. AP courses are very rigorous and meet national guidelines in terms of curriculum and college preparation. Students in AP classes may take the national AP exams in the spring. Those students who earn at least a 3 on the national AP exam may, in most cases, earn college credit for these classes. The LRSD has worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to increase student enrollment in AP classes. To that end, we have been successful. The accompanying chart shows the increase in AP class enrollment in LRSD high schools during the past few years. Since the 1997-98 school year, there has been more than 20 percent annual growth in the number of students enrolled in AP classes and a total growth during that time of more than 100 percent. We expect these students to demonstrate  \u0026lt; ,, := 0 a, r- C: c\"icn .-\u0026lt;. -z ~ ~\no en 'il!~ Cz u. , C\u0026gt; g  ~pn ..,\no C:m Zu, !20 zrC\u0026gt; C: a, ::j oO ~?!' en higher levels of academic performance based on the more challenging courses they talce, and their success in high school should continue at the college level. Foundation Provides $100,000 in Teacher Grants It wasn't Ed McMahon delivering the Publishers' Clearing House grand prize, but it was just as exciting for many teachers and principals in the Little Rock School District. April 2 was the day the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock delivered 32 grants totaling nearly $100,000 throughout the district. Foundation members, donors, city dignitaries, LRSD School Board members and others boarded three school buses to personally deliver balloon bouquets and grant checks to surprised teachers! Each grant met certain criteria, whether it was targeting student achievement, parent involvement or improving teacher quality. Honors and Achievements Katherine Wright Knight was named Arkansas' 2003 Teacher of the Year and received the national NEA Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence. Sharon Boyd-Struthers of Rockefeller Elementary\nTimothy Eubanks of Parkview High\nRuth Eyres of J.A. Fair High\nCatherine Koehler of Baseline Elementary\nand Judy Meier of Rockefeller Elementary earned National Teacher Certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Board Certification is a credential attesting that a teacher has been judged by his or her peers as one who is accomplished and malces sound professional judgments about student learning. Gillian Glasco and Earnest Sweat, seniors at Parkview Magnet High School, were elected to office at Boys and Girls State. Gillian was elected Governor at Arkansas Girls' State, and Earnest was elected Lieutenant Governor at Arkansas Boys' State. Five students from Central High School were Semifinalists this year in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science \u0026amp; Technology. The Siemens Competition recognizes remarkable talent all over the country and fosters individual growth for high school students who are willing to challenge themselves through science research. The students were Daniel Liu, Satish Mahalingam, Mark Mazumder, Ananth Ranganathan and Xiazhong (\"Jeff') Wang. Mark Mazumder also was named a Regional Finalist and competed against nine other entrants in the Southwest Region at the University of Texas at Austin. Additionally, Mark also was named a National Semifinalist in the Intel Science Talent Search, one of only three Arkansas students to achieve this distinction this year. Often considered the \"junior Nobel Prize,\" the Intel Science Talent Search recognizes America's brightest students for excellence in science and math. Jeff Fuell and Kenneth Patterson, students at Parkview Magnet High School, had artwork selected for use on commemorative stamps that were issued in 2003 by the U. S. Postal Service celebrating the life of civil rights leader Daisy Bates. Dr. Linda Brown, principal of Parkview Magnet High School, was named 2003 Principal of the Year by MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Nineteen LRSD students were named National Merit Semifinalists in 2002-03, two were named National Achievement Semifinalists, and three were named National Merit Commended Students. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Kyla Achard, Adva Bi ton, Fredrick Brantley, Kevin Burns, David Gutierrez, Catherine Keisler, Daniel Liu, \u0026gt; \"\u0026lt; \"'t:I?= Oa:, ,- C: n(J) .-.\u0026lt; z- _m ~~ ::O(J) ~~ 0(J) z C) 0 ~ :\noa:, m \"Tl:\no C:m Z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; !:!o zrc, C: ID ::j oO i ?i' (J) -!la:, ::o  ~~ Or- ZO C)-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:O \u0026amp;l~ ~o nZ -(J) ~ ?\"~ o\n,, ::On C: :r c,o m-\u0026lt;,o- ~\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; -m Z:\no c,s \"0n ::om ~(J) Mark Mazumder, Colin McAlister, Joseph McDonnell, Stephanie Nielson, Nadia Patel, Rachel Rouby, Brennan Taylor and Benjamin Wells, all from Central High School, and Alison Boland, Benjamin Carson, Jessica Lovelace-Chandler and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Merit Commended students are Annie B. Bauman and Mary Orsini from Central High School, and Dori Scallett from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Semifinalists are Everette Callaway from J. A. Fair High School and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The MathCounts team from Pulaski Heights Middle School captured the state championship. Team members were: Sho Maymia, Miles McCullough, Albert Speed, Corina Oprescu and their coach Trela Cook. Each team member also placed individually in the top ten. The J.A. Fair basketball team captured the Arkansas state 4-A championship. Team members were: Seniors: Melvin Fisher, Vincent Hunter, Earnest Maxwell and Quen Spencer\nJuniors: Lonnie Henry, Shaun Reynolds, Larry Porter and Dwight Watkins\nand Sophomores: Quincy Googe, Charles Hayes and Parris Pattillo. The Head Coach was Charlie Johnson, and the Assistant Coaches were Tom Poole and Erik Jackson. The Central High chess team earned the title of Chess Association of Arkansas Schools State Champions for the 3A-5A Division. Teams are limited to four players at the state level, and Central's team consisted of Victor Harris, Joe Liu, Shep Russell and Johnson Wong. Other team members included David Gutierrez, Daniel Krupitsky, Elizabeth Richardson and Shannon Rodgers. The team's coaches were Joe Gray and Chuck West. A Central High sophomore scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam. Yang Dai was one of only three students in Arkansas, and 58 nationally, who achieved this distinction. Thirty-nine students were recognized by the Duke Talent Search State Recognition program. The seventh graders took either the SAT or the ACT assessment to qualify for recognition (the same exams administered to college-bound high school students). Students listed were recognized at the State Ceremony\nand students denoted with an asterisk also were recognized at the Grand Ceremony-they scored in the top 2 percent of all participating students in the nation. Dunbar Magnet Middle School: Aska Amautovic, Melody Chang, Dylan Frost, Megan Jackson, Scotty Lankford, Peter Liu*, Linsey Miller, Cameron Murray, Melissa Nichols, Hannah Roher, Hannah Smith, Russell Viegas, Samuel Whitehorn, Anne Ye* and Elaine Zhou. Forest Heights Middle School: Jamie Coonce, Stacy Coonce* and Sasha Ray. Henderson Magnet Middle School: Geoffrey Jackson and Sarita Robinson. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School: Kelicia Hollis and Victoria Kreie. Mann Magnet Middle School: Cyrus Bahrassa, Jillian Carroll, Samuel Clark, Maura Conder, Elizabeth Cox, Abigail Dobson, Patricia Graves, Dillon Hupp, Grace Nam and Jillian Petersen. Pulaski Heights Middle School: Sarah Ball, Ellen Barber, Colton Koehler, Miles McCullough, Colin Rockefeller, David Steward and Kathryn Tull. The Dunbar PT A was one of only three schools in Arkansas to receive the Certificate of Excellence from the National PT A, and it was named the Arkansas PT A Outstanding Local Unit. Students at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center took away 26 medals from the 2002 Skills USANICA competition in Hot Springs. Students earning medals and state\n,o a, m  .,,\n,o cz : m V, !20 zrc, C: a,~ 00 ~:2:' V, -!la,\n,o ~\ng CrZO C)-\u0026lt;  ::0 nm a, :S a, V, ~o oz _v, ~ honors were: Matt Davidson, JeffMerks, Fabian Marks, Nick Spear, Rolonda Foreman, Veronda Lee, LaToya Jacko, Danyell Boyd, Mary Katherine Knight, Dale Jackson, Georgina Pena, Tonya Bums, Shamika Walker, Lynzzie Cash, Tabitha Clark, Bessie Haygood, Megan Moody, Andrea Sanders, Danny Aaron, Jermond Booze, Steven Spencer, Dustin Ashley, Jeremy Baker, Jason Bredlow, Tim Lingo, Ben Royer, Greg Fundyler, Jordan McElrath, Cole Cawthron, Chad Ellis, Ashley Kelly, Tara Womack and Tiffany Neam. Central High School's Fed Challenge team bested the defending two-time champion to win the state Fed Challenge championship. The Fed Challenge involves researching the status of the national economy and making recommendations for actions as if the team members were the actual Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. Team members were Kevin Luneau, David Mitchell, Jessica Marshall, Chris Burks, Shep Russell and Daniel Liu. Their sponsor was Sam Stueart. The Central High School Lady Tigers varsity women's soccer team won the women's 5-A state soccer championship. The team members were: Anne Claire Allen, Caroline Allen, Jamie Bandy, Lindsey Barron, Kate Burnett, Lauren Cloud, Camille Cook, Allison Corbin, Sally Cunningham, Riley Duke, Sheffield Duke, Stephanie England, Lizzy Gray, Elizabeth Harrell, Marissa Hayes, Cara Janton, Elizabeth Jones, Jessica Jones, Whitney Maloney, Kendall Polansky, Stephanie Rogers, Megan Russell, Lindsey Short, Rosalind Smith, Becca Vehik, Robin West and Claire Wetzel. Their coach was Keith McPherson, the assistant coach and manager was David Duke, and the team's physical therapist was Bill Bandy. Dariane Mull, a 5th grade student at Terry Elementary, won the 5th grade category of the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. The contest was open to students in grades 4 to 12 in the rice-producing states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. The Central tennis team won this year's state 5-A state title. The women's team compiled an impressive record of 5-A conference and state championships in 200 I and 2003. The men's team has been 5-A conference and state champs every year from 2000 to 2003. The women's team members were Ashley Batchelor, Dovie Dockery, Ashley Driver, Barrett Jones, Lauren Karney, Jessica Marshall, Holly McGetrick, Nancy Mitchell, Collins Speed and Presley Thomas. The men's team members were Matthew Angulo, Scott Bacon, Nick Clifford, Andrew Crone, Alex DePriest, Brock Dial, Andrew Humphrey, Daniel Krupitsky, Kevin Luneau, Sam McSpadden, David Mitchell, Jay Murphy, Blake Ross, John Shults and Peter Thomas. The team coach was Joy Thompson, and the team manager was Megan Heard. Five LRSD teachers and two students were honored with the 2003 Stephens Award. Jackson T. Stephens and the late W.R. \"Witt\" Stephens formed this program in 1985 to provide scholarships to outstanding students and cash awards to exceptional educators in Little Rock. The award-winning students were Mark M. Mazumder and Nadia A. Patel of Central High School. The outstanding teachers were: Kimberly Dade, Kirby Shofner and Amy Snodgrass of Central High\nVannessa Pace-Hampton, Parkview High\nand Hosea D. Malone, Hall High. Anne Ye, a ?1h grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won the Arkansas state spelling bee championship and represented Arkansas in the National Spelling Bee in Washington. .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ,,\n= 0 a, re: \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;Cl) .-.\u0026lt; z- _m ~ gi ::0(/) ~ ~ 0(1) z C') 0 ~\no a, m ..,\no \u0026lt;=m ZCI) !z2 0rC') C:: a, :\nj oO ~\na\n: Cl) -!la,\no. ~ ~ Or- ZO C')-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;n:m:O a, :s a, Cl) -o '-z ~Cl) ~ \u0026gt; David Simmons Henry, an 8th grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, received the John W. Harris Leadership Award from the National Beta Club. Only 50 students nationwide (25 senior high and 25 junior high/middle school) are recognized each year. Central High seniors Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley and Stephanie Nielson received Achievement Awards in Writing from the National Council of Teachers of English. They were judged as being among the best student writers in the country. Grants The Little Rock School District is committed to having all of its students reading at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. The district received a three-year Arkansas Reading First grant from the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $4,412,184. This grant money will be used to implement a comprehensive, researchbased reading program in 12 elementary schools that were determined by 1999-2002 literacy data and other factors to have the greatest need. The Reading First project will build on the district's current literacy plan and will provide human and financial resources to more fully implement that plan. Other new grants implemented in 2002-03: Hall High and Henderson Middle School received 21 st Century Community Learning Center grants to establish after-school and summer academic enrichment programs for the next five years. The schools will share a total of up to $1 million over five years. The U.S. Department of Education selected the LRSD to receive funding under the Professional Development for Music Educators Program in the amount of $706,785 over three years to provide ongoing professional development support for LRSD music teachers. The LRSD received the Teaching American History Grant in the amount of $995,953 over a three-year period. The district and its partners will provide professional development for all American history teachers in grades 5, 8 and 11. Adult Ed Celebrates Milestone The Little Rock Adult Education Center marked 25 years of service to the community. During the past 25 years, the Little Rock Adult Education Center has served nearly 65,000 adults with over 7,000 receiving their Arkansas GED diplomas. The main center and its 18 satellite programs serve over 2,500 adults a year. Classes offered include refresher courses in reading, math and English\nGED preparation\ncomputer-assisted instruction\ncomputer literacy\nfamily literacy\nand English as a second language. SREB Training The Little Rock School District was selected from an elite group of ten urban districts across the nation by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to be the first to participate in a new national leadership initiative. The goal of the SREB Leadership Initiative is to prepare school and teacher leaders to lead a comprehensive school improvement effort that will result in increased student achievement. All five LRSD high schools as well as four middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) are participating in the program. The leadership initiative will provide ~!ll \"\"\n,:, Cm Zen !20 zrc, c CD:::! 00 z?\n0 en ~ ~ CD\n,:, ~~ 0 rz o C) -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\n,:, nm CDS CD en ~o _neZn ~ \u0026gt;\ni:,,~ 0~\n,:,(\") C:c ~8 m r- -~m en Z:,:, C) s \"ti(\")\n,:,m ~en school leadership teams an intensive three-year curriculum program beginning with the 2002-03 school year. Construction Progress at LRSD Schools Improvements continue on many LRSD schools, thanks to the millage increase approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. While work wraps up on a few schools and continues on some, it is just beginning on others. During the summer, Wakefield Elementary held a groundbreaking for a building to replace the school that was accidentally destroyed by fire in 2002. Things are progressing rapidly at Mann Magnet Middle School where students will be in the new multi-story building next semester. Central High School's exterior renovations are complete. The interior refurbishment of classrooms and offices continues. Major construction work continues at Williams Elementary and Mabelvale Middle School. Construction has begun at Dunbar, while Hall High's new gymnasium and classrooms are complete. \u0026gt; \" \u0026lt; -0\n= Oa:, r- C: \u0026lt;'5v, -. .\u0026lt; z- _m !I gi\nn V) g\n!\u0026lt; en z~ C) 8 \u0026gt;\nn a:, m  ..,\nn \u0026lt;=m Zv, S!o zrc, C: a:,=! 00 1?\n: V) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: To: OCTOBER 23, 2003 Board of Education From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared By: Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services Bobby Jones, Director of Safety and Security Subject Summary Objectives Expectations Population Budget Amount Manager Duration Other Partners Federal award: Emergency Response Crisis Management Grant The District has been selected to receive funding under the Emergency Response Plans for School Safety Initiative Program from the U.S. Department of Education. 1) To establish collaborative partnerships with community leaders to develop and maintain the Little Rock School District Emergency Response/Crisis Management (ER/CM) Plan 2) To revise, update and distribute the LRSD Emergency Response/Crisis Management Plan 3) To provide in-depth ER/CM training 4) To develop a comprehensive communication plan for both internal and external communication with staff and families 5) To equip schools with emergency supplies and equipment 6) To ensure administrative leadership support for LRSD EM/CR Plan An updated comprehensive crisis management plan that meets the safety needs of students and staff. District wide $250,000 Margo Swanson, Project Director October 1, 2003 through April 1, 2005 City of Little Rock, Little Rock Fire and Police Departments, MEMS, Arkansas Department of Health, Centers for Youth and Families ,.  \u0026lt; \"ti\n:: 0 a, re \u0026lt;\"len -..\u0026lt; z~~ ~en ljl\n! c5 Oen z  C) ,g. ~ a, .m.,~ Cm Zen 2o zr C)C a,=! oO 1 ?:= en !\"' 0 0 z ~ 0z en -\na, ~ - g\n!\ng Or- Zn C,.)~-\u0026lt; nm a, s a, en\n:a nZ _en ,~. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Junious Babbs THROUGH: Compliance Committee OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 447-2950 E-Mail: jcbabbs(tistuasn.lrsd.kl 2.ar .us Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: DATE: Background First Reading - Revisions to Policy ACBB\nJC\nJCA October 9, 2003 On September 13, 2002, the District Court granted LRSD partial unitary status finding that the District had substantially complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") in all areas except  2.7.1. The Revised Education Plan is referenced in existing policy and incorporates a number of student / school assignments that are race-based. Since LRSD has been declared unitary with regard to student assignment, revision is being recommended. Attached are copies of the proposed revised policy. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board approve on first reading proposed revisions to policies ACBB: Equitable Student Assignment, JC: School Attendance Zones and JCA: Student Assignment / School Choice. (Attachment) : a, m.., :  c: m Zu, !20 zrc\n, C: a, :::! oo z~ 0 (J) fl 8 z ~ 0z (J) ?\":ii o\n,, :\u0026gt;:in C: ::r:: ~8 m,- !!lrn -m Z:,:, c.\u0026gt;s .,,n :m ~(J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACBB EQUITABLE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The Board of Education is committed to the implementation of student assignment programs and procedures designed to maintain diversity in Little Rock School District schools to the extent practicable, recognizing that there is no requirement that every Little Rock School District school be racially balanced. Revised: Adopted: April 22, 1999 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACB, ACBD, JC and JCA\no a, m \"Tl\no c: m Z(I) !20 zrC) C: a,::! oo z~ C (/) !\"\u0026gt; C 0 z \u0026gt;.... 0 z (/) ?-~ c\n,, :On C: ::c C)o m--\u0026lt; ,o- ~\"' -z m\no C) s \"0 C') :Om ~(/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPH CODE: JC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONES School Attendance zones will be established by the Board of Education and all modifications or alterations in zone boundaries will be approved by the Little Rock School Board. The basis for LRSD student assignments is the geographic attendance zone which ties each residential street address within district boundaries to a specific elementary, middle and high school. Student assignment priority will be given to the Attendance Zone student. Recommendations to establish, modify or alter attendance zone boundaries will include consideration of the operational needs of the school system. Any recommendation for establishment or alteration of boundaries will include an analysis and justification based on these factors. Revised: Adopted: May 25, 2000\na a:, m \"T1\na c:m Zen S:!o zrc\n, C: a:,::! oo i~ en fl 0 0 z ~ 0 z en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JCA SCHOOL CHOICE It is the policy of the Board of Education to implement student assignment programs and procedures designed to ensure that students may benefit from attending a school other than the one serving their neighborhood attendance zone. The Student Assignment Plan includes attendance zone school precedence and educational choice options that maintain student diversity to the extent practicable. Providing students and their families with school choice is a key component of the assignment plan. School Choice is viewed as a healthy method of providing opportunity for students to take advantage of unique curriculum offerings, special emphasis and program activities. Procedures will be established that enable students to make application to enroll in a school outside of their designated attendance zone. Initial registration begins during a two-week open enrollment period scheduled the first two months of the calendar year. Parents and students will be informed of available options. ATTENDANCE ZONE SCHOOLS - Students are assigned to the designated attendance zone school by their recorded residence. During the open enrollment period, priority will be provided to attend the attendance zone school site. STIPULATION/ ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS were created in 1987. Seats are reserved for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Each district conducts an application process and assigns students to these schools. SPECIAL TY MAGNET SCHOOLS with \"themed\" or \"specialty\" programs have coursework that supplements the regular curriculum. They are available to students seeking school options or choices outside of their attendance zone schools. These specialty programs are sited at schools that also serve as attendance zone schools. Students from PCSSD may participate in these specialty programs as M-to-M transfer students. If the number of out of zone applicants exceed the number of program seats available, a weighted random assignment process will be used to identify those students who will be assigned. Criteria indicators considered in the weighted random process include the student's race, achievement test performance and economic status indicated by eligibility for free and reduced lunch. M-to-M Transfer program is a collaborative effort between the LRSD and PCSSD, which allows students school choice across district boundaries if certain criteria are met.\n:o a, m -n\n:o c:m ZC/\u0026gt; Sz!ro C) C: a,:::! 00 z?\nC C/) 0 C 0 z ~ 0z C/) c\n,,\n:o(\") C: :z: ~8 m,- !!lC/\u0026gt; -m Z\n:o C) s \"'0(\")\n:om ~C/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JCA ( continued) NCLB Transfers available to students in schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education as \"low-performing\". Staff Preference Transfers allow students who live in the LRSD to attend the schools in which their parents are employed. Act 624, Act 762 and Act 609/School Choice Transfers are Arkansas statuts' which are available to students who wish to transfer across school district boundaries. Transfer No Transportation (TNT) Transfers permit students to attend a school other than their attendance zone school if space is available after a certain number of seats are set aside or \"reserved\" for attendance zone students and if the parent / guardian assumes responsibility for the student's transportation. If demand exceeds available space, the priority will be to promote diversity. Revised: Adopted: May 25, 2000 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACB, ACBB, ACBD and JC 2 \"m'a , .., \"' C:m Zen !:!o zrC'l C: a,~ oO 1~ en !\"' 8 z )\u0026gt; --, 0 z en\nz,,~ C en \"'n C:r: ~8 m,- ~-men Z\n,c C'l s \"'0C') \"'m ~ en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: October 23, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Board of Education Robert Jones, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security Beverly Williams, Director of Human Resources Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Revisions to the District's Drug Testing Program The attached proposed changes in the drug testing program are submitted for board review and approval. The only cost involved will be the reprinting and distribution of procedures manuals. bjg ::0 a, m \"'::o C:m z en !:20 zrc, C: ~5 ~ ?i' en r, 0 0 z ~ iz5 en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II Safety and Security Department  3615 West 25th Street  Little Rock, AR 72204 Telephone 501-447-2075  Fax 501-447-2076 TO: Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources FROM: Robert Jones, Director of Safety and Security DA TE: September 16, 2003 SUBJECT: Amending the Employee Drug Testing Program Effective immediately I recommend that Section 5 of the Drug Testing Program be amended to read as follows: V. Employee Testing for Cause (reasonable suspicion) A. An LRSD administrator who has a reasonable suspicion that an employee under his or her supervision is guilty of abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs may require the employee to undergo a drug and/or alcohol test. Reasonable suspicion may be based, among other things, on an employee's observed behavior which is indicative of drug or alcohol use, reports from a reliable source of suspected drug use of possession, or the employee's admission of possession or use of drugs and/or alcohol. B. The administrator will follow the following process in cases where the administrator reasonably suspects abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs: 1. Solicit an explanation from the employee for any behavior which creates a reasonable suspicion of a violation of this program. 2. If the employee cannot satisfactorily explain the behavior, the supervisor may request that the employee undergo drug and alcohol tests.\n,ca, m ..,\no Cm z en 52 o zrc, C a,::::! 00 z?:' lil r\u0026gt; 8 z )\u0026gt; --\u0026lt; 5 z en 3. If the employee agrees to be tested, he or she will complete the Waiver form and a specimen will be obtained. 4. If an employee is to be tested for drugs and alcohol, the employee will be taken to the testing site by the Safety and Security Department or an individual designated by the employee's Principal or Director. 5. After testing, arrangements will be made to transport the employee home or back to work depending on the outcome of the tests. 6. If the tests are negative, the employee will be transported back to the work assignment. 7. If a test is positive, arrangements will be made to transport the employee home. 8. If the tests are unknown, arrangements wi 11 be made to transport the employee home. 9. Procedures set forth in Section VII will apply to employee testing for cause. 10. If the employee refuses to undergo all required tests or refuses to complete the Waiver Form, he or she will be advised that such refusal constitutes a ground for immediate termination. If the employee still refuses to cooperate, he or she will be relieved of duty pending appropriate disciplinary action. 11. If the employee confirmation test is positive for abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs, he or she shall be tem1inated. 12. If the employee is found not to have violated this program and is otherwise medically fit for duty, the employee will be returned to duty. RJ:dm \u0026gt; \u0026lt; ~\n= Ca, ,- C: c\"\nrn .-\u0026lt;. -z ~~\n,:,rn lj'\n!~ Cm z  C) C C) \u0026gt;\n,:, a, m -n:,:, c:m Zrn S!o zr- C) C: a,::::! co z~ C rn f\u0026gt; C 0 z \u0026gt;.... 5 z rn !=' ~ \u0026gt; z (\") ,\u0026gt;-\n,:, m ~ .\n.,.:., rn ?\u0026lt; ,(.\".). 0rn z C)\n,:, i :,:, ::I\u0026lt; WAIVER FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING The Little Rock School District has a reasonable suspicion to believe that you are guilty of the abuse or untimely use of alcohol and/or controlled substances (drugs). You are being requested by your supervisor to submit to drug and alcohol tests to be conducted at the Arkansas Baptist Hospital. Should you refuse to take the drug and alcohol tests, it will be presumed that you are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and the refusal to take all required tests may lead to disciplinary actions up to and including termination. Should your test show positive for alcohol or drugs, you may at your own expenses have a second test conducted on your sample at any laboratory certified by the US Department of Health and Human Services or College of American Pathology. I have read the above statement and consent to a drug and/or alcohol testing. Employee's Signature Date and Time Witness Witness\noa, m .., ::0 c:m Zv, !:!o zrc, C: Ill:::! oo ~~ \"' r\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ 5z \"' '/1n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" October 23, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY ~ald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: First Reading of Revision to Board Policy DGA: Authorized Signatures Act 671 of2003 amended Arkansas Code 6-13-618 requiring the signatures of the Superintendent as Ex Officio Financial Secretary and the primary, or alternate, Board disbursing officer of the District on all checks. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve Policy DGA as revised and attached to comply with State law. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 AIOI m  .., Al c:m Z\u0026lt;JJ 5! 0 zrQC: ID~ oO ~:i\n: U\u0026gt; !\"\u0026gt; g z ~ 5z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGA AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES The facsimile signatures of the Superintendent of Schools, in his/her capacity of Ex Officio Financial Secretary, and the President of the Board, as the primary board disbursing officer of the District, are required on all District checks. The facsimile signature of the Vice President of the Board, as the alternate board disbursing officer of the District, will be required in the event that the President of the Board's signature cannot be used. Revised: Adopted: March 24, 2000 Legal References: Arkansas Code 6-13-618, as amended Act 671 of 2003 .m~., ~tD c:m Zen S!o zrc, C: tD :::! 00 ~:\":= !\"' 8 .$..'.\n. 15 z en .!=.=,I ~ zn \u0026gt;.... Rl c3 ~ en ?\u0026lt; .n.. . 0 en z C) I ~ \"' '\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: PREPARED BY:  SUBJECT:  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration  Long Range/Continuation  Other Agencies Involved  Expectations of District eeded Staff  Comments  Recommendation RESOLUTIO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS Under separate cover you have received the complete Resolution package to authorize the issuance of $6,385,000 in refunded bonds. To sell bonds. To reduce District debt by $356,000 over the life of the bonds. IA IA Donald M. Stewart, CFO NIA IA IA IA IA one Approval of the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Refunding Bonds as provided under separate cover. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fa...'C: 501-324-2032 r\u0026gt; 8 z ~ 0z en .~., ~ z n ii! Rl i3 :a -e\u0026lt;n CERTI FICATE I , the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above Di strict , ce r tify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Reso l uti on d uly a dopted by the Board at a regular ( regular or s pecial ) meeti ng of the Board held on the 23 day of October , 2003. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of t he meeting which are in my custody . At the time of the meeti ng the duly e l ected (or appoint ed) , qualified and serving members of the Boar d and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows : Director R. Michael Daugherty H Baker KJJTTJJS Larry Berkl1q Dr. Katherine Mitekell Tony Rose Bryan Day Sus Strickl,md Vote (Aye , Nay , Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled , carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate . CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this 23 day of October 2003 . (SEAL) Secretary 27 fl 0 0 z ~ 0z \u0026lt;J\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: October 23, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows : School/Department Item Donor Central High School $400.00 cash to the Dr. Randal Hundley Central High School Debate Team Central High School $1,000.00 cash to the Mr. Robert Fain, President Central High School ofRCF Corporation FBLNBusiness Dept. Forest Heights $2,500.00 cash to be Forest Heights PT A Middle School applied toward the purchase of a school marquee' Forest Park $50.00 cash Frances Jane Cranford Elementary School Forest Park $200.00 cash Charles \u0026amp; ancy Vines Elementary School Jefferson Elementary Decorative butterflies, Lyda \u0026amp; Tom Samuels School valued at $110.00, for of Et Cetera Accelerated Reader Program theme !=' ~ )\u0026gt;, z n ~ ~ .:cx.3., \"' ?\u0026lt; Board of Education October 23, 2003 Page 2 Schoo I/Department Mitchell Academy Mitchell Academy Mitchell Academy Pulaski Heights Elementary School Rightsell Academy School supplies, valued at approximately $150.00, for needy students $100.00 cash to be used to purchase food items for an upcoming field trip School supplies, valued at approximately $500.00, for needy students Services of an art teacher, art supplies and materials, valued at $20,601.00, for the 2003-04 school year School supplies, valued at approximately $500.00, to be distributed to students with specific needs Donor Probation and Parole Officers' Association Mr. Jimmy Morris, member of Omega Phi Psi Fraternity, Inc. St. Paul United Methodist Church Pulaski Heights PT A United Parcel Service (UPS) It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. LittCe Xock Centra{ J-fflJli Sclioo{ 1500 South Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .'A.rkansas 72202 Phone 501 -447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 9/19/2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF ~fPCUREME T FROM: A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL 7~~ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Dr. Randal Hundley of 5515 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207, has graciously donated $400 to the Little Rock Central Debate Team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ... . ,.) ' - .,.. I,.. .. ... 1. ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;m :-~ \u0026gt;,- ~Q Om c: m !ll::r:: 31:~ ~~ --\u0026lt;Z c\n, VJ iitt{e 'Rock Centra{ J-if:Jli Sclioo{ 1500 South 'Park Street Litt[e 'Rocle, .'Arkansas 72202 Thone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 September 18, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Nancy Rousseau, Principal c(J~.4~ Re: Donation Mr. Robert Fain, President ofRCF Corporation at 5 Shackleford Plaza, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211, donated $1,000 to the Central High School FBLA/Business Department. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; ,x... m5 \u0026gt; ,o o \u0026lt;...-\u0026lt; Om c: m\n,o :x: ~~ mz\n, o -\u0026lt; z C\u0026gt; \"' ?\u0026lt; (\") ,- 0 \"~'\n,o m ~ \"' FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: From: Date: RE: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement Elouise J. Hudson .1~ Principal September 9, 2003 Donation Forest Heights PT A wishes to donate $2500.00 toward the purchase of a marquee' for Forest Heights Middle School. It is recommended this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. , . i. 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock. Arkansas 72205 October 1, 2003 TO: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management \\J 'heresa Ketcher, Principal Forest Park School SUBJECT: Donations The following donations have been made to Forest Park Elementary School. $50.00 from Frances Jane Cranford $200.00 from Charles and Nancy Vines It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 1,  I. ... I ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z Cl\n,o m f\n,o :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;: '\\ ~------------z~ fl ~~ \\ J EFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~\\ J:. :': .-::.~ .... September 19, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: Roberta Mannon, Principal \"'' Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School: Lyda and Tom Samuels\nEt Cetera\n4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard\nLittle Rock, AR 72207: Decorative butterflies for Accelerated Reader Program theme. Value $110.00 It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. . - 2600 N McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 September 15, 2003 MITCHELL ACADEMY 2410 South Battery Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-5700 TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Material Mgmt. Darian L. Smith. Principal -~ ~th SUBJECT: Donations Please accept the donation of school supplies to Mitchell Academy from the Association of Probation \u0026amp; Parole Officers. These supplies will be used for students who need assistance in purchasing supplies. The estimated value of these supplies is $150.00. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 (/) z C\u0026gt; ~ ~\n,:J\n,:\nSeptember 15, 2003 MITCHELL ACADEMY 2410 South Battery Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-5700 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Material Mgmt. FROM: Darian L. Smith. Principal /lhi-\u0026gt;1-\u0026lt;1.J\\ SUBJECT: Donations Please accept the cash donation of $100.00 to Mitchell Academy from Mr. Jimmy Morris, a member of Omega Phi Psi Fraternity, Inc. Pi Omicron Chapter. This donation will be used to purchase food items for an upcoming field trip. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ! .. .,. : ?\u0026lt; 0 5 Cl) z C) ~ !E :,0\n,,\nSeptember 15, 2003 MITCHELL ACADEMY 2410 South Battery Little Rock, AR 72206 501-447-5700 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Material Mgmt. FROM: Darian L. Smith. Principal SUBJECT: Donations Please accept the donation of school supplies to Mitchell Academy from the St. Paul United Methodist Church, 2223 Durwood Road, Little Rock, AR 72207. These supplies will be used for students who need assistance in purchasing supplies. The estimated value of these supplies is $500.00.  We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; xm :-~ ,- E~ Om c: m\n:c:c ~~ ~-:,:!z:! Cl \u0026lt;J) PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO: Daryl Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM:/\u0026amp;- Lillie carter. Principal DATE: September 9, 2003 RE: Donation The Pulaski Heights P.T.A. wishes to donate the seruices of an art teacher, art supplies and materials for the 2003-2004 school year. The cost is $20,601.00. It is recommended that this donation be approued in accordance with the policies of the board. .~., z :,,. nz ~ ~ m\ng .~... Cl\u0026gt; TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal f)rnJ\" Rightsell Academy September 29, 2003 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated school supplies in the amount of approximately $500.00 to be distributed to students with specific needs: United Parcel Services (UPS) 5501 Fourche Dam Pike Little Rock, AR 72206 Contact Person: Dorothy Bledsoe It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for you consideration. Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending September 30, 2003 . To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. IA IA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services IA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved one  Expectations of District N/ A eeded Staff /A  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the September 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. ?\u0026lt; C'l 5 (J) z C\u0026gt; :,0 m ~ :,0\n,:: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS 2002/03 09/30/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 09/30/03 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 10,362,818 17.70% 57,547,800 11,111,439 DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 786,728 9.83% 10,100,000 807,595 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 109,759 32.28% 380,000 198,1 37 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 41,798 15.20% 200,000 43,822 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 34,210 240,000 42,599 TOTAL 97,432,000 11,335,314 11.63% 98,607,800 12,203,591 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 TOTAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 10,037,637 18.29% 53,226,139 9,677,479 __f3EIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 119,652 8.93% 1,400,000 266,989 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 ....ARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 68,340 J'RANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 1,243,841 ._INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 368,422 ~ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 109,000 10.83% 920,337 8,417 ~OVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 329,297 560,545 267,486 ~EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 .]AP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% 285,245 142,623 ~ RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 ....... TOTAL 75,441,106 10,806,562 14.32% 74,776,187 12,043,596 ~EVENUE - OTHER SOURCES .2_RANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 ~NSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 13,857 1,350,000 18,519 .!_RANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 -- TOTAL 3,410,671 13,857 0.41% 3,752,430 18,519 -- !QTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 22,160,828 12.57% 177,157,418 24,271,126 ~ENUE - OTHER !gQERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 1,927,579 7.66% 24,075,790 2,160,329 ~DICATED M\u0026amp; o 3,980,000 4,000,000 21 ,884 ~NET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 1,017,552 24,689,351 2,282,885 -- TOTAL 54,198,923 2,945,131 5.43% 52,765,141 4,465,099 -- .!2:IAL REVENUE 230,506,700 25,105,959 10.89% 229,922,559 28,736,225 % COLLECTED 19.31% 8.00% 52.14% 21.91% 17.75% 12.38% 25.81% 25.81% 18.18% 19.07% 25.00% 32.09% 9.45% 0.91% 47.72% 50.00% 16.11% 1.37% 0.49% 13.70% 8.97% 0.55% 9.25% 8.46% 12.50% ?\u0026lt; n r- 0 en z Cl\n:o m ~\n:o\n,o\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2002/03 09/30/02 EXPENDED 2003/04 09/30/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 13,329,738 13.22% 100,684,982 12,825,743 BENEFITS 24,838,361 3,240,288 13.05% 26,483,772 3,473,524 PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,685,201 8.51% 19,719,297 2,914,009 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 1,372,971 16.45% 8,185,459 2,284,946 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 105,548 6.53% 1,575,580 91 ,687 OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 148,261 1.74% 8,384,567 69,173 DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% 12,098,342 4,705,779 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 24,762,561 14.05% 177,131,999 26,364,861 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 2,121 ,360 8.11% 26,056,193 2,515,820 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; O 3,980,000 493,783 12.41% 4,000,000 1,235,893 MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 2,315,477 9.24% 24,689,351 2,491,447 TOTAL 55,194,668 4,930,621 8.93% 54,745,544 6,243,159 TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 29,693,181 12.83% 231,877,543 32,608,020 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) (4,587,223) (1 ,954,984) (3,871 ,796) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,877,196 3,558,580 3,558,580 _9PERATING 8,557,652 8,489,087 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE ...EDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (108,295) 1,578,177 1,780,520 -OPERATING 8,675,891 5,887,354 9,052,274 6,933,120 ....!_OTAL 9,325,586 5,779,059 10,630,451 8,713,640 % EXPENDED 12.74% 13.12% 14.78% 27.91% 5.82% 0.83% 38.90% 14.88% 9.66% 30.90% 10.09% 11.40% 14.06% ?\u0026lt; n 5 V\u0026gt; z Cl ::0 m ~ ::0\n,:\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 15,698.50 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 23,441 .00 4,451,048.00 11,724,008.39 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 1,517,001.00 1,453,314.69 972,789.70 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31 ,306,506.59 166,300.00 6,306,600.30 12,503,973.73 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 596,507.76 58,711 .57 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 1,706,742.00 12,830,848.25 25,259,483.39 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (1,706,742.00) PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 314,688.33 SUBTOTAL 31 ,107,082.11 315,688.33 (1 ,706,742.00) 0.00 0.00 GRAND TOTAL II ~:lZ l!IQ l!Z\nm 1111 aa ~ l~ IIJQ 11:111 ~:i ~:i ~:ill :illJ Jll END BALANCE 09-30-03 33,282.90 77,219.02 0.00 110,501 .92 17,103.87 2,462,930.01 42,273.97 22,190.56 1,859,476.42 12,662,232.56 1,679,799.91 18,746,007.30 445,618.31 5,266.71 20,367,857.23 1,293,820.97 7,603,465.22 29,716,028.44 :111 :iZ~ :iJZ  ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;m ,-~ c\u0026gt; or- \u0026lt;O-m-\u0026lt; c:m ::C:x: ~~ mz:,-:, -,z .C,\u0026gt;, ?\u0026lt; n re en z C\u0026gt; :,:, m ~ :,,\nPROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 09-30-03 ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,342,501.80 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 12,750,611.51 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,655,707.04 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611.78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 21 ,661 ,678.20 TOTAL 138,882,176.18 )IMVW3M DNISOl::\u0026gt; 'XI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 09-30-03 1 THRU 09-30-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 15,698.50 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671,442.11 4,451 ,048.00 11,724,008.39 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 7,679.00 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 1,453,314.69 972,789.70 I 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 I 6,306,600.30 12,503,973.73 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 596,507.76 58,711 .57 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 12,830,848.25 25,259,483.39 ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 09-30-03 569,742.68 17,103.87 32,879,571 .79 2,462,930.01 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,861,214.57 I 22,190.56 10,891,135.09 , 1,859,476.42 38,993.474.48 I 12,662,232.56 10,055,811 .87 I 1,679,799.91 21,661,678.20 98.474.490.68 I 40,407,685.50 lN3WNMnorov 'IX SDNIMV3H 33AOldW3 x LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Date Date Operating 06-09-03 12-08-03 Regions 1.090% Operating 07-19-03 01-19-04 Regions 0.945% Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 Pulaski 1.290% Operating 09-30-03 TFN Bank of America 0.930% Total Food Service 09-19-03 TFN Bank of America 0.660% Total Activity Fund 09-16-03 TFN Bank of America 0.740% Total Bond Account 09-08-03 03-08-04 Regions 1.094% Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% Capital Projects Fund 08-01-03 12-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.220% Capital Projects Fund 09-15-03 03-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% Capital Projects Fund 09-29-03 TFN Bank of America 0.890% Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 12-04-03 Bank of America 0.920% Total Rockefeller Scholarship 06-24-03 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Total Risk Management Loss Fund 10-16-03 TFN Bank of America 0.700% \u0026gt;4MVW3M !\u0026gt;NISOl:\u0026gt; 'Xl Type Money Market I Money Market Money Market Repo Repo Treasury Bills CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Treasury Bills CD CD CD Repo Treasury Bills Treasury Bills Repo Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 14,335,000.00 14,385,000.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 948,000.00 948,000.00 400,000.00 1,000,934.31 5,116,598.09 10,000,000.00 2,058,896.90 2,500,000.00 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 9,000,000.00 3,048,218.28 10,221,001.82 3,740,000.00 74,385,295.83 664,995.48 664,995.48 250,909.40 250,909.40 500,000.00 500,000.00 1N3WNMnorov 'IX S!\u0026gt;NIM\\/3H 33AOldW3 x\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_21","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":["2003-09","2003-10","2003-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/21"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nl 1 j ii Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education 1 JoNell caictwell, Chair 1 UttleRock I Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair i Carlisle j Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home caMn King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville  aneRebid\u0026lt; Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 September 29, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ larudll.stau.ar.,u RECEIVED SEP 3 o 2003 OfF\\CE OF DESEGREG~TION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for September 2003. