{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1758","title":"Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Magnet schools","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1758"],"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":["57 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eBefore the Arkansas State Board of Education, brief of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in re: petition to de-annex territory from the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, memorandum brief in support of fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, statement of material facts; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Redesign of Harris Elementary School and the Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     I P. 03 RECEIVED BEFORE THE ARKANSAS STATE :SOARD OF EDUCATION JUL 1 O 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN RE: PETITION TO DE-ANNEX TERRITORY FROM THE PCSSD BRIBf OF TiiE PCSSD Introduction Prior to tl1e hearing held on June 9, 2003, the PCSSD submjtted its \"Analysis\" of how the detachment, if approved, would negatively impact desegregation not only in the PCSSD but in tllc LRSD and the NLRSD as well. For -lbe _convenience of the Board another ~PY is included as Exhibit 1. The PCSSD asked ti1at 1hat document be made-part of the record and its cssenLial conclusions will only be briefly reiterated here . Although the PCS SD believes that its previously submitted Analysis is more than ample reason to deny Lhe petition for detachment, there is an even more fundamental reason why it should be turned down. SifI!Ply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which this -Board is a signatory i precJudes such a usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence. 428241-vl The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of_the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts -operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and chat this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation .activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] ----- - -- -- -- ~ Thi, language, whiCh remain, operative, was notsome idle boileiplaie.or filler. Indeed, as we will explain .further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after.the State had first reached .agreement with the LRSD and then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Further, thcr.e was a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this _] negotiated language which, whHe it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came I under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. Indeed, for those who did not personally participate in or who do not clearly recall this historic process, a brief chronology might be useful. 1982 1985 1985 Late 1988 January 12, 1989 January 31, 1989 4?.8244-vl Not So Ancient History The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 9Zl F.2d 1371@ 1376. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F .2d 1371 @ 1377. This boundary adjusLinent caused PCSSD to lose sixteen schools and over one-third of its tax base_ Initial setLlerncntdiscussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376 . . Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock.and _P.ulaski County Special School District schools. Exhibit 2. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed seulcment. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain-t11e agreement of the otl1er _parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Boar\u0026lt;l, PCSSD aml NLRSD.\" Exhibit 3. 2 i -I vUI.. I February 14, 1989 March 1989 March 3, 1989 March 7, 1989 March 11, 1989 March U, 1989 March 16, 1989 428244-vl The State hires t.lie national law furn of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. Exhibit 4. Counsel .for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J. Exhibit 5. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section 11 J. Exhibit 6. It is submined to the legislature for funding. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the. Arkansas Gazette note~: that: \"A key-provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock- and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain  independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could -becon,e an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate pr.ovision.\" Exhibit 7. The Atkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made publi~ because of the complexity of the issues. Exhibit 8. .In .explaining .the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement. is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it'.s .going co fall apart and unravel in 100 djffcreht ways.\" In the same articfo, Senator Max Howell noted he djd not wanno vote Jor1he settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I .under.stand the small print.\" Exhibit 9. One starewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, o.pined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" Exhibit 10. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but .idds an amendmenr asking tbe Federal Courts to consider four changes in the seLtlcment including: \"Disapproval of language that would rctiin the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts-.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope tbt: Court woulil be aware that we hl the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" Exhibit 11. 3  I l '  II March 18, 1989 March 24, 1989 March 31, 1989 December 11, 1989 December 12, 1990. The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, ancl the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the _special Master) apparently shared that concern. n Exhibit 11. Press reports described II J as one of.the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. Exhibit 12. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the v.ote to fund the settlement in this case, l was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were auly considered by .the .parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . .. Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters .\" Exhibit 13. A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached~ Exhibit 14 . Counsel for the AEA informs.Mr. Friday that they object to removing a.ny of the items from the settlement agreement. Exhibit 15. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should hav.e been .approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160 @ 164, 165. It should thus be clear that Section n J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSO) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear, Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also any new usurpation of its territory. facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the .early phases of the school case. While it is clear that many in the legislature 42$M4-vl 4  and those \"commentin_g on tbe scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an l integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, it noted thar no such language is presented as regards the PCSSD or the NLRSD. As lhe Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within1he PCSSD, or (b) the parties specificaHy intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a parcy to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct outcome because of the presence of Section II J. On the san1e page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a schooJ district under supervision, at least not without the consem of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this parcicular case, the parties with standing to object would be the Sr.ate it.o;clf, the three Pulaski County districts, and the 1osbua and Knight intervenors. The Potential For New Claims The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was co minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release -of all claims for .all v.iolations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlem~nt Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful .claims by the school districts for 4282411-vl 5 ~ I I departures from the Settlement Agreement, it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a cbim or contention that .it has violated the constitution or enacted statutes which either prom~\u0026gt;tc segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in ATkansas law. As counsel for the Pcpanment of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is proh~itcd by law from approving any petition fo1 detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negative~y affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts .in this state.\" Even if the Board makes a negative determination on this issue, it is virtually a foregone conclusion that one or another or more of the parties in the school case would contend in Federal Court that the detachment does \"hamper, delay or ... negatively affects  desegregation efforts ... \", would seek to hoist the State upon the petard of its own legislation, and, if successful, expose the State to new claims for millions of dollars, an exposure the S1ate avoic.Js if it .properly denies the petition. Indeed, it would appear that the legjsJature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very narr.ow and rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] I  Districts to desegregate.\" 1 After each legisl:llive session, die ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the olher Pulaski disu-icrs, to identify aew lc!gislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affecc its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by }ell.er dated April 26, 2002, thaUt believed tile detachment scaruce at issue would negatively -:tffoct it; desegregation efforts. 4282'14-vl 6 Thus, those who might pursue a new claim, where none currently exists, would likely si.multancously argue that the Settlement Agreement itself has been breached, a claim that carries with it not only the potential for new money damages .but substantial legal fees as well. The petitioners are correct that the racial balance tests for the -PCS SD accommodate a growing. black enrollment. However, the racial balance test is only a fraction of the issue involved. By ultimately approving a new school district, the State- will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its oblig~tion to fund M-to.:M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic.might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) lf and when this day comes, the financial consequenct;S to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. Thus, to lhc extent that the State endorses steps to hasten and accelerate this day, then perhaps a new round of claims against the Slate would logically follow. The black student population of the PCSSD has grown on average between one-half percent and one percent per year. By accelerating tlle process by 6.5 -percentage points (sec further analysis) in 1hc year of detachment, the State will have \"gained\" approximately 7 .5 years toward the day when M-to-M funding might end. (See 15 years enrollment trend.) The Detachment Statute Constitutes Impermissible Special Local Legislation The Arkansas Constimtion succinctly provides that: \"The legislature shall not pass any local or-special Act\". (Arkansas Constitution Amendment 14). 428244vl 7 I'   l As the staff of -the ADE can verify, this statute, by its tcnns, can_only apply to the _PCSSD. No ot:h,er school district in the State meets the quaJifying characteristics of the legislation. Further, there is no plausible .argument that the statute could ever apply to any other school district in Arkansas -in the future. -Bottom line: It was carefully crafted to apply only to the Jacksonville area, cannot apply elsewhere, and as such is impermissible special, local legislation which should