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 29, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS.LORENEJOSHUA,ETAL 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 September 30, 2003 Based on the information available at August 31, 2003, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Based on the information available at August 31, 2003, the ADE calculated for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 On August 31 , 2003, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 03/04 were as follows: LRSD - $4,838,739 NLRSD - $2,552,280 PCSSD - $4,633,437 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 03/04 at August 31, 2003, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $53,226, 139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2003 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2003 for Pf 03/04, subject to 'periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Based on the infomiation available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2003 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Distributions for FY 03/04 at August 31, 2003, totaled $1,139,445. Allotment calculated for FY 03/04 was $12,533,889 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 September 30, 2003 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Distributions' for FY 02103 aiAugust 31\n2003 were: LRSD - $3,684,217 NLRSD - $2,590,278 PCSSD - $9,309,708 The :anotme.nts calculated fof f'{0~/03 aiAugusf31\n2003, sUt\u0026gt;j~ct to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,684,217 NLRSD - $2,590,278 PCSSD - $9,309,708 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of September 30, 2003 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 In January 2003, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 02/03 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 In January 2003, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31 , 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $2,453,084.00 NLRSD - $469,000.00 PCSSD - $1 ,305,848.96 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 September 30, 2003 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. Schopl districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 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 September 30, 2003 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD- 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 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 September 30, 2003 (Continued) The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) s. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 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 September 30, 2003 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Jmplementation 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 achievemenf 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. 18 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (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. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 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 September 30, 2003 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (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 AD E's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project 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 September 30, 2003 (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. 35 VI. REM ED IA TION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase 11 - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the 'impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan in service training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SA T-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum . 42 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assista~ce. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math , science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The N LRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for techn ical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11 , 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e ., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11 , 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training . On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACTAAP, including how to find information on the AS-IS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". On December 10 - 12, 2002, the Math Workshop \"Investigations in Number, Data and Space\" was held at the Clinton Elementary Magnet School in Sherwood. Training for Kindergarten and First Grade Teachers was held on December 10, and included Making Shapes and Building Blocks, Quilts, Squares and Block Towns. Training for Second and Third Grade Teachers was held on December 11 , and included Shapes, Halves, Symmetry and Turtle Paths. Training for Fourth and Fifth Grade Teachers was held on December 12. Fourth grade covered Seeing Solids and Silhouettes. Fifth Grade was about Containers and Cubes. The sessions provided quality time for teachers to discuss the curriculum, reflect on implications, provide mutual support, and continue planning. The ADE provided professional development for all school districts on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems on January 7-9, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. The LRSD had two in attendance, NLRSD had one in attendance, and the PCSSD had two in attendance. The ADE conducted the Smart Start Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 12, 2003. The ADE conducted the Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 13, 2003. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) Test Coordinator training was provided throughout the state during the weeks starting February 10 and February 17, 2003. The training in Little Rock was February 20, 2003. The Little Rock School District had two attendees for the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. The North Little Rock School District had one attendee at the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. The Pulaski County Special School District had one attendee at the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. Two sixth grade teachers from each district attended the Professional Development for Benchmark assessments during the week of February 17, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. Two fourth and two eighth grade teachers from each district attended the Professional Development for Benchmark assessments during the week of March 3, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. The ADE announces the opportunity for schools to participate in the Arkansas Literacy Coaching Model and to train a school employee to serve as a full-time literacy coach. Training will be held at the Early Literacy Training Center at UALR. A literacy coach is a site-based employee who works full time with the school staff providing professional development, technical assistance, and support to teachers. They demonstrate exemplary classroom literacy practices, observe and coach teachers, provide sustained mentoring to classroom teachers, plan and conduct professional literacy team meetings, provide workshops on the literacy framework, and maintain data on student performance. Depending on the number of qualifying school districts who agree to participate, training expenses will be funded by the ADE through the Early Literacy Training Center at UALR. Grant funds will provide graduate level training, lodging and travel expenses, and materials to establish a model classroom. The Smart Summer Conference took place on July 14-17, 2003, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The event covered Smart Start and Smart Step. The following topics were included: Lisa Carter - Instructional Alignment John Antonetti - Assessment Literacy for Literacy(and Numeracy) Assessment Jim Garver - Authentic Student Engagement Evelyn Arroyo - High Yield Strategies in Action Barbara Brown - Focusing in on the Benchmarks Dana Chadwick \u0026amp; Lynn Nash - Teaching From the Heart Tommy Tyler \u0026amp; Monticello Team - Actions, Changes, and Results. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 (Continued) The ADE did workshops on the No Child Left Behind legislation for the following groups from the LRSD: August 11, 2003 - Horace Mann Midd\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1752","title":"Includes motions and responses regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD)'s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School, Sylvan Hills band room, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School enrollment","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Includes motions and responses regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD)'s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School, Sylvan Hills band room, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1752"],"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":["108 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of its attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School; District Court, renewed and supplemental motion regarding Sylvan Hills band room; District Court, amended and supplemental motion regarding Sylvan Hills band room; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP - 2 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLEF By: I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCCSD's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Fee Petition (Doc. No. 3797). On August 19, 2003, an order was emered granting the PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief \"Bollen\" Intervenors appealed this judgment and requested a stay from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has yet to address this matter on appeal. According to this Court's Local Rule 54.1 and Rule 54 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure a party has fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. However, PCCSD requests a stay for its motion for attorney's fees and costs until twenty (20) days after the Court of Appeals issues its ruling. Because no party has objected to the motion, the requested extension is GRANTED. OEP CLE, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its motion, states: ',   1. Ori August 18, 2003, at the conclusion of a hearing on the \"detachment issue, this Court announced its ruling that, inter alia, the State Board of Education's authorization of an election on the issue of detachment of the Greater Jacksonville area from the PCSSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. A written order was entered that day and a corrected order was entered on August 19, 2003 . 2. A motion to stay said order was heard on August 20, 2003, and denied. 3. This Court has previously and exhaustively analyzed the entitlement of the PCSSD to an award of attorneys' fees for successfully enforcing the Settlement Agreement. (Please see Order dated January 30, 1998, at page 2). Counsel's regular hourly rates are to be utilized as the \"lodestar\" for determining the award even though the PCSSD received the legal services at discounted hourly rates. Id. at page 4. 4. Exhibit A to the accompanying affidavit sets forth in narrative fashion those legal services for which a fee award is sought. The narrative includes a modest amount of 446311 -v1 time devoted toward evaluating the initial legislation, monitoring its progress through legislative committees and testifying against the passage of the legislation. The narrative also includes a small amount of time devoted to objecting to the legislation once it was passed as required by Section ill D of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 5. The remainder of the narrative commences on May 16, 2003, when the petition . proposing detachment was filed with the Arkansas State Board .of Education. The ensuing legal activities track tire development of the PCSSD's position before the State Board of Education and the two hearings before the State Board as well as the efforts of the PCSSD to identify, research and develop the legal issues which the passage of the legislation and the filing of the detachment petition generated. 6. Beginning on or about July 14, 2003, the Court will see a shift in the activities from the proceedings before the State Board of Education to the development of the successful ,, Fourth Motion to enf~rce Settlement Agreement as well as the separate action commenced in State Court. Indeed, it is anticipated that an argument will be made that activities devoted exclusively toward development and prosecution of the State Court action are not compensable and that the PCSSD should be denied fees for those efforts. Accordingly, the PCSSD has segregated those entries which relate exclusively to the State Court action as a separate portion of the narrative. 7. However, the PCSSD submits that all of the efforts and activities described in the fee narrative are compensable. It cannot be logically disputed that but for the passage of the detachment legislation (which this Court found violated the Settlement Agreement) and but for the State Board of Education's acceptance of and activation of the legislation (which this Court found violated the Settlement Agreement), none of the activities described in the 446311-v1 2 narrative would have been necessary or would have occurred. Thus, it is respectfully submitted, the only position which could have any legal vitality would be an argument that the PCSSD \"wasted time\" on issues that were not somehow reasonably related to the end of nullifying the election authorized by the State Board. 8. This Court did not reach the issues of special and local legislation and the equal ' . protection issue preferring to leave those two issues for resolution in State Court. Nevertheless, it cannot be reasonably gainsaid that these were not issues that the PCSSD was reasonably obligated to identify and develop toward the ultimate end of prevailing on the election issue. 9. Further, the PCS SD spent a modest amount of time developing other subsidiary issues as described in the State Court complaint. However, it cannot be reasonably said that '1' ., the identification and modest research associated with those issues was somehow a waste of ' time. Indeed, the PCSSD believes it submitted substantial separate issues to both reviewing forums any one of which in isolation was sufficient to nullify the election. 10. This motion is accompanied by an affidavit which further explains the history of enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the bases for the district's entitlement to a fee award and the narrative description of legal services rendered. 11. The PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 as reflected in Exhibit B to the affidavit. 446311-v1 3 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 ' (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 11, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. , P.A. 51 Wingate Drive  Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 446311-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 446311-v1 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The legal services described in Exhibit \"A\" to this Affidavit have either all been billed - to and paid for by the PCSSD or, in the case of the most recent entries, will be b~led to and paid for the PCSSD. Since at least 1993, the hourly rates for partners charged to PCSSD have been frozen at $150 per hour in recognition of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD. The principal partner timekeeper for purposes of this fee petition is Sam Jones whose current hourly rate is $215 per hour. This represents a discount to the PCSSD of just over 30% of regular hourly rates. Several other partner timekeepers appear briefly in this petition and their rates have likewise been frozen at $150.00 per hour. For purposes of this petition, and consistent with prior fee awards to the PCSSD in this case, reimbursement is sought at the current regular hourly rates of all timekeepers. The effort associated with the exposition of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, especially before the State Board of Education, was difficult and time-consuming. The files, documents, 446157-v1 orders and transcripts a decade old had to be located and thoroughly reviewed. While in the final analysis this Court appeared to have little difficulty in interpreting the clear meaning of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD necessarily had to prepare for an argument that the language in the agreement is ambiguous and that parole evidence was necessary for a full and complete understanding of the key provisions. The PCSSD submits it would have been .remiss in not completely reviewing the exhaustive history of kc;:y provision of the Settlement Agreement both in an, effort to make the State Board understand and to supply a full context for this Court. On an issue of this moment, the PCSSD perceived that thoroughness was absolutely required. It is my considered judgment that the activities described in Exhibit A were all , ' completely required for compliance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and were - appropriate for the ultimate purpose of prevailing upon this most significant and far-reaching issue. Indeed, failure was not an option. This Court first awarded fees to the PCSSD as a prevailing party in the matters of \"workers' compensation\" and \"loss funding\" . That petition covered work performed from 1994 through 1996. See Order dated December 10, 1996 (Docket 2880) and as corrected on December 12, 1996 (Docket 2883). This Court later awarded Mr. Jones $160.00 per hour, $170.00 per hour, and $175.00 per hour for 1996. (Order dated December 31, 1997, see also Court of Appeals Decision 97-1350EA dated October 14, 1997). This Court also awarded fees to counsel for the PCSSD as respects the pooling issue. In that Order, the Court awarded fees for the years 1993 through 1997 at $150.00 per hour, 446157-v1 2 $160.00 per hour, $170.00 per hour, $175.00 per hour and $180.00 per hour for 1997. (Order dated January 30, 1998). On August 27, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit awarded fees to counsel for the PCSSD for the successful prosecution of the teacher retirement and health insurance appeal. It awarded $185.00 per hour for work done during 1998. (Order ' -dated August 27, 1998, 97-1794EA). STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 11th day of ' September, 2003. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 446157-v1 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 11, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201  Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P:.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldred~ \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkans~ 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall . QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 446157-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.Kinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 4 C. 6Y\u0026gt;'1/\u0026gt; /~/.-e. Copy \"~ t;.,J-,. '/.\u0026gt;t'I /-J IS t .'/(:J : ltssD - J,,c.l\u0026lt;sc,w, lie Se/, I-FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 03/19/01 MS Jones, III 03/20/01 MS Jones, III 03/21/01 MS Jones, III 03/21/01 MS Jones, III 03/22/01 MS Jones, III 03/23/01 ~s Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/i~/01 MS Jones, III 03/29/01 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY 2001 Telephone conference with Gary Smith Prepare for Senate Education hearing Meet with Governor's staff regarding HB 1882; confer with Dr. Smith and Mr. Manfredini; attend entirety of Senate Education Committee hearing Telephone conference with Dr. Smith Telephone conference with Dr. Smith Appear at Senate Education hearing regarding HB 1882 Testify before legislature regarding HB 1882 Telephone conference with David Colbert Telephone conference with Gary Smith Review letter from John Walker to Representative Pat Bond Review letter from John Walker to Judge Wright HOURS/RATES/VALUE MS Jones Total 55404-v1 9 . 8 $150 $1,470.00 $1,470.00 Hours 0 .2 0.7 3.9 0.2 0.2 2 . 2 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 I EXHIBIT 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from a portion of the order of the district court filed on August 18, 2003 , and the corrected order filed on August 19, 2003 , as respects the District Court's interpretation of the 8th Circuit - Court of Appeals' decision dated November 19, 1986 as reported at 805 F.2d 815, (8th Circuit, 1986). 447430-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~(}''-'-----'( ~  / 'M. Samue Jones mp6~60) ( Attorneys r Pulaski-County Special , School 806 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 September 16, 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 111 S. 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Case No . 4:82CV00866 WRW Re: LITTLE ROCK SHCOOL DIST vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Dear Sir : Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 8/ 18 / 03 Order filed 8/ 19 / 03 RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The appellant is in non-compliance with Eighth Circuit Rule 3B for not submitting an Appeal Information Form (Form A) with the Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, we are providing the appellant (Form A) to complete and submit to the Court of Appeals and (Form B) to serve upon the appellee. Sincerely, Ja~. McCormack, Clerk . ,  r~~ By:~~ Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/ encs. Counsel of Record U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLEE'S FORM B Appeal Information Form CASE NAME (Underline name of Appellee): GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTIIA WHATLEY, SUE ANN WHISKER vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES, NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS Appeal Docket No. 03-3088 CORRECT ON APPELLANT'S FORM A? t8J Yes O No Ifno, list corrections below. IF YOU WISH TO CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OR GENERAL STATEMENT, LIST THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS. Whether or not the District Court erred in his interpretation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision dated November 19, 1986 as reported at 805 F.2d 815, (8th Circuit, 1986) DO YOU BELIEVE THIS CASE IS SUITABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT' SETTLEMENT PROGRAM? 0 Yes. t8J No. Ifno, state why. Appellee has no desire or motivation to discuss settlement. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL COMPLETING THIS FORM: M. SAMUEL JONES III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 Copy 1 - Send to Appellant Copy 2 \u0026amp; 3 - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Copy 4 - Retain 445092-vl EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JO HN D. DAVIS JI/DY SIMMONS HENRY Michael Gans, Clerk of the Court 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501 ) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONA LD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOV ER Writer's Direct Dia l No . 501-212- 1273 mjoncs@wlj .com September 16, 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 RE: 03-3088 Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  .Lkeasted1opn,tCIK:ebelamtbt: Uai Sates hlt:DI mt/ Ttadt:awr Of6ce RECEIVED SEP 18 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Sue Ann Whisker (Appellants) vs. Pulaski County Special School District (Appellee) On Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas; USDC No. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Michael: Enclosed are two copies of Appellee's Form B - Appeal Information Form. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding copies of the above to the attorney for the Appellant. MSJ:ao Enclosure cc: Mr. Will Bond All Other Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP t:..- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v . No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfffNG PLAINTIFF . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education, and for its Motion for Extension of Time, states: 1. On September 11 , 2003, PCSSD filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys ' Fees with this Court. 2. A response is currently due to this Motion on or before September 25 , 2003. Due to undersigned counsel's travel and deposition schedule, he has been unable to prepare a response to date. Undersigned requests a ten-day extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion, that is, until October 6, 2003. 3. Pursuant to local rules, undersigned contacted opposing counsel, Mr. Samuel Jones III, with regard to this Motion, and opposing counsel does not object to the extension. WHEREFORE, the Arkansas Department of Education requests that the Court grant its Motion for Extension of Time. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen al 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on September :l )., 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mark A. Hagemci IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED ' S O1 ~TR' C1' COURT L!.   1-s---1cT A''KANSAS c:ASTERN ' '' \" SEP 2 \u0026gt;2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK By; OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3807) to reply to the PCSSD's fee petition (Doc. No. 3804). The ADE requesi:s an exte1;1Sion - to October 6, 2003, ten days from the original deadline, to respond, and opposing counsel does not object to the extension. The ADE's motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED1his 23rd day of September, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREO ON TJNfi/Jli'l:ff.4~~ OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WM. R. WILSON, JR. WITH RULE 58 AN~~ FRCF oN 9-a~-0-1-sv~wc + TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA1~SAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette 9 ... z::; ~ 05 Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are 2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmissioni MESSAGE SENT BY: rt; Office of Judge Wm. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V . NO. 4:82CV00866WRW  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2003 omcEOF ~st{3{E~AllON MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR TEMPORARY PORTABLE BUILDINGS AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. For the 2002-2003 school year, the 11th day enrollment at Robinson High School was 593 students. 2. The 11th day enrollment for the current school year is 681 students of whom 307 are African-American and 374 are other. 3. The increase in enrollment is attributed to an increase in M-to-M students, the closing of Faith Christian Academy's secondary program which was a predominately AfricanAmerican institution and the change in 9th grade athletic participation instituted by the Little Rock School District. 4. Robinson is currently holding class in the cafeteria, the band room, the rAW auditorium and the gym. 449094-vl 5. To accommodate the increased enrollment for the balance of the school year and to evaluate the propriety and necessity for permanent classroom additions, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable buildings for the balance of the school year to accommodate the current enrollment. 6. If during the coming weeks the PCSSD determines that the increased enrollment is likely permanent, it will evaluate the prospect of classroom additions to the campus and apply to this Court at the appropriate time for permission to construct such additions should they prove necessary. 7. These circumstances are more fully explained in a memo dated September 4, 2003, from the principal at Robinson, which is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. WHEREFORE, and as an interim measure, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable classrooms for the balance of the 2003-2004 school year and for all proper relief. 449094-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 School  trict 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 23, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mr. Clayton Blackstock 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 449094-vl Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  09/18/2003 14:58 5014901352 EQUI1Y PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 03/03 SEP O 9.2003 Robinson High School 21501Hwy10 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Phone: 501-86~400 Joy L Plants Principal Emall-jplants@pcud.org MEMO To: Dr. Brenda Bowles From: Ms. Joy Plants )( Date: Thursday, September 04, 2003 Fax: 50.1-868-2405 Dr. Yoloundro Williams Assistant Princ:ipal Emoil-ywlJliams@pcssd.org John Pearee As~istant l'rlnc:ipal fmail-Jpearce@pcssd.org - Re: Increased Enrollm':fJtlFaci/ity Needs Due to a larger than usual influx of students, we are in desperate need of three portable classrooms. This year we have had an increase of Minority to Majority enrollment from 33 percent to 45 percent. This enrollment change was in part due to the closing of Faith Christian Academy's secondary program which is a predominately minority institution. As well as, Little Rock School District's change In ninth grade athletic participation. We also have had some students that have moved from the private sector to Robinson High School. In effort to hold true to Desegregation Plan 2000, we have continued to welcome students to our school. These are indeed excellent problems to have. However, our total enrollment has increased from 594 at the end of last year to 682 to date. We have at present classes being held in the cafeteria, the band room, the auditorium, and the gym. We also have some teachers sharing classrooms at the same time. To accommodate our increase in numbers, we have also had to hire two new teachers. We continue to be in the midst of schedule changes to accommodate students and balance classes. Yet and still with those changes, we still need classroom space for .classes. EXHIBIT I ---'I)_,,____ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITCi1lNG RENEWED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION REGARDING SYLVAN HILLS BAND ROOM The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On March 11 , 2003, this Court entered its Order authorizing the PCS SD. to temporarily utilize a portable building, until the end of the 2002-2003 school year, for the Sylvan Hills band room because of persistent water problems. 2. In the interim, the PCSSD solicited proposals from contractors toward the end of \"correcting\" the water problem. The Sylvan Hills band room is built partially underground. 3. Counsel is informed that one contractor agreed to guarantee his work for one year and that all other contractors declined to extend any guarantee whatsoever. 4. Because the problem persists, the PCSSD has made the decision to abandon efforts to correct the water problem and to commit to new construction on the same campus. 5. Accordingly, the PCSSD now requests two approvals from this Court: First, authorization to lease a portable building to be used as the band room until permanent construction is concluded, and second, to approve construction of a replacement facility on the 447293-v1 current Sylvan Hills campus. Neither authorization will affect the capacity of the Sylvan Hills school. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for authority to lease a portable building to be used as a temporary band room and for further authority to construct a permanent replacement for the current band room on the Sylvan Hills campus. 447293-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 School District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 23, 2003 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 447293-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903  1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913  1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK I. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR , JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMBS J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201  3699 (501) 3710808 FAX (501) 3769442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. S0l-212-1273 mjones@wlj .com September 26, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY IBRRY I. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY l . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW JR.BY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD  I...iot!mod1opn,;tic,:bt:Afftbt: Uaill:lt!Sarcs h1e111 ud Tndt:llwk O/fk% RECEIVED VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SEP 2 6 2003 OfRCf OF OESEGREGAT!Oti MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I am informed that the PCSSD Board is taking another look at the potential for repairing the Sylvan Hills band room. Hence, I have amended our motion, courtesy copy enclosed. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 450331-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 6~ Honorable J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION REGARDING SYLVAN HILLS BAND ROOM The PCSSD for its amended and supplemental motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD filed a motion on September 23, 2003, seeking certain reli~f as respects the Sylvan Hills band room. That motion remains pending. 2. Today counsel for the PCSSD was informed that the Board has reconsidered the issue of a permanent replacement for the structure and has instructed the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services to re-examine the prospects of securing a workable and practicable repair solution to the water problems in this band room. 3. Accordingly, the PCSSD hereby amends its pending motion to drop, at least for the moment, its request for permission to build a new structure while it re-examines the prospect that a less costly but effective repair solution can be pursued. 4. The PCSSD retains its request for permission to lease a portable building to house the band program for the balance of the current school year, and states that it has located an \"acoustically appropriate\" structure for lease. 450309-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court permitting it to lease a portable building for the balance of the school year to house the band program at Sylvan Hills and for all proper relief. 450309-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B ~:....::::::::::::::._~~~~~=----ch o o l 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 26, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S . District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 450309-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Littls Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carfis/s Luke Gordy Van Bursn Robert Hackler Mountain Home caMn King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville - ~ebick I. I Diane Tatum I I Pine Bluff I l Jeanna Westmoreland I Arkadelphia :l i :1 :i ,1 !l ;, ;J if 1J I l 'l /j Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 September 29, 2003 501-682-4475 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ larked11.state.ar.,u RECEIVED SEP 3 o 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG~TIOH MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier - --- ---- - - - - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2003. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 29, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 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 AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2003 B.ased :on.~e' informat,onjivailabie at August 31 ;-: 2003.,tpe APE calculated the Eqllalizaiio'n Furidirig for;fY03i04;' s~bjecf to penod1c adjustments'. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1053","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1053"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED SEP 2 4 7C03 Dff~ Offlr. JF w~uftEGAt101. rlOtiff DliltJG Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting September 2003 0,.\"\n0:c ,., ......,m._.. ..... 3: Oz 0,. el~ m..,\n:c C: z .C..'.\u0026gt;. 0 z U\u0026gt; !ll n. o,.\n:c-\u0026lt; o::z: r,..-..o., n,. o.., F=.., ~ ,m... \u0026lt;\"I m 2~ 3:.., m\n:c -o U\u0026gt; C'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;m C: 0 0 C: .~.... ?,..\n. ~~ ql ..... o-\u0026lt;\ncm ~ill z C'\u0026gt; m\n:c . .m., U\u0026gt;O .C.,:\n..:.c.. :-\u0026lt;{!? o\n:c :,:_imo ..... o 0~ ~ :3 f) 0 z CJ\u0026gt;\n:c mcc :f: \n:c\"0\n,i\n U\u0026gt; ~ \"T1Z\ncm O\n:c 3: U\u0026gt; o:!: =I.., Nu, m z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING September 25, 2003 5:30 o.m. I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Oath of Office - Newly Elected Board Members C. Roll Call II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 111. A. Welcome to Guests B. Performance - Mann Magnet School Dance Dept. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Jefferson Elementary School - Roberta Mannon Andover Place Retirement Residence - Victoria Clark Mann Magnet Middle School - Jim Fullerton and Traci Presley Arkansas Hospitality Association - Montine McNulty and Renee Borchert Stephens Elementary School - Sharon Brooks and Beverly Jones Clinton Presidential Materials Project - Kathleen Pate C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to .speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. L. R. PTA Council F. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects n.., )\u0026gt; o\nmlO ,,-- ,_...\nc Oz o\u0026gt;\n,o\nlO o-\u0026lt; m..,\n,o C: ~ 0z U\u0026gt; !XI .n,.o.\n,o-\u0026lt; o:c i=.o., ,n...o., i=.., ~ m,- c5 m 8 P ll:.., m\n,o -o U\u0026gt;n -\u0026lt;m c:o Cc: .~.. ~,- ril f\n~ ... o-\u0026lt;\nam f\nill zn m .\u0026gt; ~.., cno .C.,: .\n,.o. :-'!!! n\na :,:.:_imn ..,.o 0 C) zii!: U\u0026gt; :::! 0 z Cl) 0\na mCD ~ -\na..,\n-:\u0026gt; Cl)~ 'T1Z\nam o\n,o\ncu, n:!: =i.., f\n:j(J) m z Cl) Regular Board Meeting September 25, 2003 Page2 REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (continued): E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Update: Title IX Compliance Report V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Election of Officers B. Reappointment of Planning Commission Representative C. Minutes D. Second Reading: Board Policy BCB- Prevention of Nepotism E. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Fuel Cell Project VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. 2003-04 Consolidation Application for Special Education and Related Services B. Fiscal Impact Statement- LISA Academy Charter School Application VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Reappointment of District Officials B. Resolution Designating Disbursing Officers for the Board C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT C')\"D )\u0026gt;\n:JJ ,. - m,- ,- - ...\nc Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:JJ c-\u0026lt; m..,\n:o C: ~... ,iz.5, , !JI ~ ~\n:o-\u0026lt; 0 :c FO.., n\u0026gt;.o., F.., c'5 m :E m,- 8\n::: :!C:-c m\n:o\ng -\u0026lt;m c:c Cc: .~.. ~,-\n:g ~ ~::l Om\n:JJ\n:o ~,.,, ~ m\n:o \u0026gt;m  \"D \"'0 C:\n:o \"D ... :-\u0026lt;~ C')\n:JJ :,,:_imn ... o 0~ Z::::j ,.,,0 z \"' ~\n:o ma:, ~-\n:o \"D\n,:\u0026gt; \"'~ -.,z\n:om O\n:o 31::v, n:!: =I \"D N c,, m z \"' PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER B. OATH OF OFFICE C. ROLLCALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME/ STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 September 25, 2003 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. The recommendation is that the Board approve the following partnerships: Jefferson Elementary School and Andover Place Retirement Residence Mann Magnet Middle School and Arkansas Hospitality Association Stephens Elementary School and Clinton Presidential Materials Project ~ :n .... c....\n,\n, On en-- :cC: )_\u0026gt; z~m ..... .., m-- iii )\u0026gt; ZC'\u0026gt; 00\n,\n, C: en~\n= !ll !!l C: 0 zm ..... ~ en cz5\nr:: zm ..... r\u0026gt; a, C: 8 .m.... C: ~ m ~ c- ~% zo\"-\ng ~ or \u0026lt;-= me 02 ~ ~ \"t C\nt J EFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL August 22, 2003 To: Debbie Milam, Coordinator, Volunteers in Public Schools From: Roberta Mannon, Principal fJ/iv. Subject: Partnership with Andover Place Retirement Residence, 2601 Andover Court, Little Rock, AR 72207. Contact: Carolyn Lewis, Activity Director. Jefferson Elementary School and Andover Place would like to establish a partnership. We have agreed t\u0026lt;,\u0026gt; the following partnership activities. Jefferson's students will:  Provide monthly artwork for employees.  Provide holiday greetings.  Invite employees and residents to appropriate school functions.  Jefferson Choir will perform Holiday concert for employees and residents. Andover Place will:  Contribute school supplies each August  Provide tutoring for students  Join students for special programs  Provide pen pal correspondence with students. 2600 N. McKinley Street Pt1one 447-5000  Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Mann Magnet Middle School and Arkansas Hospitality Association Partnership Proposal Arkansas Hospitality Association will contribute the following to the partnership:  Motivational speakers to speak to Mann staff at beginning of school year  Support in planning and implementing the school's dedication and grand opening event Mann will contribute the following to the partnership:  Student artwork  Dance performances  Dramatic performances  LRSD booths at Arkansas Hospitality Association events !=' '.\",._\n,, Oo tJ\u0026gt;--, :C)\u0026gt; c::_\n!\" ... \"D m--\u0026lt; ~\u0026gt; ZO 00\n,,c:: tJ\u0026gt;~\n= !D ~ c:: .mCz. . ~ tJ\u0026gt; i:5 z\ni:: m .z. . p a, c:: g .m.. c:: ~ ~ m Stephens Elementary School and Clinton Presidential Materials Project Partnership Proposal Clinton Presidential Materials Project will contribute the following to the partnership:  Speakers for classroom presentations and career day  Special preview exhibit tour for students  \"What is a Presidential Library?\" presentation and behind-thescenes tour for teachers and school staff  Assistance in developing and providing rewards for reading challenge program Stephens will contribute the following to the partnership:  Student artwork  Students will serve as test audience for pilot educational programs  Teachers will assist in development of lesson plans related to Presidential Libraries  DATE: TO: FROM: '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" September 25, 2003 Board of Directors ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman 0 SUBJECT: September 2003 Construction Report - Bond Projects I thought you might be interested in where we are financially for the Bond Construction Program. As of the end of July 2003, we have spent and/or obligated approximately $86,000,000 out of the $132,000,000 Bond Fund. This includes both construction and technology upgrade. The bottom line is we are 2/3 of the way through money that has been set aside for construction and technology for a bond issue that was approved by the public in May 2000. In three (3) years a lot has been done to improve our schools and the work is ongoing. The construction of the replacement school at Wakefield has been started. The additions to Parkview High School and Brady Elementary have been advertised for bids from contractors. Construction should begin within sixty (60) days. The design for the renovation of Mitchell is progressing and should be completed soon. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 rn z -m\u0026lt;\nti z -,:. ~ 0 =i 0\nti en Rl c3 ~ :,-, -\u0026lt; C') % z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"0 0 ?\nm :\u0026lt; ~ C: -z\u0026lt; m f\n::l m\nti V,\n,, ,r..r. rr c-, c z C T C T T c,,\". X V Facility Name Baseline Central Dunbar J. A. Fair Forest Park Hall Mabelvale MS Mann McClellan Pulaski Hgts. Elem Pulaski Hgts. MS Southwest Southwest CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Renovation $953,520 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Renovation/addition $6,161,950 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Renovation $6,851,621 Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Renovation $1,193,259 Renovation $3,755,041 Addition $2,000,000 New roof $690,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION FALL/ WINTER 2003 Facility Name Project Description Cost Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 !::st. CompletIon Date Jul-04 Dec-05 Aug-04 Feb-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-04 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Jun-04 Jul-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Nov-03 !::st. CompletIon Date Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. 1..,\nompIeuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation $660,000 Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation I Unknown Woodruff Parkinq addition $193,777 Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED 1::st. CompletIon Facilitv Name Proiect Description Cost Date Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 , - ~ug-02 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Facility Name Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Carver Carver Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date Energy efficient lighting I $170,295 1 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 , Oct-01 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Sep-02 Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Parking lot $111,742 Aug-03 Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations I $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 1 Oct-01 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Front landing tile repair $22,470 I Aug-01 1-C_lo_v_e_rd_a_le_ E_le_m_._ ___- +E-ne_r_g,,,,y efficient lighting I $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting I $189,743 ~ - Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 :D=o=d=d==================E=ne:r=g=y=e=ffi=c=ie=n=tl =ig=h=ti=ng========-------~_-_--:_l-_-_-_-_-_- _$9 0_,66_5---.-_ __ Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling _tile_ ___, __ __$1_ 5_6_,2_9_9-+-____J_ u_l-_0__,1 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 1 Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm , $12,000 Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm I $315,956 Apr-02 ~F~a_i _r ~P~a_rk_ ______- +E-ne_r=g~y_effi_cie_ntl~ig~h_ti~ng~--------,----,$~9_0~,1_6_2 _ ._ __ Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 , Aug-01 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 J. A. Fair !security cameras I $12,500 I Jun-01 J. A. Fair !Athletic Field Improvement -'----~$-3~8,0_0_0-+------J-u-l---03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J:.3-_. Fa_ir ______ ,_R_o_o_f re~p_a_irs__ _ ____ _L__ $391,871 I _ Aug-03 Forest Park 1D iagonal parking , $111 ,742 ___ Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting _ I $119,788 May-0_! Fulbright Energy efficient lighting ----$134,463 - - Jun-01 Fulbright ________ ,_EI_n_ergy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 - Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot _j__ $140,000- - Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs _ =-- - _ $200,000 _O_ct-02 Franklin - - -- - Renovation - $2,511,736 Gibbs - - - - Energy efficient lighting - - $76,447 Gibbs - - --~nergy monitoring system installation - $11,770 Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall - - - - Asbestos abatement ~ $168,222 _ - - Energy efficient lighting ~ $42,931 Energy efficient lighting - -- $296,707-- --11-nf-rastructure improvements - _-:._ -_- _ $93,657 Intercom Hend-e-rs_on -- 1 Security cameras - Energy efficient lighting $10,600 $193,679 $107,835 ,_ $500,000 Henderson Henderson  Roof replacement gym Asbestos abatement Phase I Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-0.1_ Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 2 [TI z ..... m\na z ~ l: C ~\na u, Rl ~ ~ :n ci :zc 0 8 -\u0026lt; c:: ~ m :c: ~ .c..:.:. z m ~ =I m\na u, ?\u0026gt; IT' rlT' c-: 0z C T C T T \u0026lt;': FT ::t V. Facilitv Name Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,750 Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81 ,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 Parking Improvements $142,541 HVAC controls I $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 I Exterior lights I $10,784 [ HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 I Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Fire alarm I $25,000 Move playground I $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 7 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 I Parkinq addition $111 ,742 I Est. Completion Date Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 3 Facility Name Romine Romine Security/Transportation Southwest Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Student Assignment Tech Center Phase 1 Technology Upgrade Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Drainage I street widening $250,000 Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Fire alarm $9,000 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 I Media Center addition $704,932 I Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Security cameras $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement $182,241 Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom I $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 I Parking Expansion $110,000 Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug~ Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Auo-02 4 :,-, _, C') ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; .C.,: 0 ?\nm :\u0026lt; el C_,: z m ~ =1 m ill ,\n,i,.,. ,... rr (\") 0z C T C T T \u0026lt;': rr\n:c V. Date: To: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 23, 2003 Board of Directors From: @sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - September This is the forty-seventh communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. :n .... n ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"D 0 ~ m :\u0026lt; ~ .C...:. z m ~ m ill ?\u0026gt;' r\"-' (\"\"') 0z C T C T T i'\nrr\n,: er. Audit Report - September 2003 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial position. hnplementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: September 25, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  The computer virus that invaded our network last month has been cleaned up. Additional virus protection has been installed on all district computers.  World Book Online, a web-based encyclopedia, is now available for LRSD students both at school and at home. Students may get the passwords from their local school librarian.  This month technology training has concentrated on assisting teachers in using GradeQuick, an electronic gradebook. Sixteen schools are up and running. Implementation is planned for a total of 28 schools during the 2003-2004 school year.  A request for proposals for the distance learning center equipment at the new Technology Center will go out to vendors on September 26.  Staff from both Computer Information Services and Instructional Technology continue to be involved in construction projects that relate to technology and library improvements. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical August 28, 2003 to September 25, 2003 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. fl !I: z .C..:. m en :c ~ .C..:. z m ~ =l m e\"n' .,. ,,.. ,r, .. (\") 0z C 'T' 5\n: 'T' ('\nrr ::t V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: Board of Education From: Johnny Johnson, Director of Athletics Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent- School Services Through: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Re: Title IX Compliance Update As requested by Dr. Daugherty, a Title IX report is presented for your review. Additional information will be provided upon request, and I will be available to respond to any questions or concerns. f) :I: z .C...:. m \"' :\u0026lt; ~ .C...:. z m 5 m ~ .,,. ,\",.,..'. r. c z .C,. ..C,,.. ,c,'.:\n,:: V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TITLE IX REPORT THE TITLE IX REGULATIONS (1975) Virtually all educational institutions receive some fonn of direct or indirect financial support from the Federal government, therefore nearly every university, high school, middle school and elementary school is required to comply with the requirements of Title IX. The original statute, however, did not specifically refer to athletic programs. Based on the intent of Congress as reflected in the debates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate which preceded enactment of the Title IX statute, it was clear that the athletic programs were covered by the mandate of Title IX. Yet it was not until now-defunct Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued the Final Title IX Regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106, signed into law by President Gerald Ford on July 21, 1975, that the application of Title IX to athletic programs was conclusively addressed. Section 106.41 Athletics: (a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied on the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or othetwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis. (b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a tean1 in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to tryout for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purpose of this part, contact spo1ts include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact. (c) Equal opp01tunity. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In detem1ining whether equal opportunities are available, the Director of the Office of Civil Rights will consider, among other factors: (1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes\n(2) The provision of equipment and supplies\n(3) Scheduling of games and practice time\n( 4) Travel and per diem allowance\n(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring\n(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors\n(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities\n(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services\n(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services\n(10) Publicity (a) Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary (HEW) may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. Adjustment period. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intran1Ural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year form the effective date of this regulation. A recipient whom operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics a the secondary or post-secondary level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from the effective date of this regulation. In the Little Rock School District, the following sports are offered at the high school level: Men Women Football Volleyball Basketball Basketball Baseball Softball (fast pitch) Track Track Cross Country Cross Country Swimming Swimming Golf Golf Tennis Tennis Soccer Soccer !\"' ii: z .C..:. m \"' :c: :,0 0 .C..:. z m l =l m :,0 \"'\nr\u0026gt; ,m-rr C'l 0z C T C T T ('\nrr ::,: er. The middle schools in the Little Rock School District offer the following sp\u0026lt;Jrts for students: Boys Girls Football Volleyball Basketball Basketball Track Track *Soccer *Soccer *Soccer is a co-ed sport at the middle school level. The past two years, the Athletic Office has offered a golf clinic at First Tee of Arkansas for our middle schools. The Little Rock School District also provides cheerleading, drill teams, and pep squads for young women to participate, but title IX regulations do not recognize these activities as sports and thus their participants cannot be counted when comparing the number of male athletes to female athletes. The Department of Education was assigned the responsibility of overseeing the enforcement of Title IX through its office of Civil Rights (OCR). The OCR developed a \"3-Prong-Test\" to determine if compliance of Title IX is being satisfied. A school needs to satisfy only one of these three prongs in order to comply. 1) A school may provide athletic participation opportunities for female students which are substantially proportional to the female percentage of enrollment at the school. 2) A school may demonstrate a history and continuing practice of expanding its sports offering for women in the very recent past. 3) A school may show that it is fully and effectively accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of the women in its student body, Since the enrollment numbers would not be substantially proportional to female paiiicipants, the Little Rock School District Athletic Office has chosen prongs twoand three to meet Title IX compliance. As stated earlier, the LRSD offers the same number of sports for both men and women (nine). A major component of Title IX compliance deals with the issue as to whether, in an over all sense, evaluating a school's atl1letics program as whole, men and women have comparable access to all \"perks\" of athletic participation. 1n order to measure compliance, the OCR will examine the following eleven areas, represented by the acronym P-L-A-Y-I- -G F-A-I-R. p L A y I N G Protective athletic equipment and other athletic supplies Locker rooms and practice and competition facilities Allocation of travel and transportation benefits and per-diem allowances Years of experience, quality, compensation, and assignment of coaches Institutional housing and dining facilities and related services Nature of publicity-marketing-media services for athletic programs Game and practice times and scheduling F Facilities for access to athletic training benefits and medical services A Academic tutoring services for student-athletes I Institutional support services for athletic programs R Recruiting resources provided to athletic programs Not all eleven areas will be relevant for all educational institutions. Inapplicable for most high schools will be the assessment of gender equity in recruiting resources, academic tutoring for student athletes, and housing/dining facilities for student athletes. The OCR will review only those program areas of the eleven, which apply to a particular school. These components of P-L-A-Y-1-N-G F-A-I-R are some of the main areas that the LRSD Athletic Office works on to insure compliance at all middle school and high schools. For the school year 2002-03, the number of participants for athletics remained constant compared to the previous two years, both for male and female athletes. However, there were four positive situations that benefited the LRSD Title IX position. 1) ew Gynmasiwn at Hall High School 2) Increase in female athletes for swimming 3) Increase in female athletes for fast pitch softball 4) Parkview establishes a girls' soccer team The new gym at Hall High School was built in accordance to Title IX specifications. Both boys and girls locker rooms have equal floor space and lockers. The coaches ' offices for the boys are the same as the girls. The facility turned out beautiful and should benefit all of the sports programs at Hall. The number of students participating in swimming jumped from 52 to 81. Parkview had 23 female swimmers on their team. One big reason for the jump in swimming was that U.A.L.R. provided the LRSD their pool for practices. Fast pitch softball numbers continue to grow. The LRSD has increased the number of female athletes participating in fast pitch softball each year since we began offering the sport in 2001. 2002-03: Parkview High School was able to field a girl's soccer team for the first time in school history. .?,,' XI !j\n~~ -c,Z\n_8 nCl zo .... 31: 31: 31: .~...e on z f\u0026gt; :I: z .C..:. m UI :c ~ .C..:. z m\nm ~ i5 z C.,. ..C,,.. ,c,'.i\nc V. The 2003-04 school year has staiied out on a positive note for the Athletic Office. The preliminary numbers show an increase in middle school and high school football. J.A. Fair has added women's cross country and swimming to their sports they will offer. High School volleyball numbers are up. Also, L.R. Parkview's volleyball team will move into the AAAAA Central Conference beginning in the 2004-05 school year. Construction should begin on the new field house for Parkview sometime during this school year. This will be another facility that will have to comply with Title IX specifications. The Athletic Office for the LRSD will continue to comply with Title IX regulations. Any Title IX concerns will be addressed promptly and thoroughly. It is the goal of the Athletic Office to offer a safe, enjoyable, and educational experience for all athletes in the LRSD. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: September 25, 2003 To: From: Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: Reappointment of District's Representative to the City of Little Rock Planning Commission The Board is required to periodically appoint or reappoint a representative to the City of Little Rock Planning Commission. Mr. Mizhan Rahman has served as the District's representative for the past several years, and has agreed to continue in that role and capacity. The administration recommends the reappointment of Mr. Mizhan Rahman to the City Planning Commission. \"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; no\u0026gt;= zc !\"\nc .\u0026gt;.,\nz: -0 (J) ..,m 0:,:, ::O\u0026lt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;o -om ~(J) m C r\u0026gt; !I: z C: -m\u0026lt; (J) !\" -0 m :,:J ~z z ,m.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: September 25, 2001 TO: Board of Education FROM: Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent of Schools RE: Revision of Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, Second Reading Pursuant to Board discussion at the agenda meeting, August 14, 2003, Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, has been revised as directed and is attached for second reading. !.D., ~,.... I .... (\") ::c ~ m\nc ~ ::c .!,\", m\nc is z z m,.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCB PREVENTION OF NEPOTISM No person will be employed in the Little Rock School District in a position where he/she would be related, (whether by blood or marriage, including spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin), to his/her immediate supervisor. If an employee is transferred to a supervisor's position which would cause a violation of this policy, the subordinate employee will be transferred to a substantially equivalent position as soon as reasonably possible. Under no circumstance will a supervisor be allowed to evaluate the performance of one of his/her relatives. Revised: Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-24-105 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GBEA TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 25, 2003 Board of Education f Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. \u0026gt; \u0026lt; (\")\n= ozc\u0026gt; : !\n\"D :Z \"-nDm\"' O\no ::0 \u0026lt; cno \"D m ~\"' m C ?\" ::0 m \"0 ' r C: --\u0026lt; 5z Personnel Changes Page 2 September 25, 2003 NAME NONE Green, Cassandra Spears, Laurene NONE ONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees New Certified Employees Supervisor SPECIAL ED. Special Ed FAIR 9-22-03 8-18-03 Certified Promotion Certified Transfer 68-06 ADCll 1-09 SPE925 ANNUAL SALARY 45000.00 annual 34708.52 prorated 20381.50 annual 19638.42 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 September 25, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Harris, Gloria Hippy Aide 9-5-91 1-10 Reason: None Given HlPPY 9-15-03 HIPY08 Humphrey, Joyce Child Nutrition 1-24-03 1-01 Reason: Abandonment TERRY 8-6-03 FSH5 Johnson, Lisa Child Nutrition 9-23-02 1-02 Reason: None Given FULBRIGHT 9-10-03 FSH5 Lipsmeyer, Priscilla Child Nutrition 9-22-00 1-04 Reason: None Given CENTRAL 6-2-03 FSH5 Mahan, Marsha Nurse 8-27-00 1-15 Reason: Retired ROMINE 10-21-03 NURSES Sheridan, Vicki Instr. Aide 1-4-93 1-06 Reason: None Given WESTERN Hil..LS 9-11-03 INA185 Smittie, Carol Care 8-21-00 1-14 Reason: None Given CARE 8-29-03 CARE Taybore, Roosevelt Custodian 3-30-87 1-08 Reason: Accepted Another PROCUREMENT 8-15-03 CUS12 Position Walls, Kenya Clerical 12-20-02 39-13 Reason: Tem1inated CLOVERDALE EL. 9-15-03 CLKl0 Williams, Kendra Bus Driver 8-12-02 3-02 Reason: Personal TRANS. 9-5-03 BUSDRV ANNUAL SALARY 11339.00 7392.00 7420.00 7476.00 39818.00 12798.00 7.93 17269.00 23340.00 10118.00 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; n := o,.. ~c  31: \u0026gt;- c,Z -0 Cl) ..,m 0~~s -eonmn ~en m C !.E,,l i2l \u0026gt;,- I n\u0026gt;... . c=\n:,: \u0026gt; ~ m ~ en n :,:\n,,, ~\u0026lt; ~l= -0 c3 :g -ze-n --\u0026lt;Z 31:m !::!~ -\u0026lt;en om ..,~ On 33~ n ~ en !El ~ men 0,- .C..:. 0z\n!: ,..z . u, .., i ~ C: r-~ nmC- ,-z ,- )\u0026gt; -.,r- ~ V. o._r\n.r: m\u0026lt; ~c=: Personnel Changes Page 4 September 25, 2003 NAME Alor, Lameka Blackman, Margie Bonds, Dorothy Bunton, Deborah Boykin, Lalicia Britton, Erica POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition 8-29-03 1-01 FOREST HGTS. FSH5 Child Nutrition 8-29-03 1-01 FOREST HGTS. FSH5 Care 9-2-03 1-06 CARE CARE Child Nutrition 8-22-03 1-01 HENDERSON FSH5 Custodian 8-25-03 1-01 HALL CUS925 Instr. Aide 9-9-03 1-03 GIBBS INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated 6.84 7392.00 annual 7149.64 prorated 5164.50 annual 4827.68 prorated 7795.45 annual 6910.56 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 September 25, 2003 NAME Broyles, Paris Clanton, Willie Collins, Rebecca Daniel, Nita Davis, Eleanor Derryberry, Linda Doss, Jimmy Fleming, Mary POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT Interpreter SPECIAL ED. Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Care CARE Nurses ROMINE Instr. Aide ALC TBCCLIAIS START DATE END DATE 9-2-03 8-22-03 8-7-03 9-5-03 8-18-03 9-2-03 8-25-03 9-15-03 PUPIL PERSONNEL SALARY CLASS 3-05 CARE 1-01 FSH5 55-1 AN925 1-01 FSH5 1-03 CARE 1-07 NURSE 1-10 INA925 47-14 AN! 1 ANNUAL SALARY 7.40 7392.00 annual 7149.54 prorated 26292.00 7392.00 annual 6745.70 prorated 6.43 31651.00 annual 28848.57 prorated 14067.00 annual 13230.58 prorated 30500.00 annual 23867.35 prorated \u0026gt; \u0026lt; n= 0~ :z~c -.,\nz: \"-n\"m\"' 0~ ~\u0026lt; \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;O -om ~\"' m C !..\",' ~ \u0026gt;r- ~ ~.... n ::c\nm ~ \"C\"') ::c .,.. ~\u0026lt; ! i= .,, a,\ng C: -\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; ~z\nii:m m\"' z\"' \"o\"m'\"' ~..,~n ..,m n\"' \u0026gt;r- \"' !\"' ~ m \"0,.. '. C...:. 0z ~ \u0026gt;z . V, ..,- C: X me I~ ~c F~ -0,.. ~u Orr c..X m\u0026lt; ~~ Personnel Changes Page 6 September 25, 2003 NAME Hastings, Betty Hendrix, Ronald Holly, Rosetta Hood, Sabrina Howard, Nakisha Humphrey, Ketra Jackson, Charles POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide FOREST HGTS. Custodian PROCUREMENT Child Nutrition MABELV ALE EL. Custodian KING Child Nutrition WESTERN HILLS Care CARE Instr. Aide WESTERN HILLS START DATE END DATE 8-25-03 8-25-03 8-15-03 8-18-03 8-27-03 9-2-03 9-15-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 INA925 1-05 CUS12 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS925 3-01 FSH4 3-05 CARE 1-10 INA185 ANNUAL SALARY 10577.00 annual 9948.10 prorated 7800.00 annual 6605.11 prorated 7392.00 annual 7351.61 prorated 5164.50 annual 4968.02 prorated 5751.00 annual 5460.22 prorated 7.40 14067.00 annual 12166.05 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 September 25, 2003 NAME Jackson, Sharon Jones, Kiri! Jones, Marilyn Jones, William Jordan, Debbie McCoy, Christopher McDowell, Pamela POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Care CARE Child Nutrition JEFFERSON Care CARE Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Instr. Aide FAIR Child utntion FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 8-29-03 9-2-03 8-28-03 9-2-03 9-8-03 8-19-03 8-29-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 3-17 CARE 1-01 FSH5 3-05 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-05 INA925 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated 9.15 7392.00 annual 6988.07 prorated 7.40 7392.00 annual 6705.31 prorated 12481.00 annual 12008.75 prorated 7392.00 annual 6947.67 prorated \u0026gt; \u0026lt; n= o:,.. zo !\" 3: \u0026gt;\" Dz \"D (/) ..,m O\no\no \u0026lt; u,o -cm ~Cl\u0026gt; gi !.I.,' ~ ,\u0026gt;... ~ l\n~ (\") :c\nm\no Cl\u0026gt; (\") :c .,,.\no\u0026lt; ~p \"D a,\ng c:: ~~\ni::m m\u0026lt;I\u0026gt; z\"' -\u0026lt;Cl\u0026gt; om ~..,~n ..,m o\"' ,... Cl\u0026gt; !I'\no m Cl\u0026gt; 0,.. . c..:.:. 5z ~ \u0026gt;z  Cl\u0026gt; ..,i ~~ n= m,-Cz ,... )\u0026gt; \"Dr-\no V 0._\n,I:T: m\u0026lt; ~~ Personnel Changes Page 8 September 25, 2003 NAME Moland, Marvin Palmer, Juana Rodgers, Sylvia Siepiola, Amanda Smith, Florence Smith, Lessie Thorson, Karen POSITION SCHOOL Custodian BALE Instr. Aide CENTRAL Child Nutrition SOUTHWEST Lab Attendant START DATE END DATE 8-25-03 8-20-03 8-20-03 9-3-03 MABELV ALE MID. Child Nutrition 8-25-03 HALL Custodian 8-19-03 WESTERN HILLS Child utrition 8-25-03 MABELV ALE MID. SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-02 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-10 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-10 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 5164.50 annual 4827.68 prorated 11106.00 annual 10625.74 prorated 7392.00 annual 7230.43 prorated 14067.00 annual 12744.36 prorated 7392.00 annual 7109.25 prorated 7056.00 annual 6749.22 prorated 7392.00 annual 7109.25 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 September 25, 2003 NAME Turner, Lois Warren, Alfred Washington, Grace Watson, Izora Williams, Carla Williams, Catherine Williams, Jimmy POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition CENTRAL Instr. Aide STEPHENS Child Nutrition TERRY Child Nutrition MANN Care CARE Child Nutrition HALL Custodian OPERATIO s START DATE END DATE 8-2-03 9-10-03 8-27-03 8-21-03 9-2-03 9-8-03 8-26-03 SALARY CLASS 1-12 FSH5 1-04 INA925 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 2-05 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7700.00 annual 7531.69 prorated 12163.00 annual 10782.34 prorated 7392.00 annual 7028.46 prorated 7392.00 annual 7190.03 prorated 7.22 7392.00 annual 6705.31 prorated 8441.37 annual 7112.30 prorated ,. \"\u0026lt; n= 0~ zo !\" 31: \u0026gt;- 0 z -0 Cl) .,.,m 0::0 ::o\u0026lt; \"-o' 0m ~\"' m 0 !.J,.I, ~,. ,.... i: ,-0. (..\".). c=\n:,,.: :!:l m\n:o Y{ :,: .,,.\n:o\u0026lt; ~~ -\ngo m C: ~~ 31:m mzU\"\u0026gt;' --\u0026lt;U\u0026gt; om\n~ .,.,n .,.,m o\"' ,.... \"' !JI\n:o m ~,.... C...:. 5z\ns ,. z . \u0026lt;n .,.,i ffiC r-~ n- m,-Cz ,.... )\u0026gt; -0,..\n:ov 0._\nIcT m\u0026lt; ~rj Personnel Changes Page 10 September 25, 2003 NAME Johnson, Valarie Langston, Calvin Stacey, Robert NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Non-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS FROM: 5 hr FSMEAL TO: 7  hr FSMEAL FROM: Instr. Aide TO: Attendance Secretary FROM: 9  mo.Custodian TO: 12 mo. Custodian Non-Certified Transfer ANNUAL SALARY DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 25, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent Fuel Cell Project Title- Environmental Awareness and Clean Environment Technology Short Summary-UALR professors will instruct science students at Central and Fair this school year in key environmental issues facing Arkansas. A total of 12 - 15 hours will be spent at each school. Included will be an overview at the first session and instruction at the following three sessions to include the principles and applications of fuel cells where emissions are contained to zero-level to enhance the quality of air we breathe. Objectives- assist science students in acquisition of knowledge and skills contained in the Arkansas Science Framework and LRSD Science Standards using fuel cell physics content. Expected Outcomes- the project challenges students to understand the principles of fuel cell physics and application. This project will help students understand and appreciate the importance of a clean environment to the community. Population/Location- the project will involve a few classes of science student~ at Central High School and Fair High School. Budget Amount/Source of Budget- the project is cost free to the Little Rock School District. The project is funded through a grant to UALR from the Energy Office of the Arkansas Department of Economic Development. Manager- Dennis Glasgow is the liaison with UALR for the project. The project under the coordinated management of Markey Ford, Arkansas Energy Office, Mark Bowles, Entergy, Dr. S. Pidugu Dr. and S. Midturi of UALR. James Gilson with ADEQ will participate with two LRSD schools that actively support this project. :,,, n\n\u0026lt;= o,,. zc ~!C :-...,,,,\n.z,,:, ..,m 0\nc\ncs U)() -..m ~\"' m C .!D., ~,... I... n ~ m\nc ~ :r !D\nc m ~,... c..::. 5z !\"' 8 z ~ 5z \".0.. ', .., ~ Duration-July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 Long Range/Continuation-equipment from the project will be housed at UALR and will be loaned to LRSD science teachers upon request. Participating science teachers will have knowledge of clean energy technology that can be incorporated into their instruction. Other Agencies Involved-the Arkansas Department of Economic Development Energy Office will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Entergy and Central High School and Fair High School. Expectations of District-Central and Fair teachers will prepare students for presentations by the UALR professors. No other district staff will be required for implementation of the project. Needed Staff-none Comments-the collaborative project will expose students to new energy technology and will allow them to interact with UALR professors. Recommendations-we recommend that the project be approved as described in more detail below. ENVIRONMENT AL AWARENESS AND CLEAN ENVIRONMENT TECHNOLOGY 1. Summary The objective of this project is to promote the understanding and awareness of key environmental issues and associated non-polluting energy technologies, with emphasis in fuel cells, among high school students. The Arkansas Department of Economic Development Energy Office will partner with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Entergy and select local high schools to instruct the students in key environmental issues facing Central Arkansas and the principles and applications of fuel cells. The project will begin in the schools in October 2003 which is Energy Awareness Month. 2. Background Information The Environmental Protection Agency draft Strategic Plan (2003-08) sets out five goalsClean Air, Clean and Safe Water, Protect and Restore the Land, Health Communities and Ecosystems, and Compliance and Environmental Stewardship-and describes the work they plan to conduct over the next 5 years to achieve the set goals. Community awareness of environmental issues is vital to the success of such a strategic plan. This proposal can provide both industry and regulatory perspectives on key environmental issues, with emphasis on maintaining clean air and a clean environment by the selection and employment of appropriate technologies. Fuel cell technology is one such element where emissions are contained to zero-level to enhance the quality of air we breathe. The target audiences for this project are high school students from community schools who have sufficient background in the physical sciences. The materials delivered serve to increase the students understanding of environmental issues facing Central Arkansas in the areas of air, water and waste management and will increase their awareness of the role of fuel cells on creating a clean (green) environment. This project intends to challenge them to understand the scientific principles of fuel cell physics and applications. Hands-on instruction is central to this project. Basic Principle of Operation of Fuel Cell The fuel cell is composed of an anode (a positive electrode), an electrolyte membrane in the center, and a cathode (a negative electrode). As hydrogen flows into the fuel cell anode, platinum coating on the anode helps to separate the gas into protons (hydrogen ions) and electrons. The electrolyte membrane in the center allows only the protons to pass through the membrane to the cathode side of the fuel cell. The electrons cannot pass through this membrane and flow through an external circuit in the form of electric current. This current can power an electric load, such as the light bulb, car etc. As oxygen flows into the fuel cell cathode, another platinum coating helps the oxygen, protons, and electrons combine to produce pure water and heat. Individual fuel cells can be then combined into a fuel cell \"stack\". The number of fuel cells in the stack determines the total voltage, and the surface area of each cell determines the total current. Multiplying the voltage by the current yields the total electrical power generated. Fuel cells have many advantages over the conventional energy sources besides their high efficiency. Environmentally friendly fuel cell properties could eliminate consumer concern for power generation close to homes and businesses. Depending upon fuel cell type and design, fuel-to-electricity efficiency ranges from 30 to 60 percent. For hybrid fuel celVgas turbine systems, electrical conversion efficiencies are expected to achieve over 70 percent. When by-product heat is utilized, the total energy efficiency of fuel cell systems approaches 85 percent. High-quality heat is available for co-generation, heating, and cooling. Fuel cell exhaust heat is suitable for use in residential, commercial, and industrial co-generation applications. Stand-alone fuel cell systems have the capability of reaching efficiencies greater than 50 percent, even at relatively small sizes (e.g., 10 kW). Hence, fuel cell systems could reduce the impact of electricity production on global climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere per kilowatt-hour of power. They would also reduce resource depletion and dependence on fossil fuels by allowing more power to be harnessed from the same amount of fuel. Fuel cells are assumed to be superior to the grid because they are on site and subject to fewer disruptions (e.g. storms knocking down wires). With no moving parts, fuel cells will have less instances of failure than mechanical systems. The long-term performance and reliability of many of the fuel cell systems have not yet been demonstrated in the marketplace. )\u0026gt; .\u0026lt; 0\n= :z0 ~o)\u0026gt; ..,\nz -.:, Ch ..,m 0\no :O\u0026lt; u,o -.:im ~ Ch m 0 0 :r:: ~ !B ~ :r:: !Jl\no m Ch 0 r. e.:.:. 5z ~ C 0 :z: .).\u0026gt;.. 5 :z: In 0.. , -0 :c 0 3. Project Objectives The objectives of this project are to:  Enhance physical science school curriculum materials and offer both government and industry perspectives on key environmental issues facing Central Arkansas.  Increase awareness of environmental friendly energy sources such as fuel cells to students and the community,  Educate students on the importance of a clean environment to the community,  Instruct high school students on fuel cell theory and applications,  Demonstrate fuel cell mechanics with demonstration interactive exhibits using fuel cells as alternate energy sources,  Collect data through experiments to measure pollutants and compare with conventional technology,  Stimulate enthusiasm in students for science and fuel cell technology at a crucial stage in their education, and  Establish a partnership between the Energy Office, UALR, Entergy, and ADEQ to promote, via various multimedia technologies, ways to improve the environment through the application of appropriate technologies. 4. Implementation of Project The successful implementation of the project will depend on the effective interaction between the sponsors, the Arkansas Energy Office, UALR, ADEQ, Entergy, and the community schools. The project under the coordinated management of Markey Ford, Arkansas Energy Office, Mark Bowles, Entergy, Dr. S. Pidugu Dr. and S. Midturi ofUALR, and James Gilson with ADEQ will participate with three schools that actively support this project. The Little Rock school district participating schools are J.A. Fair and Central High School. The project involves the following tasks:  Coordination between High Schools, the Arkansas Energy Office, Entergy, ADEQ and UALR This is an important step in project implementation and bears a significant role in overall project success. The Principal Investigator (Pl) will have the lead role in this step. The PI will identify a teacher from each school and plan the schedule as well as logistics associated with implementation of project. At each stage of the project, the Principal Investigator will consult with sponsors keeping them informed on the status of the project.  Develop lecture notes Importance of clean environment, (b) Different energy sources and their impact on the environment, (c) Development and operation of fuel cells, (d) Promotion of fuel cells, and (e) Laboratory handouts to carry out experiments.  Develop experiments This involves design of specific experiments for students. This includes preparation of handouts giving step-by-step instructions to carry out experiments and collect data.  Train Undergraduate students The project aims to train an undergraduate student to help the PI to carry out different tasks. The project will also benefit UALR and the local community in the future.  In Class Lecture Delivery The Principal Investigator will take a lead role in educating high school teachers and students about fuel cell technology. The lectures not only provide technological aspects but also involve student discussions.  Testing and Experimentation This session will include a demonstration of fuel cell technology using different fuel cell powered toys such as desktop cars, fans etc. These will use fuel cell power as their primary power source. Students will carry out many simple experiments to see how fuel cells actually function. They will be able to measure many parameters and understand the advantages of fuel cells over conventional energy conversion techniques. After testing and experimentation, students will be in a better position to appreciate the value of fuel cells and their impact on the environment.  Evaluation of project success Evaluation of the project will be obtained through surveys among teachers, students, and other involved participants. 5. Benefits of the Project The proposed program engages students in critically thinking about clean electricity, green transportation and the importance of a clean environment through fuel cells. This helps to produce citizens who are able to care for the environment, protect human health, and nurture local economies. By having the students investigate the fuel cell apparatus and \"toy\" devices, through lecture and hands-on training, the project will help them appreciate the connection between appropriate technologies and their impact on the environment. In the proposed project, the instruction on the principles of fuel cells will increase mathematics, physics, and chemistry knowledge. We will demonstrate the technology with model cars, which are simple to set up and fun to use. We will also use science kits, based on Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell technology, to conduct many simple experiments, collect data and demonstrate the power of fuel cells. The students will also measure pollutants and compare them with existing technology. These hands-on experiences will stimulate their enthusiasm for science at a crucial stage of their learning. 6. Public Relations and Communications As a result of developments in technology and possible non-attainment designation for ozone in Central Arkansas, state and federal leaders are currently addressing the importance of clean air. This project recognizes the importance of communicating grass root developments on environmentally friendly fuel cell devices as alternate energy resources. With the combined .!I.J, ~.... I .... (\") $: :!:l m\na ~ :r !IJ\na m ~ r. e.:.:. iz5 r\u0026gt; Cl 0 z ~ iz5 en .0.., ,, :x, 0 partnership of the Arkansas Energy Office at ADED, UALR, Entergy, ADEQ, and selected schools in Little Rock School district, Markey Ford through Arkansas Department of Economic Development Marketing will coordinate the communication activities such as advertising, media relations, graphic design and brochure publications to unfold in October 2003 with news services and public relations efforts throughout the project. The project participants will develop web pages and other publications to promote the science and technological aspects of fuel cells. This project will afford students with other opportunities to develop and demonstrate their energy and environmental ideas through various science, engineering, and communications activities. Student activities will increase awareness of the impact of clean energy fuel cells to parents, teachers, administrators, visitors to the schools. We will also explore the publication of project benefits to the public through television, newspapers and other news media in the state of Arkansas. DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 25, 2003 Board of Directors Barbara Barnes, Director Division of Exceptional Children Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent 2003-2004 Consolidation Application for Special Education and Related Services The consolidated VI-B Budget for this year is $3,995,183.00 FY 2004, which does not include the ending fund balance as of June 30, 2003, in the amount of $65,024.43. The total amount of our VI-B Budget for the FY 2004 is $4,060,207.43. The recommendation is that the Board approve the 2003-2004 proposal for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education. BB:jej Attachment fD\nJO m ~,... C.. . 5z 0 0 0 z )..\u0026gt;. 5 z U\u0026gt; .0.. , \"I) el PROJECT ABSTRACT Total Project Period: July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 Requested Funding for Project Period: $3,995,183.00 Primary Target Population and Number Served: The Project will serve students with disabilities that meet the eligibility criteria set forth by the State standards. Paragraph Description: The District will provide a free appropriate education to students with disabilities enrolled in our school district. Major Objectives: Child Find: The District will make every effort to locate and identify all children who may be disabled. Appropriate Services: A full continuum of educational services for disabled students will be provided. Implementation: To the maximum extent appropriate, disabled students shall be educated with students that are not disabled. Evaluation Strategy: The Individual Education Program (IEP) will be used to determine the appropriateness of each student's Program. LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda.watson@lrsd.org September 25, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: Linda Watson, Ed. D., Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline THROUGH: Morris Holmes, Ed. D., Interim Superintendent Fax: (501) 447-3581 SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement for LISA Academy Charter School Application The Little Scholars of Arkansas (LISA Foundation), Little Rock Arkansas, has submitted an application to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to implement a Charter School, LISA Academy, during the 2004- 2005 school year. The proposed Charter School would be initially offered for 200 fifth, sixth, and seventh grade students during the 2004-2005 school year and depending on the availability of funds, one grade (50 students) per year would be added until the school has reached sixth through twelfth grades. The school would have a maximum population of 450 students. Since this would be an open-enrollment charter, the school could potentially draw students from the District's magnet and desegregation transfer student population and from the District at-large Some of the components of the LISA Academy will duplicate services and programs already offered in the Little Rock school District  A partnership with UALR  Emphasis on science and technology  College Preparatory Program  Gifted and Talented Classes  Advance Placement Courses at the high school level  School will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily (ACC Program, open 7:30 am to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday) Administrative Recommendation The ADE has requested that a fiscal impact statement be submitted by the school district(s) that may be affected by the school's operation. The school would have a definite impact on the Little Rock School District, because in the initial year of operation it could pull approximately $1 million dollars in funding from the District. The administration recommends that the Board vote to affirm that the operation of the LISA Academy Charter School would have a negative fiscal impact on the District and would adversely affect the District's desegregation efforts. !I'\no m ~,.. C: -\u0026lt; iz5 !\"\u0026gt; 0 0 z .l.\u0026gt;... iz5 In 0.. , \"\no' 0 Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS September 25, 2003 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Reappointment of District Officials As part of the annual reorganization of the Board, it is recommended that the Board reappoint the persons who serve officially as the Board's representatives as part of their day-to-day responsibilities. These individuals and their official titles are: Treasurer: Mark Milhollen, Director of Financial Services Ex Officio Financial Secretary: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Formal approval is recommended by the administration. bjg ?\u0026lt; V,(') C: .... -co -\u0026lt;v, cnz ~C) \"D :n om :...n. :~n !\" :mn .~... .C..:. 0 z\n,: V, 0 0 0 z .).\u0026gt;.. 0 z V, .0. , \"D ~ '54..n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" DATE: September 25, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: %:ald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer  Subject  Summary Resolution Designating Disbursing Officers for the Board Act 671 of 2003 requires the Board of Directors to designate, by resolution adopted by majority vote, one (1) of its members who shall serve as the primary board disbursing officer of the District and one (1) member as an alternate Board disbursing officer in the absence of the primary Board disbursing officer.  Objectives To comply with State law for the provision of disbursements. --------~  Expected Outcomes The Board of Directors will have one (1) primary and one (1) alternate disbursing officer. --------------  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration NI A NIA Donald M. Stewart, CFO Beginning with Board approval of the attached resolution at the first regular meeting following the annual school election in 2003 and ending on the date of the approval of disbursement officers following the annual school election in 2004.  Long Range/Continuation No long range plans for this issue.  Other Agencies Involved The resolution will be filed with the Pulaski County Treasurer and the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration as required by Act 671 of 2003.  Expectations of District NI A ---------- ---  Needed Staff  Comments  Recommendation NIA None Approval of the attached Resolution designating the Board President as the primary disbursement officer for the Board and the Board Vice-President as the alternate disbursing officer for the Board. 810 W Mark.ham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 .!:,:,l z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;.... r, C 0 z .\u0026gt;.... 0z V\u0026gt; .0, , -0 ::0 0 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DISBURSING OFFICERS FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR 2003-2004 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors shall designate at the first regular meeting following the annual school election one (1) of its members who shall serve as the primary Board disbursing officer as required by Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-618\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors may designate one (1) or more Board members as an alternate Board disbursing officer in the absence of the designated primary Board disbursing officer as provided by Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-618\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County designates the President of the Board as the primary disbursing officer of the District and the Vice-President of the Board as the alternate disbursing officer of the District in the absence of the President of the Board. President Vice-President Adopted: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: September 25, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Central High School Central High School Central High School Central High School Fair Park Elementary School $1,500.00 cash to the Central High School Incentive Program $1,200.00 cash to be applied toward completion of the reflecting pool Microwave oven, valued at $50.00, for use in the faculty lounge $1,000.00 cash to the Central High Tiger Football Program $400.00 cash and school supplies valued at $200.00. The cash will be used to purchase agenda books for students. Donnie Pointer of Coca-Cola Bottling Company Mr. Buddy Matson and Ms. Phyllis Brandon with the understanding that school will erect a bench or plaque in honor of the Class of 1953 Mr. Peter Kosuta Mr. Sam Stueart Electronic Data Systems Board of Education September 25, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Forest Heights Middle School $10.00 certificate to be used as teacher incentives Five (5) free desserts and appetizers, valued at $70.00, to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $25.00 certificates to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) entrees and drinks, valued at $20.00, to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $25.00 gift cards to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $25.00 certificates to be used as teacher incentives Label machine and cordless telephone, valued at $100.00, to be used as teacher incentives. Free oil/filter change and full detail, valued at $75.00, to be used as teacher incentives Two (2) $10.00 certificates to be used as teacher incentives Wall clock, valued at $50.00, to be used as teacher incentives Front dash speakers, valued at $75.00, to be used as teacher incentives Donor Corky's Ribs and Barbeque Cozymel's Coastal Mexican Grill Joubert's McAlister's Deli Men's Warehouse Oak Forest Cleaners Office Depot Parkway Mazda-lnfiniti Regas Grill Staples Sound Sensations Board of Education !.=.,' September 25, 2003 z \u0026gt; Page 3 z C') ,\u0026gt;....\n,o School/Department m Item Donor c3 :!l Forest Heights Two (2) t-shirts, valued at StarBucks Middle School $34.00, to be used as teacher incentives Forest Heights Three (3) $10.00 certificates Tony Roma's Middle School and six ( 6) certificates for free appetizer w/purchase of entree, ~ valued at $72.00, to be used as C/)C') C:,.... teacher incentives ~o ~~\n,o C'l m\n,o Forest Heights Two (2) $10.00 certificates to be Romano's Macaroni Gri 11 ~m ~ ~ Middle School used as teacher incentives ....\n,o ::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; CJ) Forest Heights Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Meghan Pittman of Arkansas Middle School newspapers, valued at $250.00, Flag and Banner as part of the Democrat's Newspapers for Education ,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;::c Program ~~ liiz ZC') Forest Heights Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Cloud Keyes of Alessi Keyes :l:C/l zm Middle School newspapers, valued at $125.00, Construction Company .... as part of the Democrat's Newspapers for Education Program Forest Heights Two (2) $10.00 gift certificates Frank Batisto of Dixie Cafe Middle School to be used as teacher incentives Forest Heights Two (2) $25.00 gift certificates Al Watkins of The Butcher Middle School to be used as teacher incentives Shop Steakhouse Forest Heights Six (6) Lan/Desktop Computers, Davis Lovercheck of Alltel Middle School valued at approximately $500.00 Communications each, to assist Mrs. Wang in implementing her multimedia grant Forest Heights Three (3) $10.00 gift certificates The Faded Rose, Inc. Middle School to be used as teacher incentives Board of Education September 25, 2003 Page 4 School/Department Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Romine Interdistrict Elementary School Romine lnterdistrict Elementary School Little Rock School School District Secondary Schools Item Five (5) cases of Pendaflex expanding files valued at $100.00 each 17 reams of Astrobright cardstock paper valued at $102.00 School supplies valued at $300.00 School supplies valued at $500.00 $100.00 cash to the Mabelvale Builders' Club to be used to purchase supplies and to provide members' incentives $636.00 cash to the Golf Team to be used to purchase golf bags $500.00 cash to be used to purchase a storage container for Pre-K equipment and additional Pre-K instructional materials School supplies, valued at approximately $500.00, to be distributed to students with specific needs Copies of the book entitled Paul Laurence Dunbar High School of Little Rock. Arkansas to each of the District's secondary school libraries. The total value ofthis donation is $1,200.00. Mr. Charles Minton Mr. Michael Woods Andover Place Retirement Residence St. Paul United Methodist Church Kiwanis Club of Southwest Little Rock Mr. Jerry Peters of Webster University The Wal-Mart Foundation EDS Arkansas Solution Centre The National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas, Inc. to be presented by the association with the compliments of Mr. Charles Stewart of Regions Bank Board of Education September 25, 2003 Page 5 School/Department Little Rock School District Item Lexmark inkjet printers with \"Print Gallery\" CD-ROM containing high-resolution art masterpieces and teachers' guides to each of the District's 47 schools. The approximate value of this donation is $6,800.00. Donor Lexmark International through the Lexmark Print Art Educational Program It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. ''The Most Beautiful High School in America\" Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72202 Phone 447-1400  Fax 447-1401 MEMORANDUM To: From: Through: Date: Re: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Regina Ezell, Assistant Princiw17 Nancy Rousseau, Principal - / IL-August 15, 2003 Donation Central High School solicits Board approval to accept from its patron the cash donation of $1,500 to CHS Incentive Program from Donnie Pointer, Coca-Cola Bottling Company. Littfe 'Roci Centra{ :J{ifJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 :fax 501-447-1401 August 22, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: ~\u0026gt;a,,., A, , , A - ' Nancy Rousseau, Principal / ~ Re: Donation to Little Rock Central High School Mr. Buddy Matson and Ms. Phyllis Brandon very graciously donated $1200 to Central High School. Their desire is that the donation goes toward the completion of the reflecting pool\nwith the understanding that the school will have a bench or plaque erected to honor the Class of 1953. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. )\u0026lt; ,,.... .) \u0026lt; c::c is~ C: :,0\n,:,z z C) ,E\nu, z.m.. . ..ittCe 'Rock. Centra{ JfffJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .:Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :rax 501-447-1401 August 22, 2003 To: From: Re: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Nancy Rousseau, Principal~ ~ Donation to Little Rock Central High School Mr. Peter Kosuta of 5136 Cantrell Rd. Little Rock, AR 72207 donated a microwave, valued at $50.00, for our faculty lounge. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. LittCe 'Rock Centra{ Jfigli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutfi 'Park Street .itt{e Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 'Pfione 501-447-1400 :Jax 501-447-1401 DATE: AUGUST 26, 2003 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~~ SUBJECT: DONATION Mr. Sam Stueart of 1717 Teresa Circle Benton, AR 72015, very graciously donated $1,000 to the Central High Tiger Football Program. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved tn accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ?\u0026lt; tJ)(\") C:,... \"DO ..... tJ) cnz ill C) i3 ill '\n:,:,~ -I\n,:, :,\ntJ) ,\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :,:,. c:c \u0026lt;-~ gi:!! ::oz ZC) 31:tJ\u0026gt; mz -I I FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darrell Paradis Procurement M From: Samuel Branch Principal Date: September 3, 2003 Re: Donations Electronic Data Systems (EDS) donated money and school supplies valued at $600.00 for students use at our school. The money, $400.00, was donated to purchase agenda books for students. We are requesting that the District accept these donations. EDS contact person: Phylinthia Givens 500 President Clinton Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ,.._ ,,.. ....-\nT f'~\\ . ,_ I  . ...' ... ..,. FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procure~_\n!lt From: Elouise J. Hudson~ Principal Date: August 11 , 2003 RE: Donations Please accept the following donations to Forest Heights Middle School to be used as teacher incentives: Business Corky's 12005 Westhaven Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Cozymel' s Coastal Mexican Grill 10 Shackleford Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Joubert's 7303 Kanis Rd Little Rock, AR 72204 Mc Alisters's Deli 12019 Westhaven Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Donation/Approximate Value $10.00 Certificate 5 Free Desserts \u0026amp; 5 Appetizers $70.00 2 $25 .00 Certificates $50.00 2 Entrees \u0026amp; Drinks $20.00 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501} 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:z: ~i iz ZG') :!:en .mz.. . Men's Wearhouse 12305 Chenal Pkwy Little Rock, AR 72211 Oak Forest Cleaners 8717 W Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Office Depot 11400 W Markham St Little Rock, AR 72211 Parkway (Mazda-Infiniti) 12206 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72211 Regas Grill 317 S Shackleford Rd Little Rock, AR 72211 Staples 12309 Chenal Pkwy Little Rock, AR 72211 Sound Sensations 7500 Kanis Rd Little Rock, AR 72204 2 $25.00 Gift Cards $50.00 2 $25.00 Certificates $50.00 Label Machine, Cordless Telephone $100. 00 1 Free Oil/Filter Change \u0026amp; Full Detail $75.00 2 $10.00 Certificates $20.00 Wall Clock $50.00 Front Dash Speakers $75.00 ',- - p. A \"\\\nI J, - ~ .. ~ StarBucks Chenal Pkwy, Little Rock, AR 72211 Tony Romas's 11 Shackleford Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Romano's Macaroni Grill 11100 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72211 2 I-Shirts $34.00 3 $10.00 Certificates \u0026amp; 6 certificates for free appetizer with purchase of entree $72.00 2 $10. 00 Certificates $20.00 Also, please accept the following donations of Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspapers as part of the Democrat's Newspapers for Education program: Meghan Pittman, Arkansas Flag and Banner, P.O. Box 164868, Little Rock, AR 72216, donation valued at $250.00. Cloud Keyes, Alessi Keyes Construction Company, P.O. Box 25414, Little Rock, AR 72221 , donation valued at $125.00 Thank you for your consideration I .,.. ,, :) , .., \"' \" .. .. . ~ \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  - 0 :c 5 ! C::,, :,, z zc, ii: V\u0026gt; z.m. . FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procurement From: Elouise J. Hudson Principal Date: August 18, 2003 RE: Donations Please accept the following donations to Forest Heights Middle School to be used as teacher incentives: Business Frank Batista Dixie Cafe 1301 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Al Watkins The Butcher Shop Steakhouse 10825 Hermitage Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Donation/Approximate Value 2 $10.00 Gift Certificates 2 $25 . 00 Gift Certificates Also, please accept the donation of 6 computers from Davis Lovercheck, Lan/Desktop, Alltell Communications, #1 Allied Drive, Little Rock, AR 72202, estimated cost $500 each, total $3,000.00, to Mrs. Wang to assist her in implementing her multimedia grant. ~= ...... _l ~-~ ~ ... ~ :r~ - ,. .. J ....... ... -- .. , 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL To: Mr. Darral Paradis Director of Procureme~ From: Elouise J. Hudson~ Principal Date: August 29, 2003 RE: Donation The Faded Rose, Inc. P.O. Box 7563, Little Rock, AR wishes to donate 3 $10.00 ($30.00) certificates to Forest Heights Middle School to be used as teacher incentives. It is recommended this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration ,,_.......,. , ............ ' . . f ~-- ~ ... \" . - ..  5901 Evergreen Street  Phone (501 ) 447-2700  Fax (501) 447-2701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 )\u0026lt; ,.. ?\u0026lt;  :c ~i iiz ZG') !I: Cl\u0026gt; .mz.. . J EFFERSON ELEMENTARY S CHOOL August 21, 2003 To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal t.i . Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School. Mr. Charles Minton, 53 Lefever Lane, Little Rock AR 72227: Five cases of Pendaflex expanding files valued at $100.00 each (total value $500.00). It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ' 'I' 2600 N McKinley Street Phone 447-5000  Little Rock, A rkansas 72207 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL August 25, 2003 To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal f 1/l. Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following donations have been made to Jefferson Elementary School. Mr. Michael Woods, 12 Cinderella Circle, Little Rock AR 72204: Seventeen reams of Astrobright cardstock paper valued at $102.00. Andover Place Retirement Residence, 2601 Andover Court, Little Rock, AR 72207: School supplies valued at $300.00. St. Paul United Methodist Church, 2223 Durwood Road, Little Rock, AR 72207: School supplies valued at $500.00 It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. . . - ... - 2600 N. Mc Kinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock. Arkansas 72207 !.=.,' z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt;,... ill c3 =l ,\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;. \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;\" c:i: gi :z0 z C) mE \"' z... . Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School 10811 Mabe/vale West Road Mabe/vale, AR 72103 To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From:~nn Blaylock, Principal Date: September 3, 2003 Re: Donations Please accept the donation of $100.00 from the Kiwanis Club of Southwest. These funds were donated to our Mabe/vale Builders Club. The purpose of the donation is to buy supplies for the Builders Club and provide incentives for our members. Our students are very excited about their involvement with the Kiwanis Club of Southwest Little Rock. The SWLR Kiwanis have been our Partners-In-Education since 1996. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Aug , 21 03 03: 15p F. 1 VENDOR 2426567 Parkview Arts/Science Magnet HS CH::CKNO 754344 P.O.NO INVOICE ~O INVOICE DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PAID 0 Ping J Bags 08/13 / 2003 IM $ 636 . 00 Mt, P1-11\u0026lt;.AD IS , !ll/Lj NMUC ,s IG?t~I/\n111ct[u,.0G, . IA1Zll ,HC Galr CoACH Ar PA-R-IOJIEW fhc\n,11 Sct\not\u0026gt;l. /!111\u0026lt;, (JE/2./21/ Pe: tf:\"rt S , F~b'W\\ //Vt.\"ESTc-\"ii .. LlNi11. AT L,Hk, l\u0026lt;oc.k:.. hAs Ar\nA.1N ckJ{ATll) fuNb5 tD l)UI\u0026lt;.. f\nc\u0026gt;IF T~ I Fem r1-1t.-: /u1\u0026lt;.clf#s\u0026amp; tJf G'ot..F 6Ac\ns. Could we. p/~sE Acktvowletx\n, ~ ,. ,, 111-EJR... r\noJt\"'fL011.s,ry ANI\u0026gt; 5CND JHW-. A !f/AfllK. yov.. Le-rrc:.7:2.. - _ AddK'.. ~ . W C::r3S-r\u0026lt;=11... {). N , J/. AsA.P. /ffl: c~.S /S  ~00 t-'vC'fl.erroLSUITGiSrJo L,--HIG 12.ocf\u0026lt;... ~ 7)__\n)..0 / !f/A t-1 k 5 1 ~e~ Go\\~ MJh i 1 2UG3 p~W f\u0026amp;.i1 WEBSTER UNIVERSITY 08/18 / 2003 CHECK TOTAL $636.00 ********$6 36. 00 PAY EXACTJ ,. y  SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX DOL:,A .~. S AND 00 CENTS    l t\u0026gt;llo l'IIUl0t0t Parkview Arts/Sc ience Magnet HS 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 11 o 7 s i. 3 1., i. 11 , : o a 1, s 1, 7 a g 7,: s a o  o o rn~, so Ei 1., 11 SECOS:D SIGNATURE RFQu:rn OVER SJG .00 Au~ 21 03 03: 15p Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Phone : (501) 447- 2300 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 FAX : (50 1) 447 - 2301 Total# of Pages:\n)_ (Including this cover page) ~--- Date Se~t: 8 \n). I  0 3 Time Sent Please notify us immediately if not receiving properly by calling (501) 447- 2300 COMMENTS: \"Best By Choice\" ROMINE INTER ISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills August 27, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: RE: Lillie Scull, Principal d (  . Donation The donor listed below has generously donated $500.00 to purchase a storage container for Pre-k equipment, and additional Pre-k instructional materials. Wal-Mart The Wal-Mart Foundation 702 SW 8th Street Bentonville, AR 72716-0150 Contact person: Renita Thompson It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. ~- ,- rP\"\"'r' f'f'  , ....' .. -t., ,.. ... ' ::.. :: ~ \"'n C:,... -0 0 -\u0026lt;en ciiz\no C) qi~ 5'\n: --\u0026lt;\no ~ 0(. DI~ \\ iJi / Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills August 27, 2003 TO: FROM: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Lillie Scull, Principal :Jf:. S Donation L The donor listed below has generously donated school supplies in the amount of approximately $500.00 to be distributed to students with specific needs: EDS Arkansas Solution Centre 500 President Clinton Avenue Suite215 Little Rock, AR 72201 Contact person: Levita Scull It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. r- ..~. .,.. .,.- ~ r-- f I\"' \"~ - -\" ... t .. , .... ,,. .. :: TO: FROM: Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 September 2, 2003 Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Donation of Books The National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas, Inc. is donating copies of the book Paul Laurence Dunbar High School of Little Rock, Arkansas to each of the District's secondary school libraries. These books are presented by the association with the compliments of Mr. Charles Stewart of Regions Bank. The value of these books is $1200. It is recommended that these donations be accepted according to the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. .... :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;- ?\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:c cg\n! l5\n:a iz ZC\u0026gt; lC en zm... . Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology 3001 S. Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 September 5, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management FROM: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Printer Donation Through the Lexmark Print Art Educational Program, Lexmark International has offered to donate a Lexmark inkjet printer to each school in the Little Rock School District. The printers come with a \"Print Gallery\" CD-ROM with more than I 00 high-resolution art masterpieces and teachers guides. The value of this donation is approximately $6800. It is recommended that this donation be accepted according to the policies of the Little Rock School District. I I DATE: TO: THROUGH: Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (5011 447-1086 Fax: (5011 447-1158 September 25, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~d M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending August 31, 2003. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition.  Population/Location N/ A --------------------------  Budget Amount/Source NIA  Manager Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services  Duration NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District N/ A  Needed Staff Comments  Recommendation NIA None Approval of the August 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 08/31/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 08/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 9,596,952 16.39% 57,547,800 10,520,580 18.28% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 582,550 7.28% 10,100,000 527,648 5.22% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 9,562 2.81% 380,000 28,873 7.60% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 37,196 13.53% 200,000 36,679 18.34% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 240,000 TOTAL 97,432,000 10,226,261 10.50% 98,607,800 11,113,781 11.27% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 25.81% TOTAL 24,000 5,094 21.23% 21,000 5,420 25.81% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 5,020,099 9.15% 53,226,139 4,838,739 9.09% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 119,652 8.93% 1,400,000 114,835 8.20% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 109,000 10.83% 920,337 POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 142,636 50.00% 285,245 AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 TOTAL 75,441,106 5,459,727 7.24% 74,776,187 5,221,060 6.98% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 1,350,000 TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 TOTAL 3,410,671 0 0.00% 3,752,430 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 15,691,083 8.90% 177,157,418 16,340,262 9.22% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 882,062 3.51% 24,075,790 797,161 3.31% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 4,000,000 15,800 0.39% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,689,351 TOTAL 54,198,923 882,062 1.63% 52,765,141 812,960 1.54% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 16,573,145 7.19% 229,922,559 17,153,222 7.46% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 08/31/02 EXPENDED 2003/04 08/31 /03 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 4,573,892 4.53% 100,684,982 4,497,431 4.47% BENEFITS 24,838,361 1,349,868 5.43% 26,483,772 1,407,317 5.31% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,860,832 9.40% 19,719,297 1,809,458 9.18% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 656,943 7.87% 8,185,459 866,525 10.59% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 54,616 3.38% 1,575,580 3,435 0.22% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 51 ,213 0.60% 8,384,567 47,886 0.57% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 4,880,555 39.95% 12,098,342 4,705,779 38.90% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176, 189,538 13,427,918 7.62% 177,131,999 13,337,831 7.53% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 883,108 3.38% 26,056,193 1,131,685 4.34% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 377,718 9.49% 4,000,000 582,601 14.57% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 730,750 2.92% 24,689,351 709,338 2.87% TOTAL 55,194,668 1,991,577 3.61% 54,745,544 2,423,624 4.43% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 15,419,494 6.66% 231,877,543 15,761,455 6.80% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 1,153,650 (1,954,984) 1,391,766 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 535,924 1,578,177 1,947,916 OPERATING 8,675,891 10,820,817 9,052,274 12,029,286 TOTAL 9,325,586 11,356,741 10,630,451 13,977,202 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 08-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501 .92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 15,698.50 17,103.87 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 2,742,208.56 9,290,107.28 6,582,229.56 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 29,869.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 1,074,540.89 1,157,159.61 536,879.31 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 3,679,231 .44 13,539,869.91 14,087,405.24 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 600,922.23 58,711.57 1,675,385.44 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 0.00 8,112,601 .62 24,045,848.37 22,971,146.95 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 444,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 22,074,599.23 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 77,713.04 7,366,489.93 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 77,713.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,184,795.15 GRAND TOTAL Dli iHZ lDll l!Z ZZ Zl~ ll~ J2.J2ll D lli lill:llii i~ ll~:i a~a ~z ~ililiW!li Fund Purchase Date Operating 06-09-03 Operating 07-19-03 Operating 04-08-03 Operating 08-29-03 Total Food Service 08-18-03 Total Activity Fund 08-27-03 Total Bond Account 03-10-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 07-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 Capital Projects Fund 08-01-03 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 Capital Projects Fund 08-18-03 Total Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 Total Rockefeller Scholarship 06-24-03 Total I Risk Management Loss Fund 08-20-03 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED August 31, 2003 I I I I Maturity Institution Date 12-08-03 Regions 01-19-04 Regions 12-05-03 Pulaski TFN Bank of America TFN Bank of America TFN Bank of America I 09-08-03 Regions 01-16-04 l Metropolitan 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 01-29-04 Bancorp South 01-16-04 Superior 11-14-03 Superior 08-16-04 I USBANK 09-02-03 USBANK 01-16-04 Bank of America 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 12-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks TFN Bank of America 12-04-03 Bank of America 01-15-04 Bank of America TFN Bank of America lN3WNHnorov \"IX S9NIHV3H\"X '. Interest Rate I Type I I I I I I I I i ' I I I I I I ' 1.090% I Money Market 0.945% Money Market 1.290% Money Market 0.970% Repo I 0.910% I Repo I 0.740% I Treasury Bills 1.190% CD I 1.930% CD 2.250% I CD 1.440% CD 2.000% I' CD 2.250% CD 1.900% I CD 1.420% CD 1.130% CD 1.240% Treasury Bills 1.360% I CD 1.220% CD 2.200% CD 0.910% I I Repo 0.920% Treasury Bills I 0.760% Treasury Bills I 0.700% I Repo lHOd3H S,ld0S S\u0026gt;IHVW3H 9NISO1:\u0026gt; \"XI Principal 20,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 13,075,000.00 13,125,000.00 1,255,000.00 1,255,000.00 948,000.00 948,000.00 400,000.00 1,000,934.31 5,116,598.09 10,000,000.00 2,058,896.90 2,500,000.00 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,299,646.43 9,000,000.00 3,048,218.28 10,000,000.00 4,930,000.00 I 80,354,294.01 664,995.48 664,995.48 250,909.40 I 250,909.40 500,000.00 I 500,000.00\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1383","title":"Proceedings: ''Transcript of Motions Hearing''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Jacksonville, 34.8662, -92.11015","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Scott County, Waldron, 34.89843, -94.09076"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-08-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Transcript of Motions Hearing''"],"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/1383"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["165 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1756","title":"Includes Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to all responses regarding its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, District Court motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-08-12/2003-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Includes Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to all responses regarding its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, District Court motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice."],"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/1756"],"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":["158 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, letter order; District Court, memorandum; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) consolidated brief in support of its reply to all responses to its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, two orders; District Court, corrected order; District Court, motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Apellate Practice; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; Court of Appeals, emergency motion for espedited review and suspension of the rules pursuant to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Apellate Procedure and motion for emergency stay of judgment of the district court; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to file fee petition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, order of transcripts pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; District Court, corporate disclosure statement; District Court, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    - BILL WILSON JUDGE To: Mr. Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC'r OF ARKANSAS 800W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201--3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 804-5149 August 12, 2003 BYFAX Jacksonville, Arkansas 72075 LETTER-ORDER RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, Case No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR- August 18th Hearing - Dear Mr. Bond: This is in response to your letter of yesterday, August 11 , 2003, regarding Mr. Fendley's conflicting schedule. I often reschedule hearing when they conflict with long standing vacation plans; and, on occasion, I have allowed a lav-,-yer to participate by telephone. In view of the crucial and immediate interests involved, I believe the hearing must be held as scheduled. Participation by telephone is a little unwieldy, and I do not think it would appropriate in this instance. cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other counsel of record Original to Clerk Cordially, [;~~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. - ---- --- - - - - -------- - - ----- - - -- BILL WILSON JUDGE TO: All Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 August 12, 2003 BYFAX MEMORANDUM RE: Knight lntervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel Pending is the Knight Intervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel. The Knight Intervenors assert that former cow1sel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired from the practice of law and requests to withdraw as their counsel. The Knight Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell. This issue will be addressed at the commencement of the hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Original to Clerk Cordially, Y./~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN 01sr.:i,cT ARKANSAS Al 1r, 1 3 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ______. .....,,o\"\"ep\"\"'c\"\"'L.\"E\"'R,,.K..,. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District may have until 12:00 p.m., noon, Friday, August 1S, 2003, to file a reply to the responses to its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). The reply should be short (no more than five pages), and citations of authority are more desired than prose. This Order provides an opportunity to reply and is not a mandate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of August 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 A~9(a) FRCF , ON ~-t ~-0;\\ B 3:\u0026gt;Q +:: ~ FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAI'fSAS  TO; Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Alm Marshall Mark Burnette Scott Smith Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson DATE: f. D. O'b Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 682-4249 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are )--pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. . Wilson, Jr. U.S. Dis1:rict Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604--5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOIHNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD CONSOLIDATED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS REPLY TO ALL RESPONSES TO ITS FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness Hardship would be occasioned to the PCSSD because it is required to pay for the detachment election even though most of its patrons are denied the right to vote. The current proceedings do not interfere with an on-going administrative action because the State Board has already ordered the election. Simply stated, the legislature should not have passed a statute which substantially affects the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and which violates Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement. All matters currently pending \"flow from\" passage of the statute. 440824-v1 II. The Settlement Agreement While it is fundamentally true that the equal protection arguments presented have an independent constitutional footing, at the same time, \"but for\" the State's enactment of an unconstitutional statute and the State Board's activation of that statute, these claims would have no reason to arise. The situation presented is much the same as confronted the Court of Appeals in 1990. After first finding that the District Court should have approved the desegregation plans, it then went on to note that: \"If the plans had been approved, the question of appointment of a metropolitan supervisor would never have arisen, and the tri-district plan would neither had been written nor submitted. The order appointing a metropolitan supervisor and commanding the parties to comply with the tri-district plan therefore necessarily falls along with the order declining to approve the settlement plan submitted by the parties. 921 F.2d 1371 at 1388. Here, had the legislation never been passed, the equal protection claims would have never had occasion to arise. Accordingly, in this literal sense, all of the issues presented now flow from the Settlement Agreement. ,. m. Equal Protection The PCSSD adopts that certain memorandum brief filed by the individual school board directors on August 8, 2003. The Bollen intervenors have simply missed the point with their argument that the board members have \"no constitutional right to vote on detachment.\" Bollen Mem. Brief at 4. The Bollen intervenors have no constitutional right to vote on detachment, either. What both parties have, however, is a constitutional right to vote on equal terms with those living in the 440824-v1 2 relevant political jurisdiction. See Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County v. Burson, 121 F.3d 244, 247 (6th Cir. 1997) When a citizen can show that he lives in the relevant jurisdiction, there is a \"strong presumption\" of entitlement to vote in its elections. Id. Indeed, \"exclusion of such a citizen from the franchise is subject to strict scrutiny, and will be only be upheld upon a showing of a compelling state interest.\" Id. ( citing Kramer v. Union  Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)). Thus the question before the Court focuses on what is the \"relevant political jurisdiction,\" and it is both irrational and arbitrary to award that label to any jurisdiction other than the preexisting entity charged with the responsibility in question. For purposes of the local government's role in education, there is currently only one jurisdiction--Pulaski County-and only one set of voters whose desires and interests are \"relevant\" to the education of public school students not enrolled in the Little Rock or North Little Rock districts--voters in areas comprising the PCSSD. The appropriate \"jurisdiction\" is the existing school district, for its citizens have a signal and profound interest in the outcome of any election that could alter its boundaries, tax base, student enrollment, and property.\" Furthermore, the state legislature has embraced a definition of the \"relevant political jurisdiction\" that is based on school districts. Having for generations endowed local school districts with the control, taxing authority, voting mechanisms and other indicia of \"the relevant political jurisdiction\" for public education purposes, the legislature cannot turn on its heels by enacting a law that treats a city, or a neighborhood, or state representative district, or historic zoning district as the \"relevant political jurisdiction\" entitled to make its own public education choices free from the desires of the larger and authentic \"relevant political jurisdiction\" already in place. 440824-v1 3 Compounding the equal protection dilemma is the fact that the State wrote the statute in a way that it currently applies only to the PCSSD and no other school district. While it is true that the Waldron School District meets the \"square mile test\", only the PCSSD meets the enrollment test of a district between 15,000 and 20,000 students. The statute applies neither to the largest school district in the State, the Little Rock School District, nor any of the next 100 1argest districts in terms of enrollment. Thus, those patrons residing in the PCSSD in areas other than those proposed for detachment are the only voters disenfranchised statewide. The detachment effort is the legal equivalent of a divorce. However, the party \"moving out\" does not get to control the process in a divorce. Rather, both parties are accorded due process and equal protection of the law. However, in the case of this attempted divorce, the State has seen fit to allow the party moving out to control the process. This is unfair, denies equal protection and should be declared unconstitutional. 440824-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 '- By __ ~~\"\"t\"------=-------:-::,~~------- pecial s 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 15, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 440824-v1 5 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~end~ Chamberlin t)r, /:, Yd ,n C,,11f'ere,.'-~ (501 l 982-941 _ (j p. 2 / ,P',,1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. 1 . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR:ICT _NO. 1, et al., Defendants. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Monday, August 18, 2003 Little. Rock, Arkansas 10:06 a.m. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY, and SUE ANN WHISKER, . Movants/1:ntervenors TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR . , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Little Rock School District: MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regioris Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock ; Arkansas 72201-3493 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District : MR. M. SAMUEL JONES, II 1, . At t.orney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bui1ding -200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 El aine Hinson, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter [Continued] FILED EAsrMR~ g',f~1,g ~~sAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .Allr, l S 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCl( DMSION .::MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK D~PCLERI( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For the reasons stated in the finding facts in conclusion with the law, given earlier today from the bench, aft~r hearing arguments of counsel, the Arkansas Dep:3rtmcnt of Education/State is directed to rescind the vote by which it approved an election in Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 16, 2003-whereby the citizens of that area would vote on the question of whether Jacksonville should be or would be a new district, separate in part fron1 the Pulaski County Special School District (which it is now a part). Additionally, the ADE/State is ordered to notify all affected county clerks and election officials that this rescission has taken place. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in court today are adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Among other things, the facts and conclusions of law announ,~ed from the bench, the \"Bollen Intervenol'l!\"' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766) and the Motion to Intervene by the PCSSD Board Members in their individual capacities (Doc. No. 3769) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 181h day of August, 2003 THIS 0OCUMENT ENTERED ON_ DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCt: WITH RULi= 513 AND~79(a) FRCP ON 8-l t-o~. BY S+l q d FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DISTRICT ARl(ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Af Jr, t B EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 2003 LITTLE ROCK DMSION JA:-4ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By. ______ --=,_- oeP Cl..eRI( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/.TJ'R PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is the Knight Intervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel (Doc. No. 3783). The Knight Intervenors assert that former counsel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired :\u0026amp;-.osn the practice of law and requests to withdraw as their counsel. The Knight Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell. The Knight Intervenors' motion was addressed at a hearing this morning, August 18,  2003, and was not objected to by any parties in this case. Therefore, the Knight Intervenors may substitute counsel. IT IS so ORDERED this u day of August, 2003. ~~ I I ~4 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON lJ~ DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \\NITH RULE 58 ANOlQ_~9{aj FRCF oN re/ t (J{o 3 av~ ~,.,,;o - - ----- ------ - -- - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Al ltt I 9 2003 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COUR\"T\" EASTE~N OISfRICT ARKA.NSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ~~;MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLiaRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER CORRECTED ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For the reasons stated in the finding facts and conclusions of the law, given earlier today - from the bench, after hearing arguments of counsel, the Arkansas Department of Education/ State Board of Education is directed to rescind the vote and order by which it approved an election in Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 16, 2003-whereby the citizens ,)fthat area would vote on the question of whether Jacksonville should be or would be a new distzict, separate and apart from the Pulaski County Special School District (of which it is now a part). Additionally, the ADE/State Board of Education is ordered to notify all affected county clerks and election officials that this rescission has taken place. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in court today are adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Among other things, the findings of facts and conclusions of law announced from the bench, the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766) and the Motion to Intervene by the PCSSD Board Members in their individual capacitks (Doc. No. 3769) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this l 9c1, day of August, 2003, nunc pro tune as of August 18'\\ 2003 . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKEi SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W!Tli.RULE 58 AND/~ ~p ON ~- l 'i-0~ BY'-2-~=-~- u/WI? UltP ==- UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: \u0026lt;i' I~  o:\u0026gt; - There are \"3 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Offiai'of Judge Wm. R. w U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room Little Roel:, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 --- - - - - - - ---- - -  - - - - BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TulAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 l 982-9414 p.2 WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN August 19 , 2003 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX 3~6-9442 Sam Jones Wright, L~ndsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP Suite 2200 200 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 RE: School Di strict Dear Sam: Attached is our Motion for Stay of Judgment. It is our understanding the judge is going to take this up in a 3:00 p.m. telephone conference. Wi th Warmest Regards, Wi ll Bond 'l'WB:tt cc: John Walker Via Fax@ 374-4186 Scott Smith Via Fax@ 682-4249 Christ opher Heller Via Fax@ 376-21 47 Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-94 10 St ephen Jones Via Fax@ 375-1027 Ann Marshall Via Fax@ 371-0lOC Ka r la Burnett Vi a Fax@ 340-8282 arpart choo.l\\\"\"\"' jone.aug. 1fl. 03 IN THE UNITED STA'l'ES . OIS'l'RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARDNSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR J?UI.ASll COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL .DISTRICT NO. 1,  ET AL. MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , E'l' AL .  KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLI,.EN, JAMES BOLDEN, PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY ANO SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS MOTION FOR .STAY OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 62 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND TO RULE 8 . A : OF THE EIGB'l'B .C:IRCUIT ROLES OF APELLATE PRACTICE 1. The rules of the Eighth Circ~it require that the moving party request a stay of judgment from the District Court prio r to see king such relief from the Eighth Circui t Court. 2. Yesterday, this Court ente~ed an order in effect stopping an ' election that was to occ~r within the Northeast Pulaski County area on September 16, 2003. P~oposed Intervencrs/Mov~nts conterid that the Order was contrary to existing case law. Particularly, the Fifth Circuit has held that a District Court excee6ed its discretion when it enjoined the ability of a separate s~hool district to naintain its corporate existence and to pursue its organizational rights under state law that did not involve the independent operation p.3 of a desegrating school district. See Ross v. United States 583 F , 2 d 712 5th Cir . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 3. Failure of this Court to stay its order and judgment until proposed Intervenors/Movants can seek relief from the Eighth Circuit would in essence prohibit an election taking place on September 16, 2003. This Court ordered the State Board of Education to rescind its order of election and to ~nform election officials of the fact that the order had been rescinded and that the election coulc ~ot go forward . . 4. There are certain ministerial acts that election officials must take to ensure that an electio~ could take place on September 16, 2003. Those acts include making absentee - ballots available, ensuring that certain publications are made in newspapers concerning the election, ensur~ng that election officials define which voters are allowed to vote in the detachment election and other duties. 5. As menticned, failure to st~y the order and judgment until relief can be sought from tha Eighth Circuit wo~ld in effect stop the September election. 6. Proposed Intervenors/Movants were denied intervention by this Court in the ace of case law which states that the threshold to intervention is minimal; they are being denied their right to vote pursuant to a statute passed by the duly elected representatives of the General Assembly of State of 2 p. .. - - ~-- . .. Arkansas; and they are being denied their right to organize a school district under state law by this Court. Failure to stay the Court's decision would prohibit an election from being held pursuant to what is a validly passed and enacted state statute. WHEREFORE, Intervenors/Movants request that the Court's order be stayed until relief can be sought frcm the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for all other just and equitable relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully S~bmitted, BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERtIN Trial Lawyers 602 w. Main Jacksonville, AR ~076 Telephone (501) 2 9081 Telefax (501) - 414 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleaoing by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with ,:_~ficier.t prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this --f::l..L'-d.ay of August, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, . LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste~ 2300 ~ittle Rock, AR 72201-3699 S::::ott Smit:i State Department of Education #4 Capito],. Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Also Via f3x@ 376-9442 Also Via Fax@ 682-4249 3 p.5 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Ro~k , AR 72201 Also Via Fax@ 376-2147 John W. Walker P.A. Also Via Fax @ 37 4-4186 1723 S. Broadway\" Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark 3urnette Also Via Fax@ 3 75-9410 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. ~hird Street Lit tle Rock, AR Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue ~ittle Rock, AR .72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Littl e Rock, AR 72201 By: 4 Al s o Via Fax@ 375-1027 Also Via Fax@ 371-0100 Also Via Neil Bar 93222 p.6 To: Ann Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Pharla= Ile: School District  Attachments:  Commentss BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 982-9081 Telefa\u0026gt;\u0026lt; (501) 982-9414 Prom: Will Bond Pa ... Including Con,..._.:~ fJ Date: August 19, 2003 The lnfannltlon contained In thl9 fax transmltal ls conlldenttal attorney-client privilaged information and is intended 90ltly for the use of ttle lnclvldual or entity nmnecl H N1Clplent. If this message Is ,-Mid by aomeone other than the Intended niclplant, you .. JIR)hiblled from anv dl.-ninMion, distribution cir copying of tnla ccmmunlcatlon aimept to the addrasH. If thla communication ha bNn received by you in error, or  you ani not aunt of itB intended dlltrl)utlon, plaaN notify the ~ced office at 1.a88-245-1!77. p. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN. MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WIDSKER ORDER AUG 19 2003 JAMES WM By:_  cCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker, \"intervenors\"/ Movants, filed a Motion for Stay of Judgment and Order Made Pursuallt to Rule 62 of the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice (Doc. No. 3791). This motion is in response to :findings of facts, conclusions of law, and an Order of this Court (Doc. No. 3790) entered yesterday. Since the Movants' Request for Intervention was denied in yest,~rday's ruling, I have considerable doubt as to their standing to file the above-referenced motion-particularly since the Arkansas Department of Education/State Board of Education declin.ed to join the motion (although it did not specifically oppose the motion); but, be that~ it m.:iy, the motion is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this I 9m day of August, 2003. THJS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMF\u0026gt;l.lANCE 0:'~!{~:i,~ A~~=- TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson ----- Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are 2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: P1-t ,;::i::;-? 16-------- Office of Judge Wm. ~son, Jr. U.S. Distric:t Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 4 ' \\ FlLeo .! c: \"\" .... u.s o,sr  ~ TERN D!slR1c;;_r couRT l~T ARKANSAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 0 2D03 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~AyMEs w. McCORv11cK LITTLE ROCK DIVISION  . . 1,..._ , CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4 :82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO . 1 , ET AL . MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL . GREG BOLLEN , JAMES BOLDEN, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHI SKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS NOTICE OF APPEAL Proposed Intervenors/Movants hereby appeal the decisions made by the District Court in the above-referenced case on August 19 , 2003 with judgment being filed on August 19, 2003. This appeal is hereby taken to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The proposed Intervenors/Movants appeal the denial of their intervention and appeal the District Court ' s ultimate decision granting Pulaski County Special District ' s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement . Proposed Intervenors/Movants will be submitting a motion for expedited review and for emergency relief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals . Respectful ly Submitted, BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN Trial Lawyers 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501)982 - 9081 k. Bar #95245 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to  such attorney or party with/,7':;i;ficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this -#1-'-day of August , 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings , LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday , Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock , AR 72201 Also Via Fax@ 376-9442 Also Via Fax@ 682-4249 Also Via Fax@ 376-2147 John W. Walker P.A . Also Via Fax@ 374-4186 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock , AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Also Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell , Blackstock , Barnes , Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock , AR Mr . Stephen Jones Jack , Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock , AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Also Via Fax@ 375-1027 2 Ann Marshall Also Via Fax@ 371-0100 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By: @ 340-8282 Wil AR Bar 95145 separate school district .pleadings . federal\\motion for appeal.aug.19.03 3 WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN PRESS BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL L AWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 20 , 2003 Michael~ . Gans , Clerk Eighth ircuit Court of Appeals . 24 . 32 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 10th Street St Louis , MO 63101 14) 244 - 2400 RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2003 DESEGR OFFICE OF EG4fLQ!MdQN/1'(JMW8-9411  FAX (50\"1j~M\u0026gt;-9414 RE : Motion for Expedited Review and Stay o f Order of District Court Dear Mr . Gans : Enclosed along with this letter are a copy of our file marked Notice of Appeal , a certified copy of docket entries , and a copy of the order of the District Court from which we are appealing . Also enclosed are the original and five COQies of our Motion for Ex edited Review and Stay of: t-he... Di tr ict Gou_rt dB . If you could please file-mark these pleadings and return a file-marked copy to us in the self- addressed , stamped envelope enclosed , your help would be greatly appreciated. One of the exhibits to the motion is a transcript of the proceedings. As I mentioned to you on the telephone , the transcript was not to be completed until August 21 , 2003 . We intend to fax the transcript to you so that you will have it in the record. By copy of involved of our TWB : tt Enclosure ( s ) this letter , I am informing other counsel forwarding these documents to you . I\\ With(; 1 ]mes):_ Regards , ///,_~/ ~i J[d uvc \\ Michael E. Gans August 20 , 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A . Mark Burnette Stephen Jones/ Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger f. , ?Jh j ~ ldt f+-~~ P c.J~scv,v,'lf.:. 5 1:il-+- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOAJNG PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOV ANTS (APPELLANTS) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW AND SUSPENSION OF THE RULES PURSUANT TO RULE 2 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT Come the proposed Intervenors/Movants (appellants), and for their request for expedited review of their appeal and for a stay of the District Court's Order state: 1. On August 20, 2003, proposed Intervenors/Movants, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker, filed a Notice of Appeal in the above-referenced case. 2. The proposed Intervenors/Movants represented a group of individuals living and residing in approximately the northeast portion of Pulaski County, - Arkansas who sought to form a new school district by detachment pursuant to Ark. ' J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT ,. OF TIME TO FILE FEE PETITION The PCSSD for its motion, states: RE/~IYPi AUG 2 5 2003 ) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORfNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On August 18, 2003, this Court announced its decision from the Bench granting the PCSSD's motion to enforce Settlement Agreement and for allied relief. A final order was entered on August 19, 2003. 2. Since that time, the putative intervenors have begun the prosecution of a notice of appeal and have requested a stay from the Court of Appeals as well as expedited processing of their appeal. 3. The PCSSD believes that the Court of Appeals will deal with these issues on some kind of expedited basis and that it would promote judicial economy to await the Court of Appeals' ruling on a stay before presenting any motion for attorneys' fees and costs in this Court. 443086-v1  J 4. The PCSSD thus requests an enlargement of time until and including twenty (20) days after the Court of Appeals issues its ruling on the putative appellants' request for a stay before finalizing and filing any motion for attorneys' fees and costs. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court enlarging its time until and including twenty (20) days after The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issues it ruling upon the pending stay request, and for all proper relief. 443086-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 22, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John.W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Ileller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ArkanSas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 443086-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITUE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:8lCV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHA UEY AND SUE ANN WIIlSKER ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTE;RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 5 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLE By: CEP CL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCCSb's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File :Fee Petition (Doc. No. 3797). If any party has an objection to this extension, that party, or parties, should file a response within three days of the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED uN DOCKET SHEET lN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AN~ FRCf- ON R-~~ ...o~ BY Q..) 111 !!Lfl{;J~ ~ATESDISTRICTGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. . TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Nwnber: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591  682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: __\u0026lt;3 _Z_~_-_17_\"J - There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~~?\"?-tr~ Office of Judge Wm. R. w n, Jr. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, R 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5l41 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell caldwell, Chair Utt/a Rock Shelby HIiiman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home calvln King Marianna Randy Lawson IIJJJJ.fonvllle W.,Jane Rebick little Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 August 28, 2003 501-682-4475 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 htlp:/ larkedu.staJe.ar.us RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOmN  RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of August 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ld:~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for August 2003. Rg::z~ Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on Augu~ 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~od~ ottSmith RECEIVED AUG 2c1 2003 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Fl I s:: D --- ~-'= U.S. 01s\"rl:t1t'f COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUti 2 8 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By_ --------,o=e=p-=c.,..,Le=R\"\"\"K IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT :tvIB.S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KN1GHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion - for Extension of Time to submit a fee petition regarding PCSSD's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, state: 1. The Joshua Intervenors believe their counsel is entitled to a fee award. 2. Counsel, therefore, requests that the court allow undersigned counsel the same time it allows counsel for PCS SD to file such motion and supporting documentation and brief 3. Counsel incorporates by reference the motion and supporting documentation of the PCSSD in this matter. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an order granting Joshua's counsel such time that His Honor allows the PCSSD file its petition for fees, costs and other appropriate relief Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) I do hereby state that a copy of the forego 0 motion has been served all counsel of record on this 28th day of August, 2003. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS ORDER OF TRANSCRIPTS PURSUANT TO RULE 10 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Appellants , Greg Bollen , James Bolden , Martha Whatley and - Sue Ann Whisker , have ordered from the court reporter a transcript of the entire proceeding which consists of one hearing and a telephone conference . Appellants have already made payment for the transcript . The entire transcript has been ordered . Respectfully Submitted , Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville , AR 72076 Telephone (501) - 9081 Telefax (501) 8 - 414 By : W.1.l Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Will Bond , do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail , addressed to such attorney or party wit~~ujfj'ficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this ~ay of August , 2003: v  Mr . Sam Jones Wright , Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings , LLP 200 W. Capitol , Ste . 2300 \"Little Rock , AR 72201 - 3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock , AR 72201 Mr . Christopher Heller Friday , Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark , LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock , AR 72201 John W. Walker P .A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock , AR 72206 Mr . Mark Burnette Mitchell , Blackstock , Barnes , Wagoner , Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock , AR Mr . Stephen Jones Jack , Lyon \u0026amp; Jones , P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock , AR 72201 Telephone (501) 375 - 1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol , Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 2 - Ms . Karla Burnett Suite 400 , 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201 - 2610 By: 3 AR Bar 95145 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 _.,A,- ugust 28 , 2003 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 NEIL CHAMBERLIN / Mr. James W. Mc mack 402 ffice \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 Ca  ol Avenue Little R\u0026amp;ck , AR 72201 - 3325 RE : In the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Little Rock Division , Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District no. 1 , et al. , Katherine Knight , et al ., Greg Bollen , et al ., Case No . 4 : 82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear/~ . McCormack : Enclosed are an original and .two copies of an Order of Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in the above- referenced case. Please fil e this pleading and return file-marked copies to me in the encl osed self- addressed , stamped envelope . Thank you for your attention to this TWB : ab Enclosure(s) cc: Elaine Hinson Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Chris Heller John Walker Mark Burnette Stephen Jones / Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger ( Regards , RECEIVED r::P 2  2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 03-3088 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOV ANTS (APPELLANTS) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellants, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker, are not a - corporate entity and do not have any parent corporation. Appellants file this statement to comply with Rule 26. l of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 26. l A of the Eighth Circuit Rules. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 982-9 1 Telefax (501) 982-941 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addr;;\u0026gt;s;:911~uch attorney or party with sufficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this p..t aay of August, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR.72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 - Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 By: 3 WI LL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN Michael E. Gans~ Clerk BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 28 , 2003 Eighth Circui Court of Appeals 24 . 329 s F. Eagleton U.S . Courthouse 111 S . Street St. Lo s , MO 63101 (314) 244 - 2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 RECEIVED SEP 2 - 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit , Case No . 03 - 3088 Dear Mr . Gans : Enclosed are an original and five copies of a Corporate Disclosure Statement in the above- referenced case . Please file and return file - marked copies to me in the enclosed self-addressed , stamped envelope . Thank you for your attention to this matter . Regards , TWB : ab Enclosure(s) Michael E. Gans August 20 , 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P .A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall  Karla Burnett FILED US DISTRICT COURT EAST!:~,;. DISTRICT AF!KA~JSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 9 2003\" EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER By: DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3799) to submit a fee petition regarding PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agree:ment. Joshua Intervenors' motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2003. UN!WuS~WJIJ!lti Wm. R. WILSON, JR. TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Jolm Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson e-z..y.o-, Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Nwnber: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are Z. pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ?\"\"'t:~~9~-- Office of Judge Wm. R. W~ U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1750","title":"Includes memorandum of allowance for extension of time, responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD's response to Bollen intervenors, and notice of rejoinder.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-08-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Includes memorandum of allowance for extension of time, responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD's response to Bollen intervenors, and notice of rejoinder."],"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/1750"],"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":["45 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, memorandum of allowance for extension of time; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School Districts (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, order; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Bollen intervenors' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) memorandum in support of its response to the Bollen intervenors; motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material facts related to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, notice of rejoinder    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    - ILL WILSON - JUDGe: To: All Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AAKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (S01) 804-5140 Facslrnlle (501) 804-5149 August 11, 2003 BYFAX RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Mr. Steve Jones, counsel for the North Little Rock School District, called Matt Morgan, my new LRSD law clerk, regarding the deadline I imposed in the August 6, 2003 Order. _The Order required that responses to the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760) and the Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. :,766) be filed no iater than 12:00 p.m., noon, today. Mr. Jones advises that be had been out of town since August 1, had just received notice of the order, and requested a one day extension to reply. Due to his circumstances, I have allowed Mr. Jones until 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2003 , to reply to. either of the pending motions. Cordially, c El~ Original to Clerk TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall :Mark Burnette Scott Smith Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fa.x Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 682-4249 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: 8  II -o ':;\u0026gt; There are ;2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this faGsirnile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wi1501 U.S. Distri,;t Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morg1m, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 --- --- ------------ ~- - - ~ l , r;:.' .: ... ) _ _ w ~, l ~ ::. \"\\-:n t'.  .1 '- .  U.S. DI STRICT CCURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou:~r EASTERN DiSTisiCT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t( - /.:..-..:G i 1  \"L.\"~ ~J WESTERN DIVISION -: JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLEF-K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By_ ---~'T\"TT..,._.....,._.,,..... PLAIN I lllf CL~R--.- V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. MOVANT/INTERVENORS KNIGHT INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S \u0026lt;PCSSD'S) FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S (LRSD'S) MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Knight Intervenors support PCSSD's motion in full, but put forward a different rationale I for why this Court must act to enjoin the State Board of Education now, rather than await the outcome of the election the State Board has ordered. A. The State Board Has Unilaterally Initiated an Alteration of the Settlement Agreement, and PCSSD's Desegregation Plan, Over Which It No Longer Has Discretionary Authority to Stop; It has Taken This Action In Clear Contravention of This Court's Authority and Obligation to Make Prior Approval of Any Such Proposed Alterations If the voters approve the plan to create a new district on September 16, 2003, the State Board \"shall order the creation of the new school district.\" A.C.A. 6-13-1505(a). To that extertt, the State defendant has taken its final discretionary administrative action on the issue of creation of a new school district, notwithstanding the outcome of the vote. The State Board's \"vote\" has been cast in favor of the creation of a new district whether that negatively impacts the ---- - ------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I desegregation of the Pulaski County districts or not. At this point, the question is not \"what - happens if the voters approve the plan,\" - the State Board will be bound to the creation of the new district automatically - but, \"whether the State Board has made an \"end run\" around the Court's authority to approve proposed alterations of the desegregation plans before the alteration is made.\" As discussed below, the State Board has adopted the detachment proponents position that this Court will make the necessary future adjustments to the settlement agreement and desegregation plans to accommodate the creation of a new district, despite its own statutory obligation, A. CA. 6-13-1504(b )(2)(A), to investigate the question of whether there will be any negative impact on the Pulaski County school districts' desegregation efforts and reject the proposal for an election if any negative impact exists. Unfortunately, if PCS SD awaits the statutorily required invocation of this Court's after-the-fact approval, see A.CA. 6-13- - 1505(b)(2), the analysis of those issues will c9me too late. The new district will be afait accompli: by statue, the State Board must create a new district if the voters approve. By statute, it is then the new district which petitions the Court for what will amount to absolution for its own creation. See A. CA. 6-13-1 SOS(b )(2). It is a fundamental tenet of this Court's jurisdiction over the settlement of this case that a party seeking an alteration ofthe settlement agreement must obtain the Court's prior approval. The State Board has not done so prior to passing on its discretionary authority to stop the creation of a new district. It has approved the proposed new district and forwarded it to the public for a vote. The very act of doing so denigrates the very existence of one of the parties to this litigation, accedes to the creation of a new entity over which the court must then assume jurisdiction, and thus, fundamentally, seeks to change the desegregation efforts of all three Pulaski County school districts. This Court should therefore stay the order of an election unless the Court concludes - that the State Board is entitled to approval of an alteration of the settlement agreement through creation of a new entity. 1 Toe Court should not await the dismemberment of one of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to consider whether unilateral acts initiated by one party to dismember another party violate the settlement agreement. B. The State Board Has Proceeded in Contravention of State Law By Abdicating its Role to Approve an Election Only If the Creation of the New District Does Not \"Hamper, Delay or in any Manner Negatively Affect Desegregation Efforts\" of PCSSD. The State Board's own inquiry into the critical questions of whether the creation of the proposed new district would negatively effect the settlement agreement, or desegregation generally, was limited to its statutorily required request for an attorney general opinion. The Attorney General's first opinion clearly only raised more questions which, it said, the Board must answer before it could make a legitimate factual determination of the desegregation questions / can me made. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot definitively opine as to whether the detachment would in fact negatively affect desegregation in any school district or negatively impact the effort of the State to assist any '.'affected\" school district in the desegregation of public schools in the State. Nonetheless, the proposed detachment raises serious questions with regard to potential negative impact on the ability of one or more of the schools districts in Pulaski County to comply with their court imposed obligations in the Pulaski County school desegregation litigation. For this reason, before it authorizes an election on the proposed detachment, the State Board of Education should carefully scrutinize the proposal, gathering whatever information, 1So far, the State Bord has not even filed such a Motion. Further, based upon the PCSSD's pending motion and the discussion below, Knight argues that the Movant's and the State Board will not be able to meet the standard of proof necessary to approve such a fundamental alteration of the Settlement Agreement and the other outstanding Orders of the Court which establish the contours of PCSSD's present desegregation plan. commentary or testimony it deems necessary (including input from the three school districts in Pulaski County), to ensure that it has properly exercised its responsibility to determine whether the creation of the new district would hamper . . . . Attorney General Opinion of June 4, 2003, (italics in original). After a review of some of the questions which would have to be answered to make these determinations, it repeatedly concluded that there was insufficient information before the Board to make the determination required by the statute. With this clearly equivocal opiPJon in hand, the State Board was not to be dissuaded. It insisted on clarification of the opinion from the Attorney General2 and responses from the detachment petitioners and others. The proponents offered a legal opinion by attorney Clay Fendley to compete with the Attorney General's opinion. But that opinion, again, invokes this Court's authority to cure all the harms that will be visited on the desegregation efforts in Pulaski County and violations of the Orders of this Court that will result from secession and appears to I concede that detriment to the desegregation plans are inevitable.3 Mr. Fendley's opinion is also defective as a basis for meeting the State Board's statutorily required review of the negative impact of the proposal because, as Mr. Fendley states, \"my analysis will be limited to two 2The Attorney General's second response still gave the State Board no basis for its approval. The Attorney General opined that before granting its approval, the State Board must be assured that \"the detached district and its students will be permitted to participate in all existing transfer programs under the various orders and agreements in the Pulaski County desegregation case.\" To do that, the Board would have had to seek this Court's prior approval for the participation of the newly created detached district in these programs. It has not pursued that assurance from this Court. 3 Among the plans Mr. Fendley has for this Court to solve all these new problems that are likely to occur are, \"ordering the new district to retain the PCSSD teachers currently employed at the detached schools,\" p. 8, and \"address [the anticipated] overcrowding at Sylvan Hills\" p. 7, by \"revis[ing] the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools,\" p. 6, \"discontinue [Sylvan Hills] specialty programs,\" or even \"build add,itional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School.\" - See PCSSD's Exhibit 17, Fendley Opinion Letter, at the indicated pages. areas,\" \"student assignment and faculty.\" Clearly, other considerations must be made. The detachment will necessarily result in the loss of teacher and support service personnel. Contractually, those losses to PCSSD will be in reverse order of seniority in each certification area, not by a teacher's current association with one school in the PCSSD or another. The teachers currently assigned to schools in the detachment area are still PCSSD employees; they may thus choose to exercise their right to remain in PCSSD where they have a negotiated contract and job security rather than resign for the unknown contract. Thus, the Court must consider \"what affect will the extensive redistribution of teachers within and without PCS SD do to the success of the desegregation efforts in place?\" \"What will that redistribution look like in terms of the experience of the teachers and racial makeup once the break-up occurs? Moreover, \"Does the Court have the authority to alter the plans in such a radical manner as will be required by the detachment being - forwarded?\" \"Can the Court even order the detachment area teachers to remain in their current school, even if it requires them to resign from the PCS SD and be re-employed by the new district?\" The answer to the last question appears to be a resounding \"No\" and therefore dispositive of the detachment question. \"A federal district court does have remedial authority in necessary cases, to modify or even abrogate [employment] agreements that perpetuate segregation or impede a desegregation plan. Such action however can be taken only 'after an evidentiary hearing and upon a finding that the change is essential to the desegregation remedy.'\" Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1997)(quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1315 cert denied 488 U.S. 869 (1988). No one is even arguing that the proposed detachment is \"essential to the desegregation remedy,\" (clearly it is not), and therefore, the numerous other adjustments to the existing agreement and plans which this Court would be asked to take cannot be made by order of this Court. The Board agreed to assign these tasks to this Court rather than make an adequate inquiry into the issues itself. For these reasons, the time for this Court to act is now. The appropriate Order is to stay the election and put the burden of proof on the State to meet the requirements for altering the Settlement Agreement and PCSSD's desegregation plans, as the Board itself anticipates these must be altered. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors join PCSSD in respectfully requesting that the Court enjoin the election approved by the State Department of Education or enjoin the State Board from performing its ministerial duties under A. C.A. 6-13-1505( a) relative to the creation of a new district out of the PCSSD. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER \u0026amp; IVERS 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little kock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By:2?7~~ Mark Burnette ABN # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this jJ_.,IJ.,jay of~ ,.z4: , 2003: Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 20 Nottingham, #3 Little Rock, AR 72205 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P. 0. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General 's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educ. Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 By: 72ld, ~ Mark Burnette BAR NO. 88078 RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FIL.ED U.S. DISTR1'.::T COURT EASTEP.N 01sr:::1CT ARKANSAS AUG 1 l 2003 JAME~LERK By:7 ~~ PLAINTIFF  DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger's Request for Entry of Appearance (Doc. No. 3772) as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of addressing the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" The Request for Entry of Appearance by Mr. Gauger for the above mentioned limited purpose is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2003 . UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED GN DOCKET SHE:ET IN COM.PLIANCE WIT~1RULffe 58 AND/OR79-) FRCP ON it II {_p3 BY ~ -7-r-'\"'-.::_.:..... _ WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN VIA AND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 11 , 2003 The onorable William R. Wilson , Jr. 60 W. Capitol , Room 423 ittle Rock , AR 72201 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED AUG 12 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE : Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County School District , et al ., United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , Case No . 4 : 82CV00866WRW - August 18th Hearing Dear Judge Wilson : One of the Intervenors ' counsel , Clay Fendley , has had a vacation scheduled for quite some time . He cannot move his vacation . The vacation conflicts with the August 18 th hearing date . Can Mr . Fendley be a part of the hearing via telephone or video conference? Any help with accommodating the Intervenors would be greatly appreciated . est Regards , TWB :tt Enclosure(s) cc : All Counsel school district detachment\\judge wilson.aug.11 .03 RECENEO r~ \"J - ~; -~ ) It\" :J !. !.':'\"\"' !  ~.:... . EA u.s. DISTR1cr CcuRT - . - STERN OISTR1CT AR MN SAS 2, 1uu1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~\\.\\G l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK Off\\Ct Of Ql\\\\ll\\i WESTERN DIVISION By: , , n~itGRtG~1\\0\" ~Qll\\1 c..EP CLER. rnTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOVANT/INTERVENORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Come the Knight Intervenors, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. The Knight Intervenor's former counsel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired from the practice of law, and therefore requests to withdraw as counsel for the Knight Intervenors. 2. Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette, MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, WAGONER, IVERS, \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, (501) 378-7870, as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell in this matter. 3. Intervenors request that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark Burnette. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette be substituted as their counsel of record. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES WAGONER \u0026amp; IVERS 1010 West Third P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By: Z?lrklhta~K Mark Burnette ABN # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this -/ /--11ciay of ~'!,Av ,'.\u0026gt;-: , 2003: Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 20 Nottingham, #3 Little Rock, AR 72205 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P. 0. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Norman J. Chachkin NAAC.? Legai Defense \u0026amp; Educ. Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 By: 2nw.JP~ Mark Burnette BAR NO. 88078 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS I.UDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376- 9442 www . wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No . 501 -2 12 - 1273 mjoncs@wlj .com August 11, 2003 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  Lict:OSt:dtopn,cdcebefrx'elbt:Ulill:ltlSate:1 h1t:at aod Tn::tDUt Ol6ce RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOffiNG Enclosed are courtesy copies of PCSSD's response to the \"Bollen lntervenors\" Motion to Intervene, and memorandum in support. The original have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 440028-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ~ Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE \"BOLLEN INTERVENORS\" MOTION TO INTERVENE PCSSD for its response, states: 1. Admit that the movants seek to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 2. Generally admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 but deny that the movants' \"interest\" is sufficiently unique to warrant intervention and states that the interest set forth parallel those of the Arkansas Board of Education which is already a party to this matter. 3. Admits that a new district cannot be created without an election but reiterates its position that the constitutional scheme pursued by the movants is both unconstitutional and violative of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. S. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 439522-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the motion be denied and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Jones III (7 or Pulaski oun Special trict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August)!_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 439522-v1 2 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895  Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439522-v1 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO THE \"BOLLEN INTERVENORS\" MOTION TO INTERVENE The State has now filed its response to the PCSSD Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief. The PCSSD movants, which include certain Board members in both their official and individual capacities, believe that the response of the State demonstrates that the State will adequately and properly represent the interests of the \"Bollen Intervenors\" on all issues presented in this action. Interestingly, however, the upshot of the Bollen Intervenors claims to intervene demonstrate that this matter must be ripe for adjudication; otherwise, they could not currently assert, with any logical force, a compelling need to intervene now. Accordingly, the PCSSD movants submit that the force and vigor of the Bollen Intervenors' position re-enforces the notion that the issues presented by the PCSSD movants 440038-v1 - are ripe for consideration and for the best interest of all of the parties to this case, and those interested in the outcome of these issues, these matters should be adjudicated now rather than at some distant point in the future. Stated another way, if the \"disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicants' ability to protect [its] interest\", then there must be legitimate and cogent reasons why the intervention is being sought now rather than after the election. The intervenors cannot have it both ways. Accordingly, their motion to intervene is a legal statement that the Court should adjudicate the issues now rather than later. 440038-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 nty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August LL, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 440038-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 M. ~ es III : 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHf, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982'.'9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BY: t!: c. 9-w1ll V[\u0026lt; ~ ~ C. Fendley.Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaz.a 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534,546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.\"' National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684,692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano y. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First, the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16, 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently, the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an election based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. n. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,i 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 (6th Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. m. Conclusion .. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors Page 5 of 6 ------ - - -- - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 ~hnC.. F en~dley,J~r. ,~ Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION L!TI1..,E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER THE BOLLEN INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO RECE\\\\JED AUG 11 1003 Off\\CE Of OESEGREG~i\\ON MONliORlltG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATED TO THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Bollen Intervenors hereby respond in turn to each numbered paragraph of the PCSSD's Statement of Material Facts related to the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. The Bollen Intervenors believe that the boundary adjustment occurred June 19, 1986 and that it involved 14 schools, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny whether it caused the PCS SD to lost one-third of its tax base. 4. Admitted. Page 1 of 6 - - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. 12. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the State's attorney and Senator Howell were reported by the Arkansas Gazette to have made the alleged statements. 13. Admitted. 14. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the Arkansas Democrat reported as alleged. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. 24. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the General Assembly enacted Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501, et~- They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24. Page 2 of 6 25. The Bollen Intervenors admit that an initial feasibility study was completed on or about November 21, 2002. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 26. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the initial feasibility study examined three alternatives for detachment and recommended alternative one be selected. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 26. 27. The Bollen Intervenors admit that an addendum dated February 25, 2003 completed and added to the November 21, 2002 feasibility study. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 27. 28. The Bollen Intervenors admit that a petition drive was commenced after the completion of the February 25, 2003 addendum and admit that subsequently the petition drive was concluded and petitions were delivered to the Arkansas Department of Education on May 19, 2003. 29. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the legislature approved an amendment to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13- 1501, et seq. adding a criterium allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of seven hundred square miles or more. They deny all remaining allegations in 29 and affirmatively assert that there is at least one other school district in excess of seven hundred square miles. 30. Admitted. 31. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the Attorney General's office rendered its first opinion letter on June 4, 2003. The letter speaks for itself, and they deny the allegations contained in this paragraph to the extent inconsistent therewith. 32. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the State Board of Education conducted a Page 3 of 6 hearing on or about June 9, 2003. That hearing was recorded and is being transcribed, and the transcript will speak for itself. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 32. 33. The Bollen Intervenors admit that supplemental materials were provided to the State Board of Education and to the Attorney General's office on or about June 27, 2003. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 33. 34. The Bollen Intervenors admit that on or about July 11, 2003 the Attorney General issued an opinion concerning the issue of detachment and the effect of detachment on desegregation. They state that the Attorney General's opinion speaks for itself. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 34. 35. Admitted. 36. Admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. Page 4 of 6 Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants BY 7Jb. {!__ '}f2J_pA{, ~. ;c. Fendley, Jr. Page 5 of 6 ., 4 ' .... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 3 23 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNIIBD STAIBS DISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESIBRN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE BOLLEN INIBRVENORS RESPONSE TO RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIBRVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. The Consent Decree. A. Interpretation of Consent Decrees. \"[C]onsent decrees bear some of the earmarks of judgments entered after litigation. At the same time, because their terms are arrived at through mutual agreement of the parties, consent decrees also closely resemble contracts.\" Int'! Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 4 78 U.S. 501, 519 (1986). For purposes of interpretation and enforcement, judicially approved consent decrees are generally treated like contracts, United States v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985), and fundamental principles of contract interpretation under state law govern their interpretation. United States v. City of Northlake, 942 F.2d 1164, 1167 (7th Cir. 1991 ). Even so, \"[t]he interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise, Page 1 of 14 influenced, perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). B. Section II. J. The PCS SD argues that Section II. J. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement prohibits detachment of territory from the PCSSD to create a new school district. Section II. J. provides: The State, Joshua and the LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 1989 Settlement Agreement, p. 9. The PCSSD contends that, by recognizing the PCSSD as an \"independent, sovereign desegregating school district[],\" the parties intended to prohibit \"any new usurpation of [the PCSSD' s] territory, facilities and assets . ... \" PCSSD Brief, p. 2. Apparently believing that Section II. J. is ambiguous, the PCSSD purports to provide the Court with extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. See City ofNorthlake, 942 F.2d atl 167. In fact, the PCS SD provides the Court a series of newspaper articles and letters, none of which directly address the parties' intent. Rather, they show that various persons in the media and Legislature speculated that Section II. J. could preclude future consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts, and if so, thought that was a bad idea. See, ~. PCSSD Exhibit 6 (indicating that Section II. J. \"could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\"). This speculation is inadmissible hearsay and should not be considered by the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802. Moreover, even assuming the speculation was correct, it would only prove that Section II. J. was intended to prevent consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts. It does not establish that Page 2 of 14 Section Il. J. was intended to prohibit \"any new usurpation of [the PCSSD' s) territory, facilities and assets ... ,\" as alleged by the PCSSD. The only evidence of intent the Bollen Intervenors have been able to locate to date1 comes from hearings before the Court's Special Master, Aubrey McCutcheon, during which the parties explained to Special Master McCutcheon the provisions of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In an April 19, 1989 hearing, McCutcheon described his understanding of Section Il. J. as follows: I am also recommending to the court with respect to the settlement that the language in the settlement not be treated as imposing an absolute restriction on the consideration of any particular type of school, whether it be magnet, interdistrict school, consolidation, anything else. That the language in the settlement agreement that refers to the sovereignty and independence of the districts be considered just that, language which acknowledges the current status, but does not in any way infringe on the court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there ought to be a merger of certain Junctions for the purpose of being more cost effective and more desegregative and a wiser use of the spending of the money. $120 million is a lot of money, and we ought to see to it that it is spent wisely and carefully, along with any other monies that are spent by the school districts as a part of their implementation of the desegregation responsibilities. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, p. 22-23 (emphasis supplied). Special Master McCutcheon's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of Section II. J. Section II. J. was written in the present tense. It would have been easy to include language specifically prohibiting future consolidation or any other usurpation of the PCSSD's power, territory or assets, but no such language was included. Regardless of what was meant by \"sovereign, independent school district[),\" Section II. J. was unambiguously limited to the present and did not address future usurpations of the power, territory or assets of the PCSSD. Therefore, Section II. J. does not prohibit, 14 years later, the detachment of territory from the 1If the Court agrees with PCSSD that Section II. J. is ambiguous, the Bollen Intervenors respectfully request a reasonable amount of time to conduct discovery on this issue. Page 3 of 14 PCSSD to create a new school district. C. Section II. L. The PCSSD' s argument that detachment violates Section II. L. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement is answered in the discussion of the alleged negative impact on desegregation in Section III of this brief. II. Egual Protection. A. Introduction. Tue individual PCSSD board members argue that the detachment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it provides that only those \"residing in the territory to be detached shall be entitled to vote in the election\" on detachment. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3). Their argument fails because they have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. See Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 201 U.S. 161, 178 (1907). Since no constitutional right is at stake, the question before this Court is whether the detachment statute is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 70 (1978)(applying rational basis review to a State statute granting authority to a cities over nonresidents who were unable to vote in city elections); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428,433 (1992)(setting forth the standard for challenges to election laws generally). The detachment statute should be upheld because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective -- encouraging community support for education. Tue detachment statute encourages community support for education by providing small communities in large school districts a mechanism for assuming control of their schools. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13- 1501 (a)(l ). Tue election required by the detachment statute serves this objective by testing the Page 4 of 14 community's support for detachment. B. No Substantive Constitutional Right at Stake. The individual PCS SD board members have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. School districts are political subdivisions of the State of Arkansas, and the State of Arkansas has discretion to decide the \"nwnber, nature and duration of powers\" conferred upon school districts and ''the territory over which they shall be exercised.\" Id. at 178. See Sailors v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Kent, 387 U.S. 105 (1967) (applying Hunter to school districts). In exercising this discretion, the State of Arkansas \"at its pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or a part of it . .. \" Hunter, 201 U. S. at 178 ( emphasis supplied). Moreover, \"all this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest.\" Id. (emphasis supplied). In this case, the State of Arkansas conditioned detachment on an election in which a majority of voters favor detachment. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1504(3). It imposed a residence requirement consistent with the purpose of the election -- to confirm support for detachment in the territory to be detached. Given the purpose of the election, it would not make sense to allow persons to vote who reside outside the territory to be detached. It is beyond dispute ''that the States have the power to require that voters be bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision.\" Dunn v. Blwnstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343-44 (1972). See Holt, 439 U.S. at 68-69 (\"[O]ur cases have uniformly recognized that a government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders.\"); Page 5 of 14 Carrington v. Rash. 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965)(\"Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot.\"). C. Rational Basis Review. Since the individual PCSSD board member have no constitutional right to vote on detachment, the question before this Court is whether the detachment statute is rationally related to .a legitimate governmental objective. Holt, 439 U.S. at 70; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433. In Hol!, persons residing in Holt. an unincorporated area adjoining Tuscaloosa, Alabama, sought a declaration that a state statute was unconstitutional because it allowed Tuscaloosa to exercise police powers in Holt. They argued that the extraterritorial exercise of police powers violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because Holt residents were denied the right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Holt, 439 U.S. at 62-63. In determining the appropriate standard of review, the Supreme Court first distinguished cases such as Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). where the challenged statute \"denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the boundaries of the govern.mental entity concerned.\" Id. at 68. It then recognized a State's power to impose reasonable residence requirements. Id. at 68- 69. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the State's power to impose reasonable residence requirements meant that the residents of Holt had no right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Id. at 70. Since there was no fundamental right at stake. it held that the statute in question was subject to rational basis review. Id. The Supreme Court went on to uphold the statute under that standard. Id. at 75. In Burdick, supra. the Supreme Court clarified the standard to be applied in a challenge to a state election law. That case involved a challenge to Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting Page 6 of 14 based on the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Id. 504 U.S. at 430. The court first noted that not every burden on the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 432. It explained: Election laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters. Each provision of a code, \"whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects -- at least to some degree -- the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.\" Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Consequently, to subject every voting regulation to strict scrutiny and to require that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest, as petitioner suggests, would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently. See Brief for Petitioner 32-37. Accordingly, the mere fact that a State's system \"creates barriers .. . tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose ... does not of itself compel close scrutiny.\" Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143 (1972); Anderson, supra, at 788; McDonald v. Board of Election Cornm'nrs of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969). Id. at 433-34. The court then addressed the question of when strict scrutiny would apply. It stated: A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh \"the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate\" against \"the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,\" taking into consideration \"the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights.\" Id., at 789; Tashjian, supra, at 213-214. Under this standard, the rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to \"severe\" restrictions, the regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.\" Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. , (1992). But when a state election law provision imposes only \"reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions\" upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, \"the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify\" the restrictions. Anderson, supra, at 788; see also id., at 788-789, n. 9. Id. at 434. The Court went on to uphold Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting applying Page 7 of 14 rational basis review. Id. at 441. The detachment statute should likewise be upheld based on rational basis review. For example, the California Supreme Court addressed this identical situation in the context of county government in Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 245, 838 P.2d 1198, 3 Cal. 4th 903 (1992). In that case, the California Supreme Court rejected an equal protection challenge to California Government Code 57103. That code provision allowed unincorporated areas of a county to incorporate into a city ( detach from the county) following an election among only residents of the proposed city (the territory to be detached). Id., 3 Cal 4th at 908. County residents residing outside the territory to be detached alleged that 57103 violated the Equal Protection Clause because, although they would be impacted by detachment, it denied them the right to vote on detachment. In determining the standard ofreview, the California Supreme Court applied the flexible test described in Burdick. Id. 3 Cal 4th at 914. It noted that county residents had no right to vote on detachment because counties \"are mere creatures of the state and exist only at the state's sufferance.\" Id. As a result, the court found that \"individual interests in voting are much attenuated by the state's plenary power to oversee and regulate the formation of its political subdivisions, and the same power entitles the state to identify as differing in degrees the interests of those who may vote under 57103 and those who may not.\" Id. The court concluded that \"the essence of this case is not the fundamental right to vote, but the state's plenary power to set the conditions under which its political subdivisions are created. For that reason, the impairment of the right to vote is insufficiently implicated to demand the application of strict scrutiny.\" Id. at Page 8 of 14 3 Cal. 4th at 918 (emphasis supplied). See Wit v. Berman, 306 F.3d 1256, 1259 (2nd Cir. 2002)(following Burdick and applying rational basis standard to a residence requirement). The court then looked to whether  57103 was rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. It concluded that 57103 was rationally related to its stated objective of encouraging orderly growth and development stating: The act accommodates competing local governmental and private interests ... The election merely asks the affected residents to confirm that they desire selfgovernment To deny the Legislature the authority to let the potentially incorporating territory's voters have the final say in the matter would be to lessen political participation, not increase it. We do not believe that result is required by our federal or state Constitutions. Id. 3 Cal. 4th at 923. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 57103. The detachment statute should likewise be upheld.2 The key case relied upon by the individual PCSSD Board members is Kramer v. Union - Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). They argue the strict scrutiny applies simply because the state decided to hold an election, and indeed, taken out of context, some language from Kramer appears to support their argument. See Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 , 704 (citing Kramer, 395 U.S. at 629 n.11).3 However, the Supreme Court in Kramer explained 2The Florida Supreme Court reached the same result in a factually similar case. In City of Long Beach Resort v. Collins, 261 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1972), it rejected an equal protection challenge to Florida House Bill No. 5288 which permitted the consolidation of several municipalities and unincorporated areas upon a favorable vote in only the unincorporated areas. 261 So. 2d at 499. The Florida Supreme Court summarily rejected an equal protection challenge by noting that the municipalities were all created by acts of the Legislature and concluding, \"This was the prerogative of the Legislature which has life and death powers over municipalities which are created, modified and can be abolished by the Legislature.\" Id. 261 So. 2d at 500. 3Cipriano may be distinguished on the same grounds as Kramer. It also involved a statute that \"grant[ ed] the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denie[d] it to others . . . \" 395 U.S. at 704. Decided the same day as Kramer, the court in Page 9 of 14 that strict scrutiny \"is not necessitated by the subject of the election; rather, it is required because some resident citizens are permitted to participate and some are not.\" 395 U.S. at 629 (emphasis supplied). Thus, while Kramer involved a state's discrimination against some bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision, the present case involves the state's identification of the relevant political subdivision. See Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343-44. The Supreme Court in Kramer noted the difference stating: Appellant agrees that the State may impose reasonable citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the ballot. [citations omitted]. The sole issue in this case is whether the additional requirements of  2012 -requirements which prohibit some district residents who are otherwise qualified by age and citizenship from participating in district meetings and school board elections -- violate the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State shall deny persons equal protection of the laws. Id. at 625-26 (emphasis by court). Therefore, Kramer involved a discriminatory residence requirement, whereas the detachment statute does not discriminate among residents. Kramer holds that discriminatory residence requirements are subject to strict scrutiny, and this is consistent with Burdick and Holt. The Supreme Court in Burdick stated that rational basis review only applied to \"reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.\" 504 U.S. at 434. The Supreme Court in Holt distinguished Kramer because it involved a discriminatory residence requirement. It stated, \"The challenged statute in [Kramer] denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the geographic boundaries of the governmental entity concerned.\" Holt, 439 U.S. at 68. In this case, no residents of the territory to be detached are denied the right to vote -- nonresidents are denied Cipriano stated that strict scrutiny applied \"if a challenged statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election so some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others.\" 395 U.S. at 704. Page 10 of 14 the right to vote. Accordingly, Kramer does not require strict scrutiny of the detachment statute. See Columbia River Gorge United v. Yeutter, 960 F.2d 110, 115 (9th Cir. 1992) (\"The equal protection clause, however, is not violated when a geographic area is singled out for different treatment. The Supreme Court has held that 'there is no rule that counties, as counties, must be treated alike; the Equal Protection Clause relates to equal protection of the laws between individuals rather than between areas.\"' ( quoting Griffm v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County. 377 U.S. 218, 230 (1964)(intemal quotation omitted))). D. Conclusion. The individual PCSSD board members have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. Hunter, 201 U.S. at 178. As a result, the detachment statute must be upheld if its is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. See Holt, 439 U.S. at 68-69; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. In this case, the State of Arkansas decided to conduct an election to test a community's support for detachment, and it logically limited the vote to those residing in the territory to be detached. This was a legitimate exercise of the State's power and should be upheld. Accordingly, the individual board members' equal protection claims should be dismissed. III. Impact on Desegregation. If the voters confirm their support for detachment in the September 16, 2003 election, the State Board of Education will order the creation of a new school district in Northeast Pulaski County and appoint a Board of Education for the district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-l 3- 1505(b )(1 ). Before any transfer of power, property or territory to the new district, the newly appointed board must intervene in this case and agree to such orders as necessary to ensure no Page 11 of 14 negative impact on desegregation. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(l). Thus, the detachment statute has a built in mechanism to ensure no negative impact on desegregation and does not violate Section IL L. of the Settlement Agreement. Once appointed by the State Board of Education, the Board of Directors of the new district cannot exercise any power over their schools unless and until authorized by this Court. See Wright v. Council of the City ofEmpori~ 407 U.S. 451 (1972). Even so, this Court does not have authority to grant the PCSSD the relief sought -- enjoining the September 16, 2003 election -- or to otherwise prevent the State Board of Education from creating the new district. See Ross v. Houston Ind. School Dist., 583 F.2d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 1978)(\"The district court exceeded the ambit of its discretion when it enjoined WISD's ability to maintain its corporate existence or to pursue those of its organizational rights under state law that do not involve the independent operation of a portion ofHISD as WISD.\"). Rather, when and if the time comes, the issue before this Court will be the \"proper role [of the new district] in the desegregation of the county system.\" Stout v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 466 F.2d 1213, 1214 (5th Cir. 1972). The proper role of the new district will be \"essentially a factual determination in any particular case.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 470. The precise role that may be requested by the board of the new district cannot be determined at this time, since the board has yet to be appointed. As a result, it would be inappropriate at this time to propose solutions to the concerns raised by the PCSSD. At a minimum, however, the PCS SD and new district should be prepared for an orderly transfer of control upon the PCSSD being declared unitary. This means that the new district will need funding and personnel. It also means that the new district should assume control to the extent Page 12 of 14  practicable before the PCSSD becomes unitary. To the extent the Bollen Intervenors can speak for the future board of the new district, they want to express their sincere desire to work in good faith with the PCSSD and the other parties to reach an agreement in the best interest of all children in Pulaski County. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BY:~ f_. 9--~, ~ oiu:c. Fendley, Jr . Page 13 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 7220 l Page 14 of 14 EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC STATUS CONFERENCE April 19, 1989 (Docket No. 1179A) Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon Speaking Pages 21-231 1These page numbers may not correlate with the actual transcript. They are based on a copy of the transcript that had been scanned and converted to a WordPerfect document. Bollen Intervenors Exhibit 1 to Response Brief is not the limit of their responsibility to implement a constitutional desegregation plan. So, there is no reason for me to recommend disapproval of the settlement, I am recommending its approval. I am recommending, however, that the state not be dismissed from the case until they have fulfilled all of their responsibilities under the settlement. I am further recommending to the U.S. District Court that even though the court re-dedicates the millage as requested by the parties in the settlement, that those re-dedications be conditional upon the parties fulfilling their obligations under the settlement and under any court orders that arc issued to alleviate the conditions of segregation that still exist. And the obvious reason for that is that we do not want to have the court re-dedicate the millage and have the general public have to pay more money to the schools, only to find out that the schools are not fulfilling their obligations under the desegregation orders of the court, and then the school districts go back to the public and have to ask for additional monies. So, we are recommending that the court 21 make the re-dedication of millages conditional upon the satisfaction by the districts of their obligations under the agreement, the settlement agreement, as well as the other court orders. I am also recommending to the court with respect to the settlement that the language in the settlement not be treated as imposing an absolute restriction on the consideration of any particular type of school, whether it be magnet, interdistrict school, consolidation, anything else. That the language in the settlement agreement that refers to the sovereignty and independence of the districts be considered just that, language which acknowledges the current status, but does not in any way infringe on the court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there ought to be a merger of certain functions for the purpose of being more cost effective and more desegregative and a wiser use of the spending of the money. $120 million is a lot of money, and we ought to see to it that it is spent wisely and carefully, along with any other monies that are spent by the school districts as a part of their implementation of the desegregation 22 responsibilities. There has been a lot of talk about grandfathering. There has been a lot of talk about neighborhood schools. I don't know of any definition in a school desegregation case of neighborhood schools, and I don't find one in the plans that have been submitted. I do find much language, some of which I have referred to previously, indicating that we ought to seek stability, we ought to seek predictability and continuity of assignments, which means we ought to have feeder patterns, we ought to have attendance zones, we ought to make it possible for pupils to go to school together if they live on the same street, that ought to be possible. And one way it is possible is through a concept which I will be recommending regarding the pairing of certain schools and certain grade levels. But with respect to the grandfathering and the attendance zones and the neighborhood schools, I can tell you that the plans submitted by the Little Rock School District are in some portions incomprehensible on those three topics. In other sections, they are so inconsistent that 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER THE BOLLEN INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Bollen Intervenors for their Response to the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. As to paragraph 1, the Bollen Intervenors admit that the PCSSD's Board of Directors, in their official capacities, are parties to this action. The Bollen Intervenors deny that the PCS SD Board of Directors are parties to this case in their individual capacities, and their claims should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Bollen Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying brief which are hereby incorporated by reference. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the PCSSD lacks standing to assert the constitutional claims advanced by the individual PCSSD board members. 2. As to paragraph 2, the Bollen Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD's Statement of Page 1 of 6 Material Facts is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Bollen Intervenors admit the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the PCSSD's motion. 4. The Bollen Intervenors admit that this Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State of Arkansas to enforce compliance with the 1989 Settlement Agreement. They deny that the July 14, 2003 action of the State Board of Education violates any provision of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 5. The Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the PCSSD's motion. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the Consent Decree should be modified, if necessary, to allow creation of a new school district in Northeast Pulaski County. 6. The Bollen Intervenors admit that, if voters approve detachment in the September 16, 2003 election, the Board of Directors for the new district must intervene in this case and \"obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1505(b)(2). The Bollen Intervenors deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the PCSSD's motion. 7. Th.e Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the PCSSD's motion. 8. As to paragraph 13, the Bollen Intervenors admit that detachment will marginally increase the percentage of African-American students in the remaining PCSSD. They deny that Page 2 of 6 detachment will \"artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCSSD to a majority black school district.\" 9. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that Newsweek recently recognized Mills University Studies High School as the twentieth \"best\" in the country. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the PCSSD's motion. 10. The Bollen Jntervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the PCSSD's motion. They affirmatively assert that the new district will seek to retain teachers currently employed in schools slated for detachment and believe it is highly unlikely that all of the approximately 475 teachers will seek new positions in the remaining PCSSD. 11. The Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the PCSSD's motion. 12. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that detachment will result in the PCSSD losing approximately 6500 students. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the PCSSD's motion. 13. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that the PCSSD's current population density per square mile is approximately 25 students per square mile. They admit that the feasibility study indicated that the population density of the new district would be 53 students per square mile. The Bollen Intervenors deny the remaining allegations containing in paragraph 21 of the PCSSD's motion. 14. The Bollen Intervenors state that the State Board of Education's July 16, 2003 order speaks for itself, and deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the PCSSD's motion to the extent inconsistent therewith. They deny the remaining allegations contained in Page 3 of 6 paragraph 22 of the PCSSD's motion. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement is the Consent Decree. This Court may modify the Consent Decree without the agreement of the parties under the circumstances described in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). If approved by a majority of voters in the September 16, 2003 election, the creation of the new district will constitute changed factual circumstances justifying modification of the Consent Decree. 15. The Bollen Intervenors admit that this Court's jurisdiction is limited to monitoring and enforcing (including modifying as necessary) its Consent Decree. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the PCSSD's motion. 16. The Bollen Intervenors deny that a \"case or controversy'' exists at this time. They affirmatively assert that this case is not ripe for adjudication for the reasons set forth in their Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying brief, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 17. The Bollen lntervenors' memorandum brief accompanying this Response is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be denied; that, if necessary, the Consent Decree be modified to accommodate the creation of the proposed new district by detachment from the PCS SD; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Page 4 of 6 Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BYJhnC:. ~~-~fr Fendley, Jr. Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 3 23 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 e !. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 ., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t  WESTERN DIVISION :1l.:.::=: .  ------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2003 DESEGREaiWCE OF ON MONITOR/NQ NOTICE OF JOINDER The Joshua Intervenors for their notice of joinder, state: -- ----- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The Joshua Intervenors have reviewed the forth motion of the PCSSD to enforce settlement agreement, the statement of material facts and memorandum in support of motion. Premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors hereby give notice of their joinder within and adoption of these pleadings of the PCSSD dated July 24, 2003 . 439291 -v1 Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 FAX: (501) 374-4187 / ,,,,,.---. , /7:h_ ( I ,;,(;, : / / _? By ~ I/ - ' ~ W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 Attorney Joshua Intervenors d CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /..L~o03, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 439291-v1 2 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 hn C Fendley, Jr. M~J~. Fe~dley, Jr. P.A. Jo Drive 51 Wingatke AR 72205 Little Roe , 439291-v1 3    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1751","title":"Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-08-05/2003-08-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance."],"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/1751"],"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":["34 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to intervene; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) board members motion to intervene in their individual capacities; District Court, memorandum in support of motion to intervene; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, request for entry of appearance    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     MOBILE: 501-350-2573 OFFICE: 501-907-9797 CLAY FENDLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. P.A. 51 WINGATE DRIVE LITTLE ROCK., AR 72205 August 5, 2003 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 HAND-DELIVERED RE: LRSD v. PCSSD NO. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: 0 : ~ E-MAIL: fendley l@alltel.net FAX: 501-907-9798 RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find a Motion to Intervene and accompanying brief which I, along with Mike Wilson and Will Bond, have filed today on behalf of Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker. The motion arises out of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. It is our understanding that a hearing on the PCSSD's motion has been scheduled for August 18, 2003. We respectfully request that our intervention motion be considered at that hearing as well. 1bank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, cc: All counsel The Honorable J. Thomas Ray IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. The Movants move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). 2. The Movants have an interest in this Court's resolution of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Movants seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,' 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Movants initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 the State Board of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks the Court to order the State Board ofEducation to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. The Movants have an interest in seeing that the election go forward as a necessary part of the detachment process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 through 1505. 3. If this Court grants the PCS SD the relief it seeks, it will as a practical matter - impair or impede the Movants' ability to establish an independent school district in northeast Pulaski County by the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505. The new district cannot be created without the election that the PCSSD seeks to stop. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 4. The Movants' interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to this case. 5. The Movants' memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. 6. The Movants' proposed Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 Enforce Settlement Agreement and the accompanying brief are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B, respectively. WHEREFORE, the Movants pray that they be granted leave to intervene and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants B:Yiimc. ~t-~,~ Fendley, Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process, 1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. 'Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCS SD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in - the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2 Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon IO 10 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 Exhibit B of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.'\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684, 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First. the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16. 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently. the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an electio.n based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. II. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 ((5111 Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. ill. Conclusion. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page 4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter collective referred to as the \"Bollen Intervenors\") move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) requires the Court to permit intervention where (1) the party seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, (2) the party seeking intervention is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, and (3) the interest of the party seeking intervention is not adequately represented by existing parties. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Motion, the Bollen Intervenors satisfy each of these requirements and should be granted leave to intervene. It may be argued that the State of Arkansas adequately represents the interest of the Page 1 of 3 Bollen Intervenors in this case. However, the State cannot be expected to litigate this case with the same commitment to detachment as the Bollen Intervenors. Toe State's commitment will be tempered by other considerations, such as the financial impact on the State. The Bollen Intervenors, on the other hand, have expended an incredible amount of time and money to create the new district, and they want detachment as soon as possible so that they may take control of their childrens' educational future. \"The burden resting on intervenors to show that their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties is a 'minimal' one.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 738 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1984). This burden is more than met in the present case. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 3 of 3 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A 11r,  6 2003 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER!\u0026lt; By:. _______ -===:-:::-= DEP CLER~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 25, 2003, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) filed a Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). If any party wishes to file a response to this motion, it should do so by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003 . On August 5, 2003, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker filed a Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766). If any party wishes to respond to the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' (as they styled it) motion, this response should also be filed by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003. A hearing to address PCCSD's Motion to Enforce is schedule for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. The Motion to Intervene by the \"Bollen Intervenors\" will also be addressed at this hearing. Lawyers for each party, including the Arkansas Department of Education, 1 are 1In an Order entered January 18, 1991 (Doc. No. 1418), Judge Wright dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" However, the Settlement Agreement expressly provides \"that the Court may retain jurisdiction to 7 6 8 directed to be present at the hearing no later than 9:30 a.m .. Each party must have at least one representative, other than its lawyers, present at the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wifil:ULE58AN~~C~ ON ~3 BY ... ~ address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 1174). Solidifying this position, in an Order entered August 18, 1993 (Doc. No. 1947), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903 -1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER. JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER, JR. WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUD'Y SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 - 0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. 501 -212-1273 mjoDes@wlj .com August 8, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKBR RAY F. COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  UaasodMJJ11(11CdcebebrelbeUl1icdSIMO hfl:li ud Tndt!mvt O~ RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MOKITORIMG Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD' s Board Members Motion to Intervene In Their Individual Capacities, together with supporting memorandum brief. The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 439660-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD BOARD MEMBERS MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES The following PCSSD Board Members, for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt, and Don Baker, are duly elected members of the Board of Directors of the Pulaski County Special School District. They are also residents in different areas of the PCSSD and taxpayers contributing to the funding of the PCSSD. 2. In such capacity, these board members are defendants in this action in their official capacities. 3. In their proposed Motion to Intervene, certain individuals (the Bollen Intervenors) residing in the Jacksonville area assert that the claims of the foregoing board members relating to equal protection of the law must be brought in a separate action. 438898-v1 4. To cure any such technicality, these board members, who are already defendants in this action, seek to intervene for the limited but substantial purpose of enforcing their individual rights to equal protection guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. Specifically, these intervenors contend that they will be denied equal protection of the law as they are precluded by state law from voting in the \"detachment election\" scheduled for September 16, 2003, even though they are all registered voters in the PCSSD, taxpayers in the PCSSD, have or have had children or grandchildren in the PCSSD schools, and otherwise have a vested interest in the operation, governance and vitality of the PCSSD as a whole. 5. Such an intervention will foster principles of judicial economy since these board members are already parties to this action in their official capacities and allowing their limited - intervention to assert their individual rights will neither prolong this action nor contribute to any judicial inefficiencies. 6. Your individual directors therefore request permission to intervene in their individual capacities for the limited but substantial purpose of protecting their rights to equal protection as guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. 7. As part of their request for intervention, these individual school board members request permission to adopt that certain motion, statement of material facts and brief in support of motion all filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003 . 8. Further, these intervenors observe that they and those situated similarly to them are further being denied equal protection of the law since they are required to pay the expenses of the special election for detachment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-118. Thus, both as 438898-v1 2 individual taxpayers and in their capacity as directors, your intervenors are required to pay for the expenses of an election in which they are denied the right to vote. WHEREFORE, Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker pray for an order of this Court allowing their limited intervention as described above and authorizing their adoption of the previous motion, statement of material facts and  brief all as filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. 438898-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1. 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 438898-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 4 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker adopt in their individual capacities the motion, statement of material facts and brief filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. Equal Protection Considerations As the Supreme Court of the United States recently observed, federal courts presented with an appropriate controversy bear a duty to ensure that voting procedures adopted by a state \"are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.\" Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 530 (2000). Furthermore, \"[b]ecause our democracy was founded on the principle that 'the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights,' our courts vehemently protect every citizen's right to vote, carefully and 439246-v1 meticulously scrutinizing any alleged infringement.\" Charfauros v. Board of Elections, 249 F.3d 941, 951 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964)). The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees fundamental rights to every person, including the right to vote, and these rights may not be impaired for reasons that are arbitrary or discriminatory. Id. This freedom has been rooted in our justice system for at least . a century, for the Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote was a \"fundamental political right.\" Wick Yo v. Hop.kins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Nor does the right to the franchise end with the mere right to cast a ballot; there is in addition a \"constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.\" Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972). It is true that some restrictions on these rights have been permitted, but only when \"no discrimination is made between individuals\" in ways that violate the constitution. Carrington v. Rush, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965); when the state acts to disenfranchise, the limitations must be \"appropriately defined and uniformly applied.\" Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343. Imposition of Election Costs The rights of the intervenors to equal protection of the law are further compromised and vitiated by the operation of Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-118, which requires the school district to reimburse the County Board of Election Commissioners for the entire cost of any school election. Section (b) further states: At all annual or special elections, the board of directors of each district shall pay the expenses of the election out of the school fund. 439246-v1 2 Your intervenors submit that both in their role as individual taxpayers and patrons and in their official capacity as directors, they are denied the equal protection of the laws when they are denied the right to vote in an election the cost of which they must pay. Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights The immeasurable impact of the planned election on the individual Board members' . rights as voters also constitutes a violation of their right to substantive due process in matters that impinge on important rights. \"[A]n election is a denial of substantive due process if it is conducted in a manner that is fundamentally unfair.\" Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1226 (1998). Of course, there is a distinction between \"garden variety\" election irregularities and error that \"undermines the integrity of the vote.\" Id. The ultimate question is whether the election is fundamentally unfair . Id. and n.3 (citing as one example voter reliance on established procedures followed by a change in procedures that results in significant disenfranchisement). There is no precise definition of \"fundamentally unfair,\" but the Court is free to draw on precedent and the particular facts of the case to determine whether voters have been disenfranchised in a way that is arbitrary or capricious, and yet substantial. The Inconsistent Statutory Scheme Your intervenors further note that the companion statutory scheme to the detachment statutes does not deny equal protection of the laws. For instance, if consolidation of districts is proposed via an election, Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1404(a)(2) requires that: A majority of the qualified electors in the affected districts votes to approve consolidation of the affected districts into a resulting district or districts pursuant to a valid election.. . . Likewise, if a proposal to annex school districts via an election is presented, then Ark. - Code Ann.  6-13-1403(a)(2)(A) requires that: 439246-v1 3 A majority of the qualified electors in the affected district or districts vote to approve the annexation of an affected school district or districts to a receiving district or districts .... Thus, it is only under the circumstances of a \"detachment\" that the State has sought fit to restrict the grant of the franchise, a matter which your intervenors submit the State cannot properly do and comply with the equal protection clauses of the Arkansas and United States .Constitutions. Conclusion lntervenors pray that their motion to intervene be granted and for all proper relief. 439246-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ..... ) Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August .e., 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon  Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439246-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 5 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark_A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us August 8, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Request for Entry of Appearance and its Response to PCSSD'S \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement\" and for \"Allied Relief' which we filed today. MAH Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, ~.~. MARK A. HAGEM~ Assistant Attorney General IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORlNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\" AND FOR \"ALLIED RELIEF\" The Arkansas Department of Education submits this response to the PCSSD's1 \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" For the reasons discussed below, PCSSD's motion should be dismissed. The PCSSD seeks an order that would squelch an election in which voters residing in the Jacksonville area will have the opportunity to vote on whether a proposal to create a new school district in the area should proceed. The election in question was approved by the State Board of Education pursuant to state statutes that govern the creation of new school districts by \"detachment\" of territory from existing districts.2 Those statutes require an election as a step in the process by which such a school district might be created. Furthermore, those statutes contain provisions that guarantee that the creation of such a district will not come to final fruition if 1 The opening paragraph of the motion states that the motion is brought by the PCSSD, its Board, and certain members of its Board \"in both their official and individual capacities.\" In this response the ADE will refer to all of the purported movants collectively as the \"PCSSD\" unless the context requires otherwise. 2 PCSSD asserts -- erroneously -- in Footnote 2 of its Brief that the statutes governing the creation of school districts by detachment \"appl[y] by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district.\" Arkansas Act 1397 of 2003 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) amended Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1502(d) so that, in addition to school districts that now or in the future serve 15,000 to 20,000 students, the detachment process might also be invoked in school districts that now or in the future encompass an area of 700 square miles or more. Presently, in addition to the PCSSD, the Waldron School District in Scott County encompasses an area in excess of750 square miles. doing so will hamper or impede desegregation efforts of school districts (such as the PCSSD) that operate under court-ordered or court-approved desegregation plans. The PCSSD ignores the possibility that the voters of the Jacksonville area might reject the proposed detachment, an occurrence that would put an end to the detachment process. 3 Instead, the PCSSD filed the instant motion in this Court seeking an order \"directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election.\" Additionally, the PCSSD filed an action in state court, which is still pending, that seeks essentially the same relief. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's Motion. As is discussed below, the PCSSD's motion is premature at best and should be dismissed on ripeness grounds. Under the applicable state statutes, no district can be created by detachment unless and until electors residing in the territory of the proposed new district vote in favor of the proposed detachment. If the voters reject the proposed detachment on September 16, that will be the end of the matter -- the PCSSD's motion will become moot and this Court will not have to consider the various factual and legal matters presented in the PCSSD's motion. Alternatively, a vote for the proposed detachment by electors on September 16 will not end the matter either. Under this circumstance, an appointed board of the proposed new district would be required by state law to come to this Court and secure any and all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the new district will not undermine the districts' desegregation efforts. If this new Board ultimately does not seek and successfully obtain all such orders, for whatever reason, the new district will also not come into being. While the day may come when this Court is squarely and concretely presented with a proposed \"detachment\" district to consider, that day has not yet arrived, and indeed, it may never arrive. Furthermore, if PCSSD prevails in its pending 3 The State, unlike the PCSSD, does not presuppose or assume how the matter will fare at the election. 2 state court action on the state-law grounds it has asserted there, the motion filed in this Court will become moot. As regards the PCSSD's request for \"allied relief' -- a claim that the detachment statutes violate due process and equal protection because certain electors who reside in the PCSSD are not, under the statutes, eligible to vote on the proposed detachment -- this Court lacks _jurisdiction to grant such relief as well. The claim for \"allied relief' does not involve an allegation of an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and in any event none of the purported movants has standing to assert the \"allied relief' claim in the context of this case. A. The PCSSD's Motion is Not Ripe for Review and Should Be Dismissed As noted, the relief sought is an order directing the State Board to \"rescind\" its order authorizing an election on the question of detachment, which would have the effect of canceling the upcoming election. The basis for this requested relief is the PCSSD's claim that the ultimate creation of the school district cannot happen in such a manner as will not violate some provision of the Settlement Agreement and/or impede their desegregation efforts. The PCSSD's motion should be dismissed because it is not ripe. The detachment process is governed by state law, specifically Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 et seq. The statutory scheme sets up a multi-step process, and the election is but one necessary step. Section 6-13-1503(2) provides that the detachment process can be initiated, as it was here, by a petition presented to the State Board of Education. If the State Board believes that the petition meets the statutory requirements, the State Board may, as it did here, \"order an election on the proposition of detachment to be held at the next annual school election or general election.\" Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(l). Such an election, however, does not end the process. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505 further provides as follows: 3 6-13-1505. Creation of district. (a) If all the requirements of this subchapter are met and a majority of the votes are cast for the proposition, the State Board of Education shall order the creation of the new school district. (b)(l) At the time the order creating the district is made, the state board shall appoint a board of seven (7) members for the new district to serve until the next regular election of members, when a board of directors shall be elected in compliance with Arkansas law. (2) Following the entry of the order creating the new district and the appointment of a board of directors for the new district but prior to the transfer of any assets, territory, property, liabilities, duties, or responsibilities, any new district created by detachment from an existing district that is a party to any court-ordered desegregation plan shall petition the court having jurisdiction in the desegregation matter and obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or any consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan. - (Emphasis added). The statutory scheme therefore makes it clear that (a) if the voters reject the proposed detachment, the process comes to an end; and (b ), if the voters approve the proposed detachment, a district with an appointed Board will be created but that \"district\" will have no assets, territory, property liabilities, duties or responsibilities unless and until that Board successfully secures from this Court all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the district will not cause the State or any other school district to be in violation of any orders, consent orders or decrees entered in this case. If the Board of the proposed detached district is not successful in that regard, the process ends as well. By seeking to quash the election before it occurs, the PCSSD has \"jumped the gun\" because before any new district can be created, and before the statutory process can go forward, the voters must approve the proposed detachment at an election. 4 \"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.\" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). The \"ripeness\" doctrine, which flows both from the Article III \"case or controversy\" jurisdictional requirement and from prudential considerations, requires federal courts to determine whether a particular dispute is \"fit for judicial resolution\" and whether the parties would \"experience hardship if the court withheld consideration of the case's merits.\" American Canoe Assoc. v. E.P.A., 289 F.3d 509, 512 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998)). Though it has been said that the ripeness doctrine is something of a \"cantaloupe,\" see Nebraska Public Power v. MidAmerican Energy, 234 F.3d 1032, 1038 (8th Cir. 2000), the Eighth Circuit has noted that the \"touchstone\" of a ripeness inquiry is \"whether the harm asserted has 'matured enough to warrant judicial intervention.\"' Vogel v. Foth and Van Dyke Associates, Inc., 266 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Paraquad, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 259 F.3d 956, 958 (8th Cir. 2001)). The Eighth Circuit has also made it clear that \"a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Connor, 323 F.3d 684, 693 (8 th Cir. 2003). (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). Here, the PCSSD seeks to derail the process under which a new school district might be created out of its existing territory. It is clear that such an \"injury,\" if any, to the PCSSD \"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,\" 5 namely, an election outcome favorable to detachment. While the PCSSD claims that the new district, if created, would harm its ability to comply with its desegregation obligations, it has not articulated any concrete harm that the election, by itself, will cause it to suffer. Unless and until at least the election is held and an outcome favorable to detachment occurs, PCSSD's claims are plainly not ripe for review, and they should be dismissed. B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Request For \"Allied Relier' As regards the PCSSD' s request for \"allied relief,\" this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief and that part of the PCSSD's motion should be dismissed as well. The \"allied relief' claim does not purport to be brought to address any alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and as PCSSD candidly concedes in the brief in support of its motion, \"the current jurisdiction of the District Court is 'only' to enforce the Settlement Agreement.\" (See PCSSD Brief at p. 23).4 If the claims for \"allied relief' are to be brought at all, such claims would have to be presented in a new, separate lawsuit, not as a \"motion\" filed in this case. Indeed, tacitly conceding this point, the PCSSD has already purported to bring this same claim in the separate action it has initiated in state court. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's motion. Further, the PCSSD, its Board, and its Board members in their \"official\" capacities lack standing to assert the rights of electors residing within the district. The PCSSD and its Board are not \"voters\" (see Conway School District v. Wilhoit, 854 F.Supp. 1430 (E.D. Ark. 1994)) and, in their \"official capacities,\" the Board members' claims must be treated as if they are brought by the PCSSD Board and the District itself, if at all. The PCSSD's effort to sidestep this issue by purporting to bring the motion on behalf of certain board members in their \"individual\" 4See Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Ironically, the Knight case involved an effort by the PCSSD to stretch the District Court's jurisdiction beyond its proper bounds after efforts in other forums to spare the PCSSD from dealing with a teachers' strike failed. 6 capacities is equally unavailing. Even if in some long-buried pleading in this case there is some reference to some particular member of the PCS SD Board as a party in an \"individual\" capacity, the course of proceedings in this case plainly demonstrates that the members of the PCSSD Board were parties in their \"official\" capacities only. No relief of any kind was ever awarded as against any Board member in his or her \"individual\" capacity. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534 543 (1986).5 The Board members have not moved to intervene in this action in their \"individual\" capacities so as to present their claim for \"allied relief,\" and there is no authority for such intervention in any event. For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief' should be dismissed. 5 Indeed, if public school funds are being used by the PCSSD to, in part, pay for legal representation for board members for legal work that benefits the Board members personally, i.e., to pursue claims brought by Board members in their \"individual\" capacities to vindicate their personal rights under the due process or equal protection clauses, a serious question arises as to whether the PCSSD is improperly expending public school funds. See Ark. Constitution, Art. 14,  2 and 3. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13 -623 authorizes governing authorities of school districts to spend public school funds to employ legal counsel, but only to \"defend\" claims asserted against the governing authority \"or against any member thereof, by virtue of his actions in connection with his duties as such member.\" This statue would not appear to authorize the PCSSD board to employ legal counsel and use public school funds to initiate legal proceedings that purport to vindicate board members' personal rights in those members ' \"individual\" capacity. 7 Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #95019 Senior Assistant Attome General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August _8_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 . Mark A. Hagemeier 9 ...., 1 2 3 4 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. State of Arkansas 84th General Assembly Regular Session, 2003 Act 1397 of 2003 HOUSE BILL 2608 5 By: Representative Bond 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-13-1502(d), concerning minimum area and 22 attendance requirements for creation of a school district by detachment, is 23 amended to read as follows: 24 (d) This subchapter shall apply only to school districts that in the 25 school year immediately preceding the detachment had an average daily 26 membership of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) students but not more than 27 twenty thousand (20,000) students, or the school district encompasses a total 28 area of seven hundred (700) square miles or more, now or in the future. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 2. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Arkansas Constitution requires the State of Arkansas to provide a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education; that procedures to ensure a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education need to be in place prior to the beginning the 2003-2004 school year; and that this act is immediately necessary to allow school districts and the electors of those districts ... llllillllllllllllllllllllll~IIIIIII :\"! 'EXHIBIT 03081003KAS f.,. ,,, ~, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 - 36 As Engrossed: H4/2/03 HB2608 sufficient time to organize and plan to for a general, suitable, and efficient system of education in the district prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto. Isl Bond APPROVED: 4/15/2003 2 03082003KAS1250.TW0018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger hereby requests that the Court enter his appearance as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of this Court's consideration and disposition of the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Senior Assistant orney General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August .8.__, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7207 6 2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1096","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1096"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED AUG 2 7 2003 omtEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School Distri Board of Directors' Meetl August 2003 F.Y.I. Date: 9 -,,.17 -13 / Ann  Gene / Horace  Margie 0 Melissa / Polly  Linda Returnto: ~ n-c\n,,,~ r- rr...-.\n-r: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m..,\noc -z\non o-\u0026lt; F~ C,1/) \u0026gt; F \"C~ C\"C a, 0 r-\no c\"i-\u0026lt; nl!! o::o\nr:m\nen zm o ..,.Cz\u0026gt; 1/) ~ 5z 1/) RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting welcome Bae/el August 2003 (\")\"tl \u0026gt;\no r-mr-r...-. :-i::: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no c--\u0026lt; m..,\ncc -z\no (\") o:::! r-0 r-z (\") C/) \u0026gt; F -,:,~ c-,:, a, 0 ~~ (\")~ 0\no !Cm !C (\") zm o C) .... z cri3 !XI 0z C/) (\") :::\n\u0026gt; p::\n mn z:::\nC/)\u0026gt; (\")--\u0026lt; i\n!CC/) m .~,, C. (\" \u0026lt;... 0(\" C/) - ~) \u0026gt; I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING August28,2003 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association D. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Update: Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - July 24, 2003 Special Meeting - July 29, 2003 Special Meeting - August 14, 2003 B. Personnel Changes C. First Reading: Revision of Board Policy BCB - Prevention of Nepotism (\")-0 .\u0026gt; ::m0 ,- ,- ,- - ...\n3: Oz o\u0026gt;\no::O c-\u0026lt; m-n\ncc: -z\no\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; o,--i\u0026lt;5 ,- z (\")CJ\u0026gt; F Regular Board Meeting August28,2003 Page2 VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Collaborative Grant Proposal with UALR B. 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Grant Proposal C. End of Course Test Results - Algebra I, Geometry and Literacy VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Adoption of Resolution on Elimination of Reduced Meals Category B. School-Based Dental Hub/ Clinic VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Athletic Events - Changes to Gate Prices IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Stephens, Inc. Bond Issue Bid B. Forest Heights Excess Property C. Request for Dedication Deed: Williams Magnet School D. Request for Dedication Deed: Wakefield Elementary School E. Second Reading - Revisions to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card F. Donations of Property G. Approval of 2003-2004 Operating Budget H. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT ,... C'\u0026gt; \"C \u0026gt;,.,. .....\n.\n.m,._c... -43: Oz o\u0026gt; ~ ~ m..,\ncc -Z\ncC'\u0026gt; o::i r-0 r-z C'\u0026gt; en \u0026gt; F I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. CITIZENS COMMENTS \\,,, , VII\"\\ 0. JOSHUA '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: August 28, 2003 TO: Boar f Directors FROM: onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman SUBJECT: August 2003 Construction Report-Bond Projects This has been a very busy summer with a lot of construction in our schools. In some cases, it has been frantic. I am happy to report that all of our schools opened on time and are fully functional. Even the cafeteria at Mabelvale Middle School was ready to serve food to the students in an air-conditioned room. The new elevator in Central High has been completed. For the first time, the physically handicap have access to most areas in the building. I am amazed at what was accomplished in a few weeks this summer. I would look at a building one day and it would look like a disaster. Several days later, I would look at the same building and the change for the better was unbelievable. This never would have happened without the cooperation and understanding of the principals. The Facility Services Department did an outstanding job of coordinating the work. The bids were taken for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary on July 31 st - The low bidder's price was below the architect's construction cost estimate. The contract has been awarded to Bell Construction Company, and the groundbreaking ceremony was held this past Saturday, August 23' d  I hope you were able to attend. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give you a verbal update of plans for the renovation of Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Mark.ham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !.I,,I m ~ zz ,m.. n :,:,c. z Cl m \"' :,, ~ m\n,:, il m:,,. 23r\n,:,\u0026gt; .... C: C =! 0\n,:, \"' p .... Pl :z:c 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C,,: C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date 1--=,A--d--_m_in,---i-_st_ra_tio_n_ ____- -\"F-i_re_ al_a_rm_ $32,350 Aug-03 1--B,--a--_sel_in,--e--_ ______- =R-_en_o_v_ation _________ $953,520 Jul-04 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Dec-05 1-D-_u_n_bar_ _______ __,_R,__en_o_v_a_tion_/addition ' $6,161,950 Aug-04 1--J_. A. Fa_ir _______ __,_RI__oof_repairs I $391,871 I Aug-03 16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music '1 J. A. Fair room addition ______ $3,155,640 Feb-04 Forest Park Replace window units w/central I-NAG!--- $485,258 I Aug-03 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $8,637,709 Jul-03 Mabelvale MS Renovation j $6,851,621 Dec-03 Mann Partial Replacement _____ $11,500,000 Dec-03 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 Jul-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem I RReennoovvaatt! I o 0 nn _____ ~ $$1 ,193,259 I Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS -----,-,-------- _____ ~ 3,755,041 Aug-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Aug-04 Southwest New roof $690,000 Aug-03 Tech Ctr I Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jul-04 -- ,_Willia_m_s ________ R_eno_v_ation I $2,106,4921 Jun-04 ,_Willia_m_s _______ -+I_P_ark_ing expansions I $183,717 1 Jun-04 Wilson 1 Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Nov-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Jun-04 Parkview !Addition $2,121,226 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name Project Description I I t:sr. 1..,omp1euon Cost Date Mitchell I Renovation I $750,000 1 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation , . Unknown Rightsell I Renovation -----+-----$-66- 0- ,-00-0-+----U- n- known VVilson Energy monitoring system installation Woodr-uf-f -------+I-P-ar-k-\"n'i.1,_0-addition - $193,777 Unknown Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I I t:::st. comp1et1on Cost Date  Administrati-on- -----+Asbe-sto-s -ab-ate-me-nt- --------- $380,495 Mar-03 Adm in is tr- at io-n --- Administration Annex i\\ltemative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett __-:= _-:=_-=_~Badgett ~ ----- Bale Bale Bale Fresh air system-___ _ __ $_55,000 ___ Aug-03 Energy monitoring system installation - __ May-02 I Energy monitoring system installation ---.-- $15,160 Oct-01 Energy efficient lighting ___ ~ --$82,000 _,_l_-_-=--=--=--Dec-01 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Fire alarm -=--=--=--=----=----_-_-_,.... . -_- --c-,,--,,-$-,.1...8,250 Aug-02 Classroom addition/renovation ' $2,244,524 Dec-02 --- Energy monitoring system Mar-02 al roof replacement + $269,587 Dec-01 HVAC --- + ~64,587 Aug-01 Facility Name Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Carver Carver Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central -Central -Cen-tral Central Cloverdale Elem. Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS -Dodd Dodd Dodd Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date I Energy efficient lighting $170,295 I Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation : $23,710 Oct-01 Asbestos abatement I $10,900 I Feb-02  Fire alarm I $34,501 Mar-02 Energy efficient lighting I $80,593 Sep-02  Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Energy monitoring system installation I $14,480 I May-01 Parking lot I $111,742 Aug-03 Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 ' Aug-03 1Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Purchase land for school Unknown , Dec-02 Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Oct-01 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation I $80,876 Aug-01 Front landing tile repair I $22,470 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 , Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 , J-ul-0-1 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 , Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 - Apr-02 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 '. Press box $10,784 Nov-00 - Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 I Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 I Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 Diagonal parking $111,742 I Aug-03 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 I May-01 1 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Energy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 'Replace rooftop HVAC units -- $107,835 I Aug-02 Parking lot $140,000 I Sep-02 Roof repairs -----+- $200,000 Oct-02 Renovation $2,511,736' Mar-03 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement I $168,222 Aug-01 I Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 I Jul-01 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 I Apr-01 Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 I Intercom Feb-01 I Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 1Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Roof replacement gym I $107,835 -- May-01 Asbestos abatement Phase I I $500,000 Auq-01 2 !ll \"D m ~ z z ,m-n ~ z G) m CJ) =z\" m-\u0026lt;\ntl~ mc3 ,\u0026gt;\ntl \u0026gt; -\u0026lt; C: 0 =I 0\ntl U\u0026gt; p m-\u0026lt; n :,: z 0,- 8 -\u0026lt; C: \"D 0 ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description Cost Henderson !Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 I IRC I Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 Jefferson !Asbestos abatement $43,639 I Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Laidlaw , Parking lot $269,588 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Mabelvale Elem. I Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Mabelvale MS I Renovate bleachers $134,793 Mann 1 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Mann - !Boiler replacement used so far on the I Mann - I Fencing -- 1 projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. ! McClellan 'Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 ' McClellan Intercom $46,000 I McDermott 1 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott I Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 i -- - Meadowcliff !Fire alarm I $16,175 Meadowcliff - - Asbestos abatement $2s3,412 I Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 I Metropolitan -- Replace shop vent system $20,000 Metropolitan - Energy monitoring system installation I $17,145 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell 'Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 --- - Mitchell Asbestos abatement - $13,000 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 --- IE nergy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Otter Creek 1Asbestos abatement $10,000 -- Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 --- -- - 4 O-tter Creek 6 classroom addition - --- ... $888,778 Otter Creek Parking Improvements ... $142,541 -- Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 f- -- Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 -- Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 -- Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 +-- - Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement - . Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 ----- - Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 I Move playground -- -- $17,000 - Pulaski Hgts. Elem - -- Rightsell Energy efficient lighting _.___ $84,898 -- Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller Parking addition $111 ,742 Est. Completion Date Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 -Ju-l-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 - Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Auo-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data I Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry ,Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I $83,484 Terry I Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield - , Energy efficient lighting I $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 - Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson !Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 Western Hiiis Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills - Intercom $7,100 -Western Hills _ ~gy efficient lighting I $106,000 I -- Williams -- Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Aua-02 4 .!.D, m ~ z z ,m- (\") ,::.c z Cl m CA ~ .... ~ ::c z 0  .c.:,: Cl ~ m TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: '.:-4.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 itt~ol District Board of Directors l ~~f Facility Services orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~-Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School Updates Pursuant to questions raised at the July Board of Directors Meeting, the following information is provided with regard to the most current status on Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools. As of the start of the school year, we have concluded our annual maintenance-inspections and cleaning of the heating-ventilation units at Mitchell Elementary and will be starting Rightsell Elementary School in the very near future. While finding them in relative good order, we did succeed in completing some minor repairs that will improve the moisture problems. Relative humidity tests taken in early August at Mitchell Elementary School revealed that the relative humidity ranged between 68 to 72 percent. This is not optimum, and steps are being taken to lower that humidity. We intend to take additional tests and to include carbon-dioxide tests once school is in attendance. The results should be available within a week to ten days. With these tests we can further plan what necessary steps must be taken to improve the facilities. Based on previous tests that we have done during our studies of the schools, we have concluded that the schools are safe for staff and children. Once the staff and children are back in the schools, there will be an influx of beneficial fresh air that will further improve the situation but not to the extent that we should see once we complete our bond project. On 18 August, we formulated a plan that includes both short-term and intermediate steps to be taken in both of these fine old elementary schools. It also includes a revised maintenance schedule. Our goal is to bring Mitchell's and Rightsell 's air quality within acceptable industry-standards and to provide the best environment that we can for conducting school at these facilities. We are continuing our long-range planning for renovation projects at both of these facilities. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 A decision was made that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure the indoor-airquality standard at Mitchell Elementary School is met so that school can remain at that facility until the summer of 2004. It is our intention, at that time, to begin the major renovation-work at this school and to relocate these children to the old Badgett Elementary School in East Little Rock. Our intention is to do the work at Rightsell as soon as the plans and specifications can be completed in early Spring, at which time we will begin work on that facility immediately. DEC:cg Attachments .?.,' m :,:, ~ zz ,m- C') ~ z C) m Ul LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: Board of Directors From: ~ Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - August This is the forty-sixth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board {AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !D \"D m ~ zz m,.... (\") ~ z C, m CJ) p ..... Pl X z 0 ~ C:\ng ~ m Audit Report - August 2003 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August28,2003 To: Board of Directors From: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Through: Subject: Technology Update The following new technology activities have taken place in the last month:  The District was recently notified that the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant was funded in the amount of $506,553. This is a tri-district partnership grant that provides technology training for teachers in the three districts of Pulaski County. Projects include on-line training courses for teachers, as well as face-to-face classes. The grant also funds new computer labs for Woodruff and Dodd.  We are continuing to receive questions and provide answers to the organization that oversees E-Rate. We have been told that our applications are in final review at this time.  Computer Information Services has recently installed a web-based reporting system that will make data more accessible to users in the District. Training on the new system will begin this fall.  Internet access to the District has been sporadic for the last two weeks due to problems on the state network. The District has also experienced serious e-mail problems during that time. An update on both of these problems will be provided at the August 28 board meeting. !JJ \"D m ~ zz ,m... (\") z~ C) m \"' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 28, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Proposed Substitute Teacher Salary Schedule and Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the proposed change in the substitute teacher salary schedule and the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. fl .... .um..,.\nc ~ C: mr- ~~ ~lJ\n! 0 .0, , (\") 0 C: '?' Personnel Changes Page 2 August 28, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY Proposed Revision in the Substitute Teacher Salary Schedule for 2003-04 Substitute teacher without a 4-year degree Substitute teacher with a 4-year degree $48.00 $53.00 Long Term Substitute teacher is 20 days or longer $85.50 * This rate of pay is to begin on the first day of the known long term assignment. * *(Individual must be degreed and have a teaching certification or have special skills/qualifications) Rationale: * This change makes the District compatible with neighboring districts. ** This change keeps the District in compliance with No Child Left Behind and Arkansas ACT 1623. Resignations/ferminations Certified Employees Alexander, Laquinda Elem II 1-2-01 3-04 Reason: Accepted Another 31242.00 RIGHTSELL 7-25-03 TCH925 Position Aryee, Jessica Elem III 8-9-00 1-05 29309.00 Reason: Leaving City STEPHE s 7-10-03 TCH925 Bailey, Rosalyn Health 8-21-73 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-2-03 TCH925 Benage, Duane German 7-18-94 6-13 44566.00 Reason: Contract Ended MANN 6-2-03 TCH925 Personnel Changes p Page 3 ... men August 28, 2003 ...\n,, men C: E~ :i:::m enz 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY n 0 C: 'f' ?\" Rls en:- o  Eo -\u0026lt;:I: Bierbaum, Kimberly Kindergarten 8-13-98 4-06 34637.00 oz z-en Om Reason: Accepted Another BOOKER 8-12-03 K925 :!:\n,, r-\u0026lt; Position Oc'5 zm .C..: en\n,, ::. Brannick, Sharon Elem ill 8-9-00 1-04 28588.00 0 z Reason: Personal KING 7-21-03 TCH925 Bull, Kathy Kindergarten 8-13-98 2-07 32978.00 p Reason: Leaving City WATSON 8-2-03 K925 Ill-\nO\n,, Childers, Robert English 8-7-02 4-03 31574.00 ~~ zo m\nz\nReason: None Given PUL. HGTS. MID. 7-1-03 TCH925 c30 ::!-o enc :!l:r-c'i Douglas, Martha Voe. Home Ee. 11-4-68 6-21 53213.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-9-03 TCHlO Faucette, Michael English 8-13-98 6-06 37419.00 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 8-13-03 TCH925 ?\"~ C) - Gadberry, Sarah Social Studies 8-22-77 5-20 50788.00 ~~ z_.-\n\u0026lt;,, Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 ~~ 0 ... c3 ~ en\u0026gt; Garrett, Christopher Elem IV 8-7-02 1-04 28588.00 )\u0026gt; ,... ,-en -\u0026lt; Reason: Personal OTTERCREEK 7-28-03 TCH925 C: (') ,).\u0026gt;.. ~\n,, Hagood, Vicki 4 Yr Old 8-13-98 1-06 30630.00 Reason: Leaving City STEPHE s 8-8-03 4YROLD Hall, Timothy Civics 8-13-02 6-12 43545.00 !D ~ Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL 6-15-03 TCHI0 = ..,n Position\n,,m oz c3 c! ~~ ,... C) ~ .z. . Personnel Changes Page 4 August 28, 2003 NAME Hancock, Melinda Reason: Accepted Another Position Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Holl, Maria Reason: Leaving City Hutson, Bryan Reason: Accepted Another Position James, Kenneth Reason: Accepted Another Position Lusk, Jennifer Reason: Returned to School Mackey,Anna Reason: Leaving City Manley, Rayleen Reason: Leaving City McClain, Carey Reason: Personal McClellan, Dale Reason: Leaving City POSITION SCHOOL Elem I CHICOT Voe. Music START DATE END DATE 8-7-02 8-1-03 10-22-02 CLOVERDALE MID. 6-2-03 ElemV 8-7-03 WILLIAMS 7-24-03 Physical Ed. 4-15-01 MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 Superintendent 5-3-01 SUPERINTEDENT 6-30-03 German I 9-12-90 PARKVIEW 6-2-03 English 8-21-00 CLOVERDALE MID. 8-4-03 ElemV 8-13-01 MEADOW CLIFF 8-5-03 English 9-9-98 WASHINGTON 8-1-03 Counselor 8-20-90 STEPHENS 8-1-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-13 TCH10 1-01 AUNC12 4-12 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 5-20 CNL925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 31651.00 30630.00 37777.00 145054.00 40763.00 28588.00 29609.00 31651.00 50788.00 Personnel Changes .r.\u0026gt;. Page 5 m (../.) August 28, 2003 :,c m (/) C mr- ~ii_l 1'\n! Cl POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , NAME n SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY 0 C '?'\ni,, :,c\u0026lt; ~:= o,.. Moore, Shelley Elem II 8-12-99 1-08 32672.00 ~ Cl -I,!: oz Reason: Accepted Another ROMINE 7-8-03 TCH925 z -CJ) nm Position :!:::ic r- \u0026lt; Cl n zm .C..C /) Paglianite, Rebecca English 8-13-98 1-06 30630.00 :n =l Reason: None Given CENTRAL 7-17-03 TCH925 5 z Peevy, David Physical Science 7-22-99 1-04 28588.00 Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL 7-17-03 TCHl0 r\u0026gt; Position ~ tD !I n:,c ~~ Perez, Brenda Adult Ed 7-1-99 6-11 42524.00 Z Cl mz ~0 Reason: None Given ADULT ED 6-2-03 TCH925 ::! \"C (/)0 :!: r- n Pickering, Judith English 8-24-87 5-20 50788.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired FAIR 6-2-03 TCH925 Peterson, Kathy Applied Math 4-1-98 4-02 31064.00 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-3-03 TCH925\ni,,~ Petty, Cindy Elem IV 8-13-01 2-13 39104.00 C, - ~i:'\nReason: Accepted Another BALE 8-6-03 TCH925 z-\u0026lt; ... ::ic Position\ng ?5 0 ...\ng ~ (/) )\u0026gt; Phillips, Teressia Algebra I 8-7-02 3-02 29711.00 ,)\u0026gt;- r- (/) -e\u0026lt;n Reason: None Given CENTRAL 7-31-03 TCH925 ,)\u0026gt;- ~ :,c Pierce, Charlene Elem ill 8-12-96 2-11 37062.00 Reason: Retired STEPHENS 7-30-03 TCH925 Pusch, Lisa 4 Yr Old 8-13-97 1-08 32672.00 !l' ~ Reason: Leaving City FAIR.PARK 8-7-03 4YROLD !:l :\"C,c mn oz Saine, Nathasha Math 8-21-92 3-07 34305.00\ng ~ ~~ Reason: Leaving City CENTRAL 8-1-03 TCH925 ,- C, ~ .z. . Personnel Changes Page 6 August 28, 2003 NAME Sanders, Sharon Reason: Leaving City Sibell, Tracy Reason: Leaving City Singleton, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Wofford, Charlene Reason: Leaving City POSITION SCHOOL Counselor START DATE END DATE 8-12-96 TERRY/FULBRIGHT7-25-03 Geometry 8-12-99 HALL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-23-01 CENTRAL 5-16-03 English 8-13-01 SOUTHWEST MID. 7-18-03 Elem I 8-7-02 FRANKLIN 8-1-03 Association Leave SALARY CLASS 4-08 CNL925 1-05 TCHl0 38-13 CLKl0 1-03 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 36679.00 29609.00 22656.00 27567.00 31651.00 Association Leave for Katherine Wright-Knight to be Little Rock Class Room Teacher Association President for the years of2003-3004 and 2004-2005. New Certified Employees Abernathy, Paula Elem I 8-18-03 1-14 38798.00 CHICOT TCH925 annual 37383.49 prorated AboulFettouh,Maha French 8-7-03 6-02 33846.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Personnel Changes 0 Page 7 .... m V...J. August 28, 2003 ::0 m VJ C mr- ~~ ~~ 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0, , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C'\u0026gt; 0 C '!' .,,. ::o\u0026lt; ~:== o  !::o --\u0026lt;lC Andrews, Tracy English 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 czSz -VJ C'\u0026gt;m HENDERSON TCH925 :!:::o r-\u0026lt; Oi\"5 zm C VJ Atkins, Ashley Elem II 8-7-03 4-01 30553.00 .... ::0 :::i FULBRIGHT TCH925 5 z Barlow, Heather Kindergarten 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 GEYER SPRINGS K925 0 ~ CD !I Blalock, Kellie Elem II 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 C'\u0026gt;:,o ~~ GEYER SPRINGS TCH925 zo mz\ng0 ::!-., Burns, Josiah Elem IV 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 VJ 0 lC ,-- i\"5 KING TCH925 -\u0026lt; Boccarossa, Jennifer Elem IV 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 CHICOT TCH925 .,,.~ Cl- Breeze, Scott Boys PE 7-17-03 4-01 32940.00 ~~ .z...\" \"::o' MCCLELLAN TCHl0\n\u0026amp; ~ o\"\"' c3 ~ VJ  Bright, Trina English 8-7-03 4-07 35658.00 ,... ,... VJ -\u0026lt; MCCLELLAN TCH925 co ,... fl' ::0 Butler-Green, Rachel Biology 8-7-03 2-03 28894.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Carter, Fred Social Studies 7-17-03 1-11 38526.00 ?\" ~ HALL TCHI0 !I -.:,C'\u0026gt; :,om oz Clark, Molly Elem I 8-7-03 1-01 25546.00\ng ~ ~~ TERRY TCH925 ,-- Cl ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 8 August 28, 2003 NAME Clary, Angelia Clegg, Pamela Cole, Elwood Coleman, Leah Corballis, Christopher Criss, Pamela Cox, Stacey Cunningham, Marian Dorsey, Mary Ernst, Melody POSITION SCHOOL Elem II MCDERMOTT Elem II ROMINE Counselor WATSON Elem Ill WAKEFIELD Elem Ill STEPHENS Special Ed CHICOT Speech WESTERN HILLS Elem IV MITCHELL English DUNBAR ElemV MITCHELL START DATE SALARY END DATE CLASS 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 8-7-03 4-02 TCH925 8-7-03 4-12 CNL925 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 8-8-03 1-01 TCH925 8-11-03 1-01 SPE925 8-7-03 62-12 SPE925 8-1-03 1-01 TCH925 8-7-03 1-10 TCH925 8-1-03 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 27056.00 40763.00 26526.00 26546.00 annual 25854.70 prorated 26546.00 annual 26269.48 prorated 45000.00 26546.00 34714.00 31651.00 Personnel Changes fl Page 9 .... m en August 28, 2003 .... ::0 emn C: mr- ~~ e==nmz 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL 0 -n NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (') 0 C: ~ ?\u0026gt; ~s en:- i2  C: 0 .... == Featherston, Melissa Elem IV 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 czSz - en WILSON TCH925 Om :!:::o r-\u0026lt; Oi\"j zm c: en Fells, Kecia Counselor 8-7-03 5-15 45204.00 .... ::0 =l GIBBS CNL925 5z Finney, Jason Civics 8-7-03 4-05 33616.00 MANN TCH925 fl ~ al ~ Fletcher, Carmen Elem III 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 (') ::0 ~~ WASHINGTON TCH925 zo m\nc30 Fowler, Terri Elem IV 8-7-03 1-01 26546.000 iiic3\ni::,- n BASELINE TCH925 -\u0026lt; Franks, Deedra Speech 8-7-03 62-12 45000.00 Special Ed. SPE925 French, Cathy Elem IV 8-7-03 6-16 47629.00 ?\u0026gt;'\n!= C) - ~ij'\nRIGHTSELL TCH925 z--\u0026lt; .... ::0 ~ ~ o\"\"' Giese, M'Lou Math 8-7-03 1-16 40839.00 \"C c5 oz en\u0026gt; MCCLELLAN TCH925 \u0026gt;,... ,... en -\u0026lt; C: (') ,\u0026gt;... !\" Glasgow, Jennifer Elem II 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 ::0 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. TCH925 Grayson, Lequieta Counselor 7-29-03 4-10 41746.00 CENTRAL CNLlO i:t' ~ Harris, Christopher \"C (') English 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00\no m oz CLOVERDALE MID. TCH925 c3 c! ~~ ,... C) ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 10 August 28, 2003 NAME Harris, Veronica Hill, Renee Hughes, Timothy Jackson, Marlo Jackson, Susan Johnson, Carolyn Johnson, Doyle Jones, Elizabeth Jones, Katherine Kamanga, Kelli Kessler, Sabrina POSITION SCHOOL Writing SOUTHWEST Oral Com. HALL Spanish START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 CLOVERDALE MID. ElemV 8-7-03 MEADOW CLIFF Counselor 7-29-03 FAIR Data Processing 8-7-03 HENDERSON Counselor 7-29-03 PARK.VIEW Biology 8-7-03 FAIR Kindergarten 8-7-03 MEADOW CLIFF Special Ed 8-7-03 DODD Literacy Coach 7-21-03 MABELV ALE ELEM. SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 5-01 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 5-12 CNLl0 4-04 TCH925 4-18 CNLl0 1-02 TCH925 1-01 K925 1-03 SPE925 4-07 TCH!l ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 27056.00 31931.00 35658.00 45434.00 32595.00 50552.00 \"27056.00 26546.00 27567.00 42158.00 Personnel Changes ~ Page 11 .... m .C.J.'.) August 28, 2003 :,c m CJ') C: mr- ~~\ni::m \"'z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0, , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (\") 0 C: ~\n,,, :,c\u0026lt; ~ ?= o  King, Alisha Biology 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 ~o -\u0026lt;\nI: PARK.VIEW TCH925 c5z z  -CJ'\u0026gt; Om :!: :,c r-\u0026lt; Kirby, Adam Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 Oc'i zm .C..:. CJ') CENTRAL SPE925 :,c =l 0 z Kitzmiller, Rachel Science 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00 FOREST HGTS. TCH925 ~ Lee, Paula Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 Ill~ PUL. HGTS. ELEM. SPE925 n:,c ~~ zo mz Leibig, Priscilla Elem IV 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 ~~ g~ GIBBS TCH925\ni::.- c'i -\u0026lt; Logan, Vickie Biology 8-7-03 6-17 48650.00 PARK.VIEW TCH925 Lollies, Princess Special Ed. 8-11-03 1-14 38798.00\n,,,~ STEPHENS SPE925 annual C:,- ~~ 37585.56 z--\u0026lt; .... :,0 prorated\ng g o~\"\"\n' CJ')  Mahomes, Cynthia Social Studies 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 )\u0026gt; .... r-CJ'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt; CENTRAL TCH925 C: (\") )..\u0026gt;.. ~ :,c Mann, Kristi Special Ed. 8-7-03 2-15 41146.00 ROCKEFELLER SPE925 Marshall, Wendy Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-08 32672.00 ?' ~ SOUTHWEST SPE925 !l -a (\") :,cm oz McAdoo, Charlie Business Ed. 8-7-03 1-01 27237.00 ~~ ~~ MCCLELLAN TCH950 .-c:, ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 12 August 28, 2003 NAME McCann, Jason McGee, Keith Midkiff, Amanda Mistie, Helen Moreland, Hillary Morgan, Treva Moss,Amy Myrose, Robert Neeley, Ruth Obiagwu, Chukwuma POSITION SCHOOL Art CENTRAL Civics CENTRAL Kindergarten BOOKER English START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 7-17-03 8-15-03 8-7-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Elem III 8-7-03 KING ElemN 8-1-03 MABELV ALE ELEM Reading Recovery 8-7-03 BOOKER General Math 8-7-03 ALT. LRN. CTR. Elem. III 8-7-03 FULBRIGHT Physics 8-7-03 HALL SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 4-05 TCHl0 1-01 K925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 6-06 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-11 TCH925 6-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 33616.00 26546.00 annual 25716.44 prorated 26546.00 26546.00 37419.00 34637.00 26546.00 35735.00 35377.00 Personnel Changes r\u0026gt; Page 13 ..... m \u0026lt;J) August 28, 2003 ..... ::c m \u0026lt;J) C mr- ~~ 1'l\n~ POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .00.. , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (\") 0 C :' ?\" ~s en,... o\u0026gt; O'Conner, Jacqueline English 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 l: 0 _, lC FAIR TCH925 ozz\n=\nen :cm Peterson, Kathy Math 8-7-03 4-03 31574.00 5~ zm cen FAIR TCH925 ..... ::c =I 5z Pettis, Lashawn Elem IV 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 ROMINE TCH925 Phillips, Amanda English 8-7-03 r\u0026gt; 1-05 29609.00 IXJ~ HALL TCH925 C\"l\nc ~~ zo mz Pittman, Laura ElemV 8-7-03 4-05 33616.00 i3 0 :::!-,, BOOKER TCH925 enc lC ,- n -\u0026lt; Post, Melinda ElemV 8-7-03 3-10 37368.00 MEADOW CLIFF TCH925 Redmond, Rhonda Elem IV 8-7-03 4-07 35658.00 ?\"~ BALE TCH925 C:,- ~~ z--4 _,\nc Redus, Junniest ElemV 8-7-03 1-09 33693.00\n:g ?S ~g CARVER TCH925 oz \u0026gt;en ,\u0026gt;- ,- en -\u0026lt; Register, Sandra Elem II 8-7-03 6-20 51713.00 en \u0026gt;,-!\"' TERRY TCH925 ::c Rogers, Pamela Kindergarten 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. K925 !I\u0026gt; Saderup, Rhonda 37700.00 ~ ELEM II 8-7-03 4-09 .., = (\") RIGHTSELL TCH925\ncm oz \u0026lt;3~ ~~ ,- c:, ~ .z... . Personnel Changes Page 14 August 28, 2003 NAME Sanders, Renata Scott, John Sheffield, Azizi Shollmier, Mary Smiley, Beverly Smith, Chenell Smith, Melinda Smith, Shannon Stallings, Carla Swanigan, Carrie Taylor, Jennifer POSITION SCHOOL Elem I WAKEFIELD Instrumental PARK.VIEW English CENTRAL Voe. Music DUNBAR Chemistry HALL Special Ed. CLOVERDALE EL. Special Ed. ROMINE Elem ill KING Health METROPOLITAN Elem I MITCHELL Elem I BASELINE START DATE SALARY END DATE CLASS 8-7-03 1-04 TCH925 8-7-03 1-03 TCH925 8-7-03 4-04 TCH925 8-7-03 4-08 TCH925 8-7-03 1-02 TCH925 8-7-03 62-5 SPE925 8-7-03 6-11 TCH925 8-7-03 4-01 TCH925 8-1-03 1-01 TCH950 8-1-03 1-02 TCH925 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 27567.00 32595.00 36679.00 27056.00 36516.00 42524.00 30553.00 27237.00 27056.00 26546.00 Personnel Changes p Page 15 .... m .(./.). August 28, 2003\n:o m (/) C: mr- ~\n~~ C POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0., , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (') 0 C: '?' '?\u0026gt; ~s (I):- Taylor, Michael ~ Social Studies 7-17-03 1-05 31922.00 C: C --\u0026lt; lC MCCLELLAN TCHl0 czSz O-cmn :E\n:o r-\u0026lt; Terry, Lashay Elem II 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 C('i zm C: (/) DODD TCH925 ....\n:o =l 5z Thomas, Natalie Elem III 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 BRADY TCH925 p Thompson, Bruce American History 7-17-03 4-19 52169.39 ~ 0::, ~ FAIR TCHl0 C'l\n:o ~~ zc mz Tims, Neitasha ElemN 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 ~P. ii:l~ ROMINE TCH925 lC r-c'i -\u0026lt; Tudor, Shu Chi Elem III 8-7-03 4-04 32595.00 GIBBS TCH925 Wage, Margery Kindergarten 8-7-03 4-01 30553.00 ?\"~ MEADOW CLIFF K925 Cl - z~--~\u0026lt; _,\n:o Washington, LaPara English 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00\ng ?i o\"\"' FAIR TCH925 o\"C zc5 cn   r-r- (/) -\u0026lt; West, Talisha 4 Yr Old 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 C: (\") ~ r- FAIR.PARK 4YROLD\n:o White, Jerald Metal FA 7-29-03 1-04 28588.00 METRO. TCHI0 !\"' White, Jonas American History 26546.00 ~ 8-7-03 1-01 ~ -cC'l SOUTHWEST TCH925\nom oz\ng~ ~~ r- Cl .z~.. . Personnel Changes Page 16 August 28, 2003 NAME White, Susan Wicker, Amanda Williams, Frank Willies, Vora Wilson, Karen Wirzfeld, Katherine Williams, Alicia Wren, Beth Woods, Cobbs POSITION SCHOOL Special Ed. WASHINGTON ElemV WILLIAMS Math HENDERSON Elem I STEPHENS Counselor TERRY Elem V WESTERN HILLS Special Ed. STEPHENS Special Ed. BALE Elem I FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-8-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 62-12 SPE925 1-03 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 4-18 CNL925 1-05 TCH925 4-02 SPE925 1-02 SPE925 1-02 TCH925 Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Avery, Frankie Reason: Leaving City Custodian SOUTHWEST 8-27-02 9-2-03 1-02 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 45000.00 27567.00 27056.00 30630.00 46889.00 29609.00 31064.00 27056.00 27056.00 13955.00 Personnel Changes p Page 17 .... m .C..f.) August 28, 2003\n,c m Cf) C: mr- ~ii:l :!:m u,z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0., , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY n 0 C: ':J\n,,,\n,c\u0026lt; ~ ?= o  ~o --\u0026lt;:!: Banks, Keith Instr. Aide 8-12-99 1-06 12798.00 c5z z -u, Om Reason: None Given STEPHENS 8-6-03 INA925 :!:\n,c r-\u0026lt; O(\"\nzm C: Cf) Barber, Mae Custodian 5-23-88 1-11 18844.00 ....\n,c =I Reason: Personal WESTERN HILLS 8-29-03 CUS12 0 z Cloud, William Custodian 8-29-91 4-11 30986.00 Reason: Retired CENTRAL 8-12-03 CUS12 p m1 Crowder, Cleda Clerical 8-10-87 39-20 28764.00 n\n,c ~ ~ Reason: Retired FAIR 6-4-03 CLK10 zo mz \u0026lt;30 :::!-c CflO Davey. Clarice Instr. Aide 2-10-03 1-03 11635.00 lC ,- n Reason: Accepted Another FAIR.PARK 7-25-03 INA925 -\u0026lt; Position Donald, Betty Instr. Aide 8-21-00 1-03 11635.00 Reason: Accepted Another BASELINE 7-21-03 INA185 ?\"\n5, Position C) - ~n~ z__-.\n-\n\u0026lt;,c Fentry, Kimberly Care 8-30-94 1-16 8.19 l~ 0 .... Reason: None Given CARE 5-30-03 CARE c3 ~ u,  ,... ,-u, -\u0026lt; Harris, Vivian Care 11-9-78 2-03 6.94 c:n ,... !\" Reason: None Given CARE 5-30-03 CARE\n,c Hope, Barbara Clerical 8-7-78 39-20 28764.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-10-03 CLKl0 !Jl ~ Hunter, Laura Child Nutrition 1-11-02 3-09 8290.00 ~ -en Reason: Health MABELV ALE MID. 7-31-03 FSH550\n,cm oz c3 ~ 5'.,?::!! ,... C) ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 18 August 28, 2003 NAME Marcrum, Janice Reason: Retired Neal, Shellie Reason: Retired Ollison, Yolanda Reason: None Given Porter, Jere! Reason: Terminated Pruitt, Robert POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition WILSON Care CARE Custodian JEFFERSON Instr. Aide Reason: Returning To School GIBBS Robinson, Vickie Clerical Reason: Personal HALL Seaton, Timothy Security Officer Reason: Accepted Another MCCLELLAN Position Thompson, Jesse Child Nutrition Reason: Terminated FAIR.HIGH Turner, Kerrie Security Officer Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL Position Turner, Romona Instr. Aide Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL Position START DATE END DATE 12-6-89 8-4-03 8-24-87 8-4-03 4-1-03 5-30-03 9-13-99 7-23-03 9-03-02 5-30-03 8-13-98 5-30-03 9-28-00 8-1-03 2-14-03 7-23-03 10-1-02 8-11-03 10-8-02 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 5-15 FSH6 1-17 FSH5 1-05 CARE 1-05 CUS12 1-06 INA925 31-11 CLK925 36-14 SOFR9 1-01 FSH5 36-17 SOFR9 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 9345.00 7840.00 6.68 15600.00 12798.00 17316.00 15390.00 7312.00 16831.00 14067.00 Personnel Changes .0.. Page 19 m .e.n. August 28, 2003 ::,0 emn C: ~~ ~m en z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , n NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY 0 C: '?' ?\u0026gt; RI s en:- 0 \u0026gt; Wallace, Cesalie Nurse 8-9-00 1-07 31651.00 .~.. o ~ c5 z Reason: Accepted Another MABELV ALE MID. 8-1-03 NURSES z-nemn Position ~~ 0(\"\nzm .c.:. en Williams, Charles Child Nutrition 9-12-02 1-02 7340.00 ::,0 =I Reason: Terminated BRADY 7-23-03 FSH5 c5 z New Non-Certified Emi!lovees 0 ID~ n::,o ~~ Akins, Douglas Bus Driver 8-11-03 2-02 8378.00 zo mz ~P. TRANS. BUSDRV g~ ~ .... 0 -\u0026lt; Baker, Tamara Occ .. Ther. 8-7-03 60-6 35448.00 SPECIAL ED. AN925 Booth, Jesse Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 FAIR SOFR9 ?\u0026gt;~ G'l - Boykin, William Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 ~~ z-\u0026lt; -,::io FOREST HGTS. SOFR9\ng~ o\"\"' ~~ en\u0026gt; Brim, Allen Security Officer 8-11-03 36-10 13657.00 ,,..- ,... en -\u0026lt; ACC - METRO SOFR9 c: n ,\u0026gt;... !\" ::,0 Bunting, Abram Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 METRO SOFR9 Burnett, Toby Secretary 7-29-03 39-12 22656.00 ~ !:i WAKEFIELD CLKl0 !l -on :,om oz ~c! ~?.! ,-c, ~ ~ Personnel Changes Page 20 August 28, 2003 NAME Bush, Alicia Castleberry, James Collins, Mamie Dukes, Raynard Ellis, Virginia Goad, Gina Golston, Shawn Jones, Angela Manley, Eric Maxwell, Robin McNeil, Sonia POSITION SCHOOL Supervisor START DATE END DATE 7-28-03 CHILD NUTRITION Navy 7-1-03 PARK.VIEW Child Nutrition 8-12-03 ALC Security Officer 8-11-03 FAIR 0cc. Ther. 8-7-03 SPECIAL ED. 0cc. Ther. 8-7-03 SPECIAL ED. Security 8-11-03 SECURITY Security Officer 8-11-03 HALL Security Officer 8-11-03 MANN Bus Driver 8-11-03 TRANS Media Clerk 8-7-03 FRANKLIN SALARY CLASS 55-6 ADN12 65-01 AN12 1-01 FSH5 36-10 SOFR9 60-10 AN925 60-13 AN925 37-04 ANl0 36-10 SOFR9 36-14 SOFR9 3-01 BUSDRV 31-03 CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 30528.00 annual 28329.98 prorated 35448.00 7392.00 13657.00 39936.00 43680.00 16800.00 13657.00 15390.00 9540.00 13632.00 Personnel Changes Page 21 August 28, 2003 POSITION START DATE NAME SCHOOL END DATE Merritt, Reginald Drug Abuse 7-16-03 PUPIL PERSONNEL Moore, Antonio Security Officer 8-11-03 MCCLELLAN Peach, Laura Secretary 7-29-03 CENTRAL Starks, M.T. Security Officer 8-11-03 ROMINE Sterley, Pamela Child Nutrition 8-12-03 WESTERN HILLS Thomas, Sandra Secretary 7-29-03 GIBBS Tucker, Jason Security Officer 8-11-03 WATSO Withers, Myrtle Clerical 7-22-03 VIPS SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 47-17 33396.00 AN11 36-10 13657.00 SOFR9 38-12 21984.00 CLKl0 36-11 14065.00 SOFR9 1-01 7392.00 FSH5 39-12 22656.00 CLKl0 36-10 13657.00 SOFR9 38-19 27912.00 CLK105 ,:') ..... m .u...,. ::\u0026gt;, m u, C: mr- ~i\nJ ~~ 0 .0,. ., C') 0 C: r' ?\" ~s u,,.... o\u0026gt; ~o --t:!C ozz n:c\"m'\n=~ 0(\"\nzm C: u, ..... ::\u0026gt;, =i 0z ,:') a,~ C'\u0026gt;::\u0026gt;, ~~ zo mz \u0026lt;30 ::! -0 u, 0 :!Cr- n -\u0026lt; ~~ C) - ~~ z--t --t::\u0026gt;J ~~ 0 ..... -oO oz u\u0026gt;, ,\u0026gt;- ,- u, -\u0026lt; C: C') \u0026gt;~ r- ::\u0026gt;, !ll !::i !l DATE: TO: FROM: RE: VWQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August28,2003 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent of Schools Revision of Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, First Reading Pursuant to Board discussion at the agenda meeting, August 14, 2003, Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, has been revised as directed and is attached. 0 .... m !!l\no m (J) C: m!:\n~~ ~~ 0 .0,. , (\") 0 C: '?\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCB PREVENTION OF NEPOTISM No person will be employed in the Little Rock School District in a position where he/she would be related, (whether by blood or marriage, including spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin), to his/her immediate supervisor. If an employee is transferred to a supervisor's position which would cause a violation of this policy, the subordinate employee will be transferred to a substantially equivalent position as soon as reasonably possible. Under no circumstance will a supervisor be allowed to evaluate the performance of one of his/her relatives. Revised: Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-24-105 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GBEA Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 28, 2003 Board of Education Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Collaborative Grant Proposal with UALR The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is preparing a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation that involves interactive virtual environments. The technology was recently added, for example, to theme park attractions at Universal Studios. The technology exploits a variety of techniques to integrate the virtual with the physical in a scalable, mixed reality environment. The UALR grant proposal will develop the technology for instructional uses. For example, a science teacher might have a virtual environment in which she is in the room with a virtual instructor and virtual students. She can interact with the instructor and the students as they perform a lab experiment. This episode can be a professional development experience for the teacher as she learns how to conduct the lab with her own students. Students can also benefit from a virtual environment in which materials and resources are available to them virtually that may be cost prohibitive for the school to actually have. Dr. Mary Good, Dean of the College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, and Dr. Angela Sewall, Dean of the College of Education, from UALR will give a short presentation to the Board about the possibilities for collaboration in this project. .,. ~s CJ),.- l2  c:C ... 3C \u0026lt;zSz n~ :r!:- \u0026lt;\"' C?\nzm C...: CJ) \"='I \u0026lt;5 % DATE: TO: \\V LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August28,2003 Board of Education FROM: Morris Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Linda Austin/4 Director of Planning and Development RE: Grant Proposals: 21 st Century Community Learning Center Program Background Information The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) released the 2003-2004 21 st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) grant competition for proposals. The grants are supported through the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The purpose of the 21 st CCLC program is to establish community learning centers that operate during out-of-school hours. Programs must provide students in high poverty schools with intensive academic enrichment opportunities along with other activities designed to complement the students' regular academic program. The District submitted two proposals, Woodruff Elementary and McClellan High School. Both schools elected to participate in the 21 st CCLC grant by virtue of the pressing academic and social needs of their students as well as their high numbers of free and reduced lunch eligible students (Woodruff: 85% and McClellan: 50%). The Woodruff 21 st CCLC program design offers a broad array of services, programs, and activities that are specifically designed to meet the needs of elementary school students. An example of some of the services to be delivered at Woodruff include: 1) a one-hour before school program, 2) a three-hour after-school program, 3) three 1-week intersession programs, 4) a visual and performing arts enrichment program, 5) a multitude of rich cultural activities, 6) an array of family services, and 7) a monthly Super Saturday program. To support and enrich grant implementation, Woodruff has established community partnerships with Wildwood Park, Twin City p .... m !!l\n,:, m U) C: ~~ ~~ 0 .0, , n 0 C: ':'\n,-~ \u0026gt;'\" .... U) ::en r-::c: ~o n l2 I!! U) \u0026gt;m o\n,:, ~~ u,m i5 U) z Bank, Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association, and State Farm Insurance. The McClellan 21 st CCLC program design offers a unique program geared for high school age students. Highlights of the program include a six-week credit recovery summer school program for 9th grade students, a two-week 9th grade transition summer program, a before and after school tutoring program, nine 2-hour parent/family sessions, and a drug and violence prevention program. Collaborative partnerships have been established with the UALR College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, Centers for Youth and Families, Professional Counseling Associates, ITT Technical Institute, and Southwest Regional Medical Center. The grants were submitted on July 11, 2003 in order to meet the July 11, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The Year One request for Woodruff is $149,463. The total five-year award request for Woodruff is $538,067. The Year one request for McClellan is $148,241. The total five-year award request for McClellan is $533,668. The requested funds are primarily targeted for teachers stipends for out-ofschool tutoring programs, transportation, equipment and software as well as an evening snack for each participant. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Board of Directors -~ennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent End of Course Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy Results - Summary of End of Course Results for Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy - We are reporting the results of the End of Course (EOC) Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy Exams. Improvement in student achievement occurred in all three areas. Generally, subgroups of students in our district made similar or greater progress than the same subgroups at the state level. - The purpose of this report is to identify overall trends in student achievement, by subgroup and by school, on the EOC Algebra 1, Geometry and Literacy Exams. - Staff members will use the results to identify specific areas of strength and need in student learning in Algebra 1, Geometry and literacy so that curriculum, instruction, and professional development can be tailored to the needs of students in each school. Schools have received data about individual student performance on these exams, have an item analysis for each item on the exam, and will soon have the released items from each of the exams. This degree of detail will allow each school to be specific when identifying strengths and needs. -Expectations are that district staff and school-based staff will use the results of the EOC tests, including the item analyses and released items, to make adjustments in the mathematics and literacy programs that will lead to improved student achievement during the 2003-04 school year. -We recommend that each school thoroughly disaggregate the EOC data to provide the level of specificity needed to adjust day-to-day instruction so that this year's students continue or exceed the progress made by students that is reflected in the 2003 results. !.D., :c\nr::: en ~ emn en -0 ~ -0 m ~ -\u0026lt; .,,. ~s en,... o  l:o --\u0026lt;!C c5 z z ~~ F~ On zm .c...:. en ~ c5 z .,,.~ \u0026gt;,... __, en :c (\") ,-- :c !:!jO n~ !\u0026gt;!! men o\n,\n,\nr:::\u0026lt; cno enm o en z \u0026gt; .~.... ?\u0026lt; m CD -0 C: :c en ~z p, rn -en Zen ~~ gi s zn om CD en a On the EOC Algebra 1 Exam 30% of students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 21 % in 2001-02. This improvement of 9% compares to a statewide improvement of 8%. Sixteen percent (16%) of African American students were proficient in 2002-03 compared to 11 % in 2001-02. Sixty percent (60%) of Caucasian students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 44% in 2001-02. Hall, Cloverdale, Dunbar, and Mann all experienced growth of 20% or more from the previous year's administration. The schools with the highest overall scores were Dunbar and Pulaski Heights with 87% proficient or advanced and Forest Heights and Mann with 79% and 72% proficient or advanced respectively. The high school with the highest overall score was Hall with 32% proficient or advanced. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the students were proficient or advanced on the EOC Geometry Exam in 2002-03 compared to 17% in 2001-02. This improvement of22% compared to a statewide improvement of 8%. A variable that most likely contributed to our large improvement was the re-sequence of math courses last year that placed Geometry after Algebra 2 instead of before Algebra 2. The change was made so that more ninth grade students could take advantage of Pre-AP Physics, which has an Algebra 2 co-requisite. The change created a one-year transition where about half as many students took Geometry. Seventeen percent (17%) of African American students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 6% the year before. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Caucasian students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 43% the year before. The school with the greatest improvement was Central, which increased from 27% to 67% proficient or advanced. Central also had the highest number of students who were proficient or advanced in geometry with 67%. The next highest was Hall with 32%. The percentage of students in Algebra 1 and Geometry in the below basic range decreased dramatically. In Algebra 1 the percent of students below basic dropped by 11 percentage points from 2001-02 to 2002-03. Cloverdale has the largest decrease in below basic with a drop of28%. Hall has the second largest decrease with 26%. Dunbar, Forest Heights, Mann, and Pulaski Heights had or were close to zero students in the below basic category. In Geometry the percent of students who were below basic dropped by 35 percentage points from 2001-02 to 2002-03. J. A. Fair had the largest improvement with a decrease of 61 % of students who were below basic. Central had the lowest overall percent of students in the below basic category with only 8%. In literacy the percent of students who scored proficient or advanced increased from 32% to 36% over a one-year period and from 17% to 36% over a two-year period. The increase last year of 4% is equal to the statewide increase of 4%. The two-year growth exceeded the state's growth over the same period by 6% (LRSD 19%, state 13%). All five high schools experienced growth in literacy achievement over the two-year period. Parkview had the most growth in literacy among the high schools 15% over a one-year period and 30% over a two-year period. The school-by-school results for each test will be provided to Board members under separate cover. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHILD NUTRITION DEPARTMENT 1501 JONES STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 August 28, 2003 Board of Education Merlin M. McCoy, Director of Child Nutrition THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent RE: Adoption of Resolution on Elimination of Reduced Meals Category This is the year for the reauthorization of all Child Nutrition programs by the Congress of the United States. In a recent legislative session of American School Food Service Association on reauthorization, it was a unanimous decision to ask Congress to eliminate the reduced price status in school meals programs and provide free meals to all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty. One strategy for rallying support is to ask school boards to adopt a resolution in support of this change in the reauthorization bill. I would recommend that the LRSD join the thousands of school food service providers nationwide in support of this change in the law. Senator Elizabeth Dole has prepared the bill to submit to Congress in support of this request. I am including with this correspondence a resolution for your review and adoption. Thank you for your consideration and support. !\" \"Tl :,:: 3: en ~ m en e.,n, ::0 0., , m s\n,,,~ \u0026gt;,.... .... en :i::n r-:,:: ~8 0 r!\u0026gt;!! mcn 0::0 3:\u0026lt; gi~ 5 en z\n,,, en?\u0026lt;\nla, .,, C: :,:en ~% _CIJ rn -en Zcn nm ig ~ zomn a, en 6 RESOLUTION BOARD OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEDERAL CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS Whereas, the federal child nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs, are important to the health and education of the children of Little Rock School District\nand Whereas, the child nutrition programs must be reauthorized by the Congress of the United States during the current fiscal year\nand Whereas, reduced price school meals are offered, in participating schools, to children with family income between 130 percent of the poverty line and 185 percent of the poverty line\nand Whereas, many families in the reduced price income category are finding it difficult to pay the reduced fee and, for some families, the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation\nand Whereas, the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) provides free benefits to all participants with family income below 185 percent of poverty\nNOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District supports reauthorization of all federal child nutrition programs\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District urges the Congress of the United States to eliminate the reduced price school meals programs, and to provide free meals for all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty\nand BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this RESOLUTION shall be sent -to the Arkansas Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Judy Magness, President Larry Berkley, Secretary Adopted: August 28, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: From: Through: Board of Education Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Administrative Services Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: School-Based Dental Hub / Clinic Pain related to dental decay is responsible for absenteeism and lack of concentration during class. Children with low socio-economic status are likely to have at least three more decayed or filled primary teeth than children from families with higher income levels. In collaboration with the Dental Health Action Team, we are presenting the proposal for \"Future Smiles: School-Based Dental Hub\" for your review. The dental hub/clinic, located at Wakefield Elementary School, will be for children at highest risk for dental problems. Dental Services will be coordinated by UALR Share America in partnership with twelve (12) agencies represented on the Dental Health Action Team and the Little Rock School District. These agencies have a three-year history of providing preventive services to our students. The attached proposal represents a five (5) year plan to implement these services beginning in August 2004. We recommend that the \"Future Smiles: School-Based Dental Hub / Clinic\" be approved as submitted. :e fl\n= 0 r-m \u0026gt;O 31:n \"'\u0026gt; ~g G} z Zo !!lm m ~~ ::c 0 0 r- 08/01/03 PROPOSAL FUTURE SMILES: SCHOOL-BASED DENTAL HUB - THE PROBLEM Tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease 5 times more common than asthma 7 times more common than hay fever Nearly twice as many children with low Socio-economic status (SES) ages 2-9 years have at least three decayed or filled primary teeth than do children from families with higher income levels. *National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. (2001, Feb). A Plan to Eliminate Craniofacial, Oral, and Dental Health Disparities. BARRIERS IN ACCESS TO DENTAL HEAL TH SERVICES Lack of awareness of importance of oral health Lack of or insufficient dental insurance Lack of transportation Uncompensated time from work Limited income Maldistribution of dentists Dentist non-participation with Medicaid/ARKIDS First Low Medicaid program reimbursement rates for dental services \"One proven strategy for reaching children at high-risk for dental disease is\" providing oral and dental health services in school-based health centers ... supporting linkages with health care professionals and other dental partners in the community\" *Grant Makers in Health Issue Dialogue .. (2001, May). Filling the Gap: Strategies for Improving Oral Health. Issue Brief. HISTORY UALR Share America and the Office of Oral Health have collaborated for three years on projects to improve the oral health for children in underserved areas of Little Rock. To that end, Share America formed the Dental Health Action Team three years ago \"to work together to improve oral health outcomes and reduce disparities among children.\" The DHAT has provided dental screenings and referrals to more than 3000 children in Little Rock Public Schools and Head Start Programs each year. - I - 08/01/03 The screening data show that 58% of children have tooth decay, 28% have untreated decay, and an alanning 5% of those children screened had emergency dental needs. Unfortunately, less than 2% of the children had dental sealants, a proven primary preventive measure. Building on the screenings in 2001, a school-based program was established to provide dental sealants to more than one-hundred 2-3rd graders in the six partner schools and Head Start Programs working with UALR Share America (Bale, Wilson, Wakefield, Franklin, Stephens, and Chicot). Existing preventive services include annual dental screening and sealants. During the fall, students with a completed consent fonn are screened to identify tooth decay and any teeth that require sealants. During February \"National Children's Dental Health Month\", sealants are placed, with 4 stations set up in the schools and staffed by volunteer dental professionals. The process takes approximately 15-25 minutes using the light cured system.  Currently we have a 50-65% return rate for parental consent fonns. PROGRAM DESIGN: The Dental Health Action Team proposes to establish a \"school-based dental hub/clinic\" for the children at highest risk. School-based dental programs create immediate access to oral health care by taking the services to the populations in need. The hub, located at Wakefield Elementary School, would serve children enrolled in the Share America Program in six elementary schools. In addition to the services provided by the clinic, Share America will continue to utilize the mobile dental equipment to provide annual screenings and the sealant program in the six schools. The clinic would enhance the preventive oral health services currently offered and provide comprehensive oral health services for children. While the current Share America students will be the initial source of clients, we would anticipate serving other at-risk income populations such as Head Start clients and students eligible for the school free and reduced lunch program within the six schools. OBJECTIVES: Increase the proportion of children who use the oral health system each year. Increase the proportion of low-income children and adolescents who receive preventive dental services each year. Our ultimate goal is to provide crucial preventive services to 100% of those children at-risk in these elementary schools. Reduce the prevalence of children and adolescents with untreated dental decay. Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents who have dental caries in their primary or permanent teeth. Explore the possibility of expanding school-based dental hubs to other schools. *Based on objectives for the Nation in Healthy People 2010. Program Management:  Dental services will be coordinated by UALR Share America in partnership with the Dental Health Action Team and Little Rock School District.  A Memorandum of Agreement between the Little Rock School District and the DHAT will outline programs and operations and renewed annually.  A Steering Committee made up of representatives from each partner organization, parents and key individuals from the community at large will oversee the program. Member organizations include: UAMS, Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Arkansas Dept. of Health, Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, Arkansas Dept. of Education, Cooperative Extension, UALR, LRSD, Arkansas State Dental Association, St. Vincent Health System, - 2 - .!J.,l :c\nr:: en ~ m en en -0 ~ -0 m ~ ~p re r-m \u0026gt;C :r::n en\u0026gt; ~g G) z Zc:, !!Jm m ~~ :c 0 0 r-\n,-~ )\u0026gt; :__, en :c (\") r- :c !!Jo n~ !\u0026gt;!! en m c\n,:,\nr::\u0026lt; eenn \u0026lt;m'\u0026gt; 5 en z )\u0026gt;\n.,, ?\u0026lt;\n:l tD -0 C: :c en ~% p\u0026gt;~ -z eenn .n m\n,:, ~s zC\"\u0026gt; cm a, en i5 08/01/03 Arkansas Minority Health Commission, Pulaski County United Way, Arkansas Children's Hospital, and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.  Six elementary school sites, serving approximately 2300 underserved school children, will participate in program benefits to include annual screenings, sealants and follow-up services through the clinic Operations:  Services will begin in the fall of 2004, assessed each year, and expanded over a five-year period as follows: Phase I (2004-2005) - Serve the emergency/immediate needs for students referred by screenings from all six partner schools and restorative needs for Wakefield Phase II (2005-2007) - Serve the restorative needs of children for all 6 schools Phase Ill (2007-2008) - Serve the comprehensive needs of all children in 6 schools and middle school students in Share America Youth Leadership Program  Hours of operation are 9-1 :30 Monday through Friday for ten months (September-May) and will follow the LRSD school schedule. During the summer months the clinic will target students attending Share America summer camps at Wakefield and Stephens Elementary.  DHA T will contract with a local hospital or organization to hire a full-time dentist. The first year staffing will include a full-time dentist and assistant with an effort to recruit bilingual staff. Staffing needs will be assessed annually.  Patient Eligibility: Uninsured with efforts to enroll in ArKids 1st. by working through LRSD nurses  Billing through clinic: Medicaid\nDentist must be Medicaid provider  Services: Phase I - Root Canal (prior authorization)\nfillings\nextractions, stainless steel crowns, and Nitrons Oxide. Services reassessed annually.  Forms, application and materials translated into Spanish  UALR Share America will transport Share America students from the other five schools.  Dentists, dental hygienists and dental hygiene students will continue to provide all preventive services including dental screenings and sealants on site in the six elementary schools.  UAMS dental hygiene students will continue to provide dental cleanings, fluoride, sealants, and x-rays at the UAMS clinic as needed. Share America will continue to provide transportation. Equipment: The following equipment is needed for startup:  Evacuation system (central vac)  Compressor  Autoclave  x-ray (split between two chairs) with processor and daylight loader  two patient chairs  four stools  two units  locked cabinets  bathroom - handicap accessible  counter top with sink  small refrigerator The DHAT will work with a dental supply company to compile a comprehensive list for equipment and supplies. -3 - 08/0 )/03 Partnership Support  The school district will assist with data collection and provide clinic space, utility and custodial services at no cost to the program.  UALR Share America will serve as the coordinating organization and provide transportation for children from the six school sites.  Parents and volunteers will work with clinic staff and individual school nurses and administrators.  County/State health and social service departments will assist with necessary permits, waivers, regulatory inspections, etc. for opening clinics in schools. Department of Human Services will assist with recruitment and enrollment of students who meet Medicaid eligibility and billing for Medicaid-eligible school children for dental treatments.  United Way will provide $100,000 of startup funding and assist with on-going fund raising through their annual campaign. United Way has included Future Smiles in the 2003- 2004 campaign materials  The Steering Committee will coordinate ongoing fundraising efforts to include the Annual United Way Campaign, Medicaid billing, and corporate partners. Law \u0026amp; Insurance: Clinic must meet regulations set by LRSD, OSHA, HIPAA, and Biohazard Removal/Infection Control Assessment  An annual evaluation will include an assessment of policies, procedures, services, staffing, and operations. The Steering Committee will coordinate the data collection and provide recommendations to the DHAT and LRSD.  Data collection will be both quantitative and qualitative and may include: 1. # of children served and services provided\ndemographics\ndental sealant retention rates\n# of children needing restorative care, and the# receiving care 2. Dental Screenings to determine decayed, missing, and filled (DMF) on primary and permanent teeth. 3. Dental Forms to determine frequency of dental visits and medical history. 4. Calculate the number of children served and type of services provided 5. Quantify the ability of the project to reduce cavities in high risk groups 6. Determine if school attendance is affected by \"healthier children\" 7. Demonstrate that providing dental services \"on-site\" can be an effective, efficient way to prevent cavities. 8. Annual Financial Report 9. Qualitative data will identify perceptions and attitudes of the parents and information about why (and why not) children received restorative care. The data collected will include: i. parent's understanding of and attitudes toward dental health before and after the education presentation and parents' opinions about barriers to receiving dental care Annual Operating Budget Start-up funding of up to $150,000 for the first year would provide the equipment, hire the professional staff necessary and provide a basis for on-going funding through Medicaid and AR KIDS first billing. Dentist @ 50% Dental Assistant @ 50% Start-up Equipment Materials/supplies $50,000 25,000 60,000 15,000 $150,000 - 4 - !I' \"Tl :c 3: (J) ~ m (J) (J) \"0 ~ \"0 m ~ ,\n,., ,~ :--\u0026lt; (J) :en ..... :c mo \"n\" '.o- ~ ~ o\no 3: \u0026lt; en n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;m o(J) z ,. .~... ?\u0026lt; m CD \"0 C: :c (J) ~z '~ _(J) z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; p~ gi :$ zC\"\u0026gt; om CD rJ\u0026gt; i5 '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: 0,if\u0026amp;ohnny Johnson, Director of Athletics 1 'J-Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Changes to Gate Prices at Athletic Events The Little Rock School District is proposing an increase in adult ticket prices for the upcoming 2003-04 athletic seasons. The increase is$ 1.00 over last year's price for adult tickets, with no increase in student ticket prices. All middle school events will be $3 for adults and $2 dollars for students. High school events will be $5 for adults and $3 for students. As a new feature this year, the LRSD proposes to offer a \"Super Pass\" that will enable the recipient to attend all middle and high school athletic events during the 2003-04 athletic seasons. One adult Super Pass will cost $85. One student Super Pass will cost $50. A family Super Pass can be purchased for $150, which will allow a family of up to five to attend all athletic events in the LRSD. Employee family passes can still be purchased for $10, which enables the immediate family members of a LRSD employee to attend all athletic events. Passes will be available for purchase at the Administration Business Office and the Athletic Department located in the former Garland School building. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the 2003-04 athletic gate prices as submitted. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 \u0026gt; .~,, ::c: 3: \"' ~ m \"\"'' \"0 ~ \"0 m ~ -\u0026lt;\n,, ?\u0026lt; iri a, \"0 C: :CCI\u0026gt; ~z P' rn -\"' Zcn r\u0026gt; ~ ~~ zC\"\u0026gt; cm a,\"' i5 lvfi1 MW\ntrm~ f\\J. 'U w.. tJlwv J ~ t,. ~. tw\ntM)/.) ~ '54.n Individual Approach to a World ojKnowledge\" DATE: August 28, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY~-M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer  Subject Bond Issue Bid by Stephens Inc.  Summary Changes to the regulations controlling bond issue bidding have created the opportunity for Stephens Inc. to bid on !2istrict bond sales\nthey are requesting approval to bid.  Objectives To increase the number of bids on the LRSD bond sales. Expected Outcomes The LRSD financial advisor will be allowed to bid on the District's bond sales, increasing the number of bidders.  Population/Location NI A Budget Amount/Source NIA Manager Donald M. Stewart, CFO  Duration Beginning with Board approval / ending with this bond sale. Long Range/Continuation No long range plans for this issue. Other Agencies Involved Arkansas State Securities Department  Expectations of District Needed Staff Comments Recommendation NIA IA one Stephens Inc. has requested permission from the District to submit a bid on the upcoming refunding bond sale. Mark McBryde has explained the changes in regulations and the process by which bids are taken in the attached letter. It is recommended that Stephens Inc. be allowed to submit a bid on the pending bond issue. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 m o\n_, g i5 .. \"' :5~ ~Q ...,z \"o'c C3\u0026gt; (') ,\u0026gt;- ~Q :n 0 0 z ~ 5z en July 23, 2003 HAND DELIVERY Dr. Don Stewart Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Don: Stephens Inc. JUL 2 4 ::03 This letter will follow up Monday's conversation regarding the District's upcoming refunding bond sale. During our conversation we discussed the ability of Stephens Inc. to bid on this issue. Since this is a relatively new process, I wanted to explain the situation in detail. Since January, our firm has been concerned about the significant supply of Arkansas school bonds that will be offered for sale during 2003. We have made efforts to increase the salability of bonds by asking for input from firms that frequently bid these issues. As well, Stephens is attempting to increase marketability by dropping the conversion requirements on essentially all of these upcoming bond issues. Earlier this year, I met with the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas State Securities Department regarding the ability of Stephens Inc. to bid on school bond issues where we currently serve as fiscal agent. On April 25, 2003, the Securities Commissioner issued an order permitting Stephens to submit bids on Arkansas school bonds where the firm also serves as fiscal agent. Our ability to submit a bid on issues of this type will expire on December 31, 2003. The process of a fiscal agent submitting a bid on a school bond issue is new to this state. It is, however, done in numerous states throughout the nation. At Stephens, we believe our ability to bid will improve competition and be beneficial for all Arkansas school districts. Let me offer a recent financing that confirms our thoughts on this matter. Earlier today, Stephens was the successful bidder on bonds sold by Dumas School District. We represent Dumas as fiscal agent and the School Board had previously authorized Stephens to bid on this issue. By accepting the low bid from Stephens, the District's interest cost was reduced by $8,110.15. The procedure used in bidding these bonds is an electronic process where neither the bidder or the fiscal agent has knowledge of the bids prior to the sale. Complete confidentiality 1s maintained, so that Stephens is not able to view bids prior to the scheduled opening. Investment Bankers www .Stephens.com 111 Center Street P.O . Box 3507 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 501-374-4361 Fax 501-377-2666 Enclosed you will find a letter which the Board should consider at its next meeting. This letter is to acknowledge that Stephens may bid on the District's bond issue. I can tell you that it is our intention, with the District's consent, to submit a bid on your bonds. If the Board elects to allow Stephens to bid on the proposed refunding, please place the enclosed letter on the District's letterhead, have the President and Secretary sign, and return it in the envelope provided. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Mark McBryde .!X.,I :,:\ni:: V, ~ m V, V, \"D ~ \"D m ~ -\u0026lt; :E r\u0026gt; F C r-m  C ll::n V, \u0026gt; ~g ClZ Zc ~mm !ll!=:' :,: 8,... :\"' C 0 z ~ 5 z V, '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 Stephens Inc. P. 0. Box 3507 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Stephens Inc.: In connection with the District's pending bond issue, we acknowledge that your firm is serving as fiscal agent. Furthermore, we understand that the State Securities Commissioner has issued an order dated April 25, 2003, which will permit Stephens Inc. to also submit a bid when the District's bonds are offered for sale. In accordance with MSRB Rule 23, we understand that Stephens Inc. may bid on the District's bonds and we furthermore consent to this process. Sincerely, President Little Rock School Board Secretary Little Rock School Board 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 '~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: Litt! ock School District Board of Directors FROM: ~irector of Facility Services THROUGH: ~orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools -y,o 1..1r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer TITLE/SUBJECT: Excessing of LRSD Property Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcome: Population/Location: Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: To excess property with intent of sale. To dispose of property not necessary for LRSD operations. To sell property to private individual. Forest Heights Middle School, University and Evergreen Streets. NIA Director of Facility Services Permanent Sale NIA Private individual (buyer) TBD. To sell property. NIA See below. Approval by Board. In March of 1983, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors excessed the property immediately adjacent and to the west of Forest Heights Junior High School. Since that action, two parcels of the property have been sold. One was sold in 1985 to the American Cancer Society, Arkansas Division, and one in 1995 to the Williamson Family, Limited, partnership. Of the total property-excess in 1983, the northern one-third is still available for sale. The Little Rock School District Administration has received an inquiry as to whether this property is available for sale. The property is as described on the attached resolution. It is requested that Board of Directors approve this updated resolution for the sale of the property and allow the administration to proceed to have the property appraised and receive offers for its possible sale. DE:cg:boardforestheightsprop Anachment 810 \\Y/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 ~o \u0026gt;\n,:o mm :!lo ~o 0~ m,-omz 3: 0 mm Zm ~o :n 0 0 z ~ 0z (/) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, herein called \"District,\" is the owner of the following described lands located in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas: Northern most 1/2 of Lot 2, Forest Heights Middle School Property -- between University Avenue, Evergreen Street, the practice field and the grounds of Forest Heights Middle School, and the northern border of the southern 1/2 of lot 2. WHEREAS, said lands are hereby found to be surplus to the needs of the District and are, accordingly, no longer needed for school purposes and should be abandoned and sold\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas: 1. That the administration take the necessary measures to offer for sale the above described surplus lands which are no longer needed for school purposes. 2. That no offer be accepted except by resolution of this Board in a legal meeting. 3. That the proceeds, if any, from the sale of said lands be placed in the Building Fund of the District and will be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings or related facilities for school purposes of the District. President Secretary ADOPTED: _____ _ Date '54n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: - FROM: --J~~~a.ton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent ~-Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Title/Subject: Right of way Dedication Deed: Williams Elementary School. Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes\nPopulation/Location: Budget Amount/ Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Request by City of Little Rock for right of way adjacent to school. To grant to City property for a right of way. To meet City codes for public rights of way. Williams Elementary School. N/A Director of Facility Services Permanent transfer to City. /A City of little Rock Public Works . _, ~ Transfer required pursuant to construction. /A See below. Approval by Board. The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District provide them with a right-of-way dedication deed for footage south of Evergreen Drive and adjacent to Williams Magnet School. This includes a 20-foot radial dedication at the comer of Evergreen and Bryant. Please see the attached Exhibits A and B. The purpose for the dedication is to allow the City to widen Evergreen, install sidewalks, and install and maintain public utilities. Assessment of the requested dedication indicates that granting it to the City would have no negative impact on the operation of Williams Magnet School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to grant this dedication deed to the City of Little Rock. DE:cg:boardwilliamsrightofway Attachment 81 0 \\X-'. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001\n.: .,, z \u0026gt;z (\"') ~ CJ) :n g z ~ 0z \"' CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby dedicate, give, and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a widening a public street, installing a public sidewalk, and installing and maintaining public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBITS A and B To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and unto its successors and assigns forever for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances, and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ____ day of ______ , 2003. Corporate Seal Mark Milhollen, Ex-officio Date STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this ___ day of ______ , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within-named Mark Milhollen being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary of the Little Rock School District, and who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that he was the Ex-officio Financial Secretary for the said Little Rock School District and was duly authorized in his respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses, and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this ____ day ______ , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~..., 0\na, C: 8 ~ :n 8 z ~ 0z CJ) EXHIBIT A PREPARED: 7 /15/03 I Gcrnwoo1,G,,s 11 T -r Portion of cAdoo Lane closed I I 21 20 19 18 I J__I -L J__J 17 16 L 15 14 N 88 54'55' 1,/ 0.20' o S 0049,57, E -.-\"\",_1 -'-'----~-=-.::EVERGREEN _S_T_R--\"E=E_T ____ 24.89' ========J='r u=-=.N\":r'c 8'8\"'5\"'3\n,0\n-\n0:,-,' I,/~ = s 995300-\n-E ~=~= '07' E O' Description: Right-of-Woy Dedication 580.44' 580.50' N 33'48'31' E 35.51' NE COR., SE 1/ 4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC. 36, T-2-N, R-13-W Port of the NW1/4 SW1/4, Section 36, T-2-N, R-13-W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NE Corner of the SE1 / 4 NE1 / 4 NW1 / 4 SW1 / 4 of said Section 36\nthence N 88'54'55\" W, a distance of 59.43 feet to the SW Corner of Tract A, Glenwood Heights Addition filed for record in Plot Book 6, Page 7, said point being on the South Right-of-Woy line of Evergreen Street being the POINT OF BEGINNING\nthence N 88'54'55\" W along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, o distance of 20.20 feet\nthence S 0049'57\" E along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, a distance of 24.89 feet\nthence N 88'53'00\" W along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, o distance of 580.44 feet\nthence S 00'03'07\" E, o distance of 5.00 feet\nthence S 88'53'00\" E, o distance of 580.50 feet\nthence N 33'48'31\" E, o distance of 35.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.073 Acres (3204 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 100 0 100 110674 on Oct. 11 part of Tract A' Heights Addition, al t of Glenwood 200 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 ,, 100' EXHIBIT B PREPARED: 7/15/03 17 T .. r GLENWOOD HEIGHTS 13 SUCCESS ADDITION 6 J A I I PorJlon of McAdoo I Lene closed by brdlnence #10674 on Oct. 14, 1957, being  pert jof Tract \"A\" of Plenwood Heigh s Addition, as ~ I I 15 5 \"' ~ Ll shown on pie t of lenwood Hei his. ~ EVERGREEN STREET NE COR., SE 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC. 36, T-2-N, R-13-W Description: Right-of-Woy Dedication Portion of McAdoo lane closed by ordinance 110674 on Oct. 14, 1957, shown hereon as part of Lot 12, Block 5 of Success Addition. 10 Port of Lots 1 \u0026amp; 12, Block 5, Success Addition filed for record in Plot Book 1, Page 128 and ports of the Alley and McAdoo Lone closed by Ordinance No. 10674 on Oct. 14, 1957, City of Little Rock, Puloski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NE Corner of Lot 1, Success Addition\nthence S 000500\" E along the East line of said Lot 1, a distance of 29.98 feet\nthence along a curve to the left having a Radius of 20.00 feet, on Arc Length of 31.39 feet and a Chord bearing and distance of N 45\"03'00\" W, a distance of 28.27 feet\nthence S 89\"59'00\" W, a distance of 285.49 feet to the West line of said Lot 12 (being the centerline of McAdoo Lone closed by Ordinance No. 10674 on Oct. 14, 1957)\nthence N 0003'55\" W along the West line of said Lot 12, a distance of 10.00 feet to the existing South Right-of-Woy line of Evergreen Street\nthence N 89\"59'00\" E along said South Right-of-Woy line, a distance of 305.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.072 Acres (3140 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 100 0 100 1- UJ UJ a: 1- (/) S 000500 E 29.98' 200 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 \" 100' G:\\03-141\\Survev\\03141.dwQ\n,:: .., z \u0026gt;z (\"') \u0026gt;..... Cl) :!: C \u0026gt; \"m-mc :!lo ~o 0~ m,- 0 mz 3::: C mm Zm -\u0026lt;c\n:n 8 z ~ 5 z C/) '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: FROM: aton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH: is L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Title/Subject: Right of way Dedication Deed: Wakefield Elementary School. Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Population/Location: Budget Amount/ Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Request by City of Little Rock for right of way adjacent to school. To grant to city property for a right of way. To meet city codes for public rights of way. Wakefield Elementary School. NIA Director of Facility Services Permanent transfer to City. NIA City of little Rock Public Works Transfer required pursuant to construction. IA See below. Approval by Board. The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District provide them with a right-of-way dedication deed for a strip of land along the south side of Westminister Drive and adjacent to the Wakefield Elementary School site. This includes a 20-foot radial dedication at the southeast corner of Westminister and Lancaster. Please see Exhibit A, attached. The purpose for the dedication is to convey title to a sewer-main extension upon its completion and connection to Little Rock Wastewater Utility's main line. Assessment of the requested dedication indicates that granting it to the City would have no negative impact on the operation of Wakefield Elementary School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be pern1itted to grant this dedication deed to the City of Little Rock. DEC:cg:boardwakefieldcttyseY.er Attachment 810 \\Y/. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .0.., 0\na, C: 8 .m.... .?,=, z \u0026gt; % (\")\ne cn ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 cn z C\u0026gt; ~ ~ ~ en :\" 0 0 z ~ 5z cn CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby, dedicate, give and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public street and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBIT A To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ___ day of ______ , 20 __ . Corporate Seal STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this ___ day of ______ , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within-named Mark D. Milhollen , being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary of Little Rock School District, who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument and who is to me personally well-known, and who stated that he was the Ex-officio Financial Secretary for the said Little Rock School District and was duly authorized in his respective capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses, and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this ____ day ______ , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:\n,: .., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,.... en :n 0 0 z ?\n0z en EXHIBIT A PART OF THE N1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 OF SECTION 30, T-1-N, R-12-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 49, WAKEFIELD VILLAGE NO. 3, SAID CORNER LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID N 1 /2 SW1 / 4 SE 1 / 4 AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LANCASTER ROAD\nTHENCE N03.03'19\"E ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 446.73 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE CONTINUING N0303'19\"E, 24.76 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTMINISTER DRIVE\nTHENCE S8T37'01' E ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 553.50 FT. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 36, WAKEFIELD VILLAGE NO. 2\nTHENCE SOJ 15'56\"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 36, 5.00 FT.\nTHENCE N8737'07\"W ALONG A LINE 5.00 FT. SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTMINISTER DRIVE, 533.72 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING ANO DISTANCE OF S4743'06\"W, 28.12 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2,851 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. (BEARINGS BASED ON ARKANSAS STATE PLANE COORDINATES - NORTH ZONE) r - ~---- 1 WAKEFIELD VILLA.GE PlAT BK. 6, PG. 7~ 1/0. 3 Memorandum Date: August 28, 2003 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: Qt::D-7 Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Throug{~. Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Re: Second Reading - Revisions to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) Title Revisions to Policy DGD: Visa Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) Summary: The Board of Education approved on second reading Policy DGD at their regular meeting on February 27, 2003. During the implementation of the purchasing card program, it has come to our attention that the District can benefit from the use of the card in some cases where the purchase amount exceeds $1,000. An example would be to pay the District's utility bills with the card. Attached is a copy of the Policy approved in 02/03 along with recommended changes in bold print. Objective: Allow the Procurement Department the flexibility to use the purchasing card for purchases over $1,000 upon written approval of the District's Chief Financial Officer. Expected Outcomes: We anticipate a reduction in administrative costs plus an mcrease in the rebate offered by VISA for these purchases. Population/Location: All schools and departments Budget Amount/Source of Budget: There will be no cost for implementing this change. Manager: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management 0 ~ 0 i CD C 8 -m-, :\"' C 0 z ~ 0 z en Duration: Change will take effect upon the approval of the Board and will continue as long as the purchasing card program is in use. Long Range: NI A Other Agencies Involved: None Expectations of District: Further streamline the District's purchasing process. Needed Staff: No additional staff required Comments: None Recommendation We request the Board of Education approve the proposed revision to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGD PROCUREMENT VISA PURCHASING CARD (PRO-CARD) Schools and departments may apply to the Procurement Department for the issuance of Visa Purchasing Cards (Pro-Card) to authorized employees. The cards may be used for purchases of $1,000 and less within restricted limits established by the Procurement Department. All Pro-Cardholders must comply with the terms and conditions of the cardholder handbook and agreement approved by the Procurement Department. The card may also be used for purchases over $1,000 upon the recommendation of the Procurement Department and written approval of the Chief Financial Officer. The location Principal or Director will issue cards to approved individuals. ProCards are best assigned to individual staff members that make frequent, small dollar purchases. All charges are the liability of the District. Cross Reference: LRSD Pro-Card Handbook ,~.., g i a, c:: 8 m -t ~~ \u0026gt; :c ~ ,\n! O\no c::\noZ z C) 3\nU\u0026gt; m z -t :\"' 0 0 z ~ 0z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: August 28, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center GE microwave oven, valued at $75 .00, for use in the teacher's lounge 1994 issan Sentra XE, valued at $9,000.00, for instructional use in the Auto Tech Program 2000 Saturn LS2, valued at $14,919.26, for instructional use in the Auto Tech Program Donor Jeff and Cheryl Carson Nissan Motors General Motors Corporation It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. .?.=, z \u0026gt;z C\") ii! (J) To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement av~ Cheryl A. Carson , Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property June 3, 2003 Jeff and Cheryl Carson, 4115 Ridge Road, North Little Rock, AR 72116, wish to donate a General Electric microwave oven valued at $75.00 for use in the Teacher's Lounge. The model number on the microwave oven is JE 2800 001 , and the serial number is TZ926001 S. I recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. Thank you for your consideration of my recommendation . TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Michael Peters~rincipal Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center DATE: August 6, 2003 SUBJECT: DONATIONS Please accept the following vehicles donated to Metropolitans Auto Technical Program. These vehicles are to be used only as instructional items and will not be license or driven: A. B. 1994 Nissan Sentra XE Color - Blue ( 4) door Valued: 9,000.00 Donator: Nissan Motors, Memphis Tenn. 2000 Saturn LS2 Color - Black cherry ( 4) door Valued: $14,919.26 Donator: General Motors Corporation, Ypsilanti, Mi We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies, and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Little Rock, Arka nsas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201\n.: .., z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ Cl) DATE: TO: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET  LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August 28, 2003 L~ Rock School District Board of Directors ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject 2003-2004 Operating Budget  Summary The proposed Operating Budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year is presented for approval. ----- _. _ O_b....:j:c_ec_t_iv_e_s ______T_ o_irn_,p,_l_ement_a_n a_,p-\"p-_roved operating bud_g_e_t. _____  Expected Outcomes The District will operate under the approved budget.  Population/Location All schools and departments in the District.  Budget Amount/Source NIA  Manager Mark Milhollen  Duration July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004  Long Range/Continuation NIA  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NIA Needed Staff NIA Comments See below.  Recommendatio-n ---~Ap~pro-val of the 2003-04 Operating Budget. The Board of Directors has received the proposed Operating Budget for the fiscal year 2003- 2004 under separate cover. It is recommended that the budget be approved as submitted. ?\u0026lt; n 5 U\u0026gt; z C\u0026gt; :x, m ~ ~ U\u0026gt; DATE: TO: THROUGH: Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 August 28, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~ M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY:~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes -~pulation/Locatio~ Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending July 31, 2003. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. ------------------ ---- NIA  Budget Amount/Source NI A  Manager Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services  Duration NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NIA  Comments one  Recommendation Approval of the July 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % DRAFT 2 RECEIPTS % 2002/03 07/31/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 07/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 8,681,861 14.83% 57,547,800 9,574,108 16.64% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 317,592 3.97% 10,100,000 308,857 3.06% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 1,915 0.56% 380,000 3,923 1.03% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 24,322 8.84% 200,000 19,729 9.86% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 240,000 TOTAL 97,432,000 9,025,690 9.26% 98,607,800 9,906,617 10.05% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 21 ,000 5,420 25.81% TOTAL 24,000 0 0.00% 21,000 5,420 25.81% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 53,226,139 REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 10,000 0.75% 1,400,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 920,337 POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 560,545 EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,245 AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 TOTAL 75,441,106 78,340 0.10% 74,776,187 0 0.00% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 1,350,000 TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 TOTAL 3,410,671 0 0.00% 3,752,430 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 9,104,030 5.16% 177,157,418 9,912,037 5.60% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 13,371 0.05% 24,075,790 19,048 0.08% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 4,000,000 8,169 0.20% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,689,351 TOTAL 54,198,923 13,371 0.02% 52,765,141 27,217 0.05% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 9,117,401 3.96% 229,922,559 9,939,253 4.32% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % DRAFT 2 EXPENDED % 2002/03 07/31 /02 EXPENDED 2003/04 07/31 /03 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 1,452,954 1.44% 100,684,982 1,439,812 1.43% BENEFITS 24,838,361 641 ,866 2.58% 26,483,772 692,479 2.61% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,573,678 7.95% 19,719,297 1,454,502 7.38% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 231,783 2.78% 8,185,459 366,134 4.47% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 737 0.05% 1,5.75,580 357 0.02% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 41,167 0.48% 8,384,567 26,373 0.31% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,098,342 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 3,942,185 2.24% 177,131,999 3,979,656 2.25% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 245,551 0.94% 26,056,193 526,781 2.02% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 191,713 4.82% 4,000,000 225,249 5.63% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 545,037 2.17% 24,689,351 113,654 0.46% TOTAL 55,194,668 982,300 1.78% 54,745,544 865,684 1.58% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 4,924,486 2.13% 231,877,543 4,845,340 2.09% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,192,915 (1 ,954,984) 5,093,912 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558, 580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 676,510 1,578,177 2,720,112 OPERATING 8,675,891 13,719,497 9,052,274 14,959,236 TOTAL 9,325,586 14,396,007 10,630,451 17,679,348 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 07-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,156.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 7,849.25 24,953.12 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,652,764.76 1,143,207.09 10,485,398.03 7,024,159.64 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,964,674.82 332,163.49 389,855.19 2,242,656.14 RENOVATION PROJECTS 33, 168,642.55 1,592,043.11 10,719,979.29 20,856,620.15 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 127,353.49 535,927.73 1,671,738.02 SUBTOTAL 57,196,177.71 0.00 0.00 3,202,616.43 22,131,160.24 31,862,401.04 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 444,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 19,411,714.41 19,411,714.41 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 61,801.78 7,350,578.67 SUBTOTAL 28,913,260.32 61,801.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,975,062.10 GRAND TOTAL IIZ 2Z2 :i9~ 10 6l 110l ZII 2.W2 J 202 !il6 ~~ 22 1~1 160 2~ 62 000 619 21 PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 07-31-03 586,846.55 35,357,280.16 265,814.17 4,853,535.57 11,429,705.52 53,351,543.00 11,735,611 .78 20,705,535.38 138,285,872.13 lN3WNMnorov 'IIX SDNIMV3H 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 I EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ' ENCUMBERED ! THRU 07-31-03 : THRU 07-31-03 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 I 889,772.32 : (485,325.77) 149,597.63 I I 7,849.25 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 I 1,143,207.09 I 10,485,398.03 : 113,930.47 109,609.73 ' 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 i 791.385.63 I 3,455,350.67 1 I 4,218,294.40 I 332. 153.49 I 389,855.19 1 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 1,592,043.11 10,719,979.29 575,016.53 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 ' 127,353.49 I 535,927.73 1 I I I I 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 I I 3,202,616.43 , 22,131 ,160.24 I I S\u0026gt;fllVW3ll DNISOl:l 'X ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 07-31-03 561,893.43 1 24,953.12 28,333,120.52 7,024,159.64 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,853,535.57\n0.00 9,187,049.38 1 2,242,656.14 32,494,922.85 20,856,620.15 10,063,873.76 , I 1,671 ,738.02 20,705,535.38 85,717,935.71 j 52,567,936.42 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - - SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND - - - - - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 - - -- Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type - _F'rincipal - Date Date - - - - Operating 06-09-03 12-08-03 Regions 1.090% Money Market -- _ ~0,000.00 Operating 07-19-03 01-19-04 Regions 0.945% lv!oney Market 20,000.00 - Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 - Pulaski 1.290% Money Mark~ --~O ,Q00.00 Operating 07-23-03 TFN Bank of America 0.820% Repo Jl,225,000.00 - Operating 07-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.090% CD z.221,860.96 Operating (Payroll) 06-02-03 08-01-03 Bank of America 1.040% Treasury ~ills !.,5?5,264.8() - Operating (Payroll) 06-16-03 08-15-03 Bank of America 0.900% Treasury Bills 1,575,633.00 Total 18,447,758.76 Food Service 07-30-03 TFN Bank of America 0.860% Repo 1,350,000.00 Total - - 1,~50,000.00 Activity Fund 04-03-03 08-14-03 Bank of America 1.020% Tre~S~f)' Bills 801,966.49 - - Total 801,966.49 - - - - -- - Bond Account 03-10-03 09-08-03 Regions 1.190% CD - _ 100,000.90 - - Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000.~31.31 - - Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5, 116,?98.09 - 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks - Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,()58,896.90 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% CD - _2 ,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% CD _11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD _11,()00,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 07-15-03 09-02-03 USBANK 1.130% CD 5,00(),000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD ~.000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 04-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.370% CD 3,035,911.61 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 07-28-03 TFN Bank of America 0.880% Repo 8,000,000.00 Total 83,411,987.34 Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 12-04-03 Bank of America 0.920% Treasury Bills 664,995.48 Total _664,995.48 Rockefeller Scholarship : 06-24-03 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Treasury Bi~s 250,909.40 Total '. 250,909.40\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":32,"next_page":33,"prev_page":31,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":372,"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}}]}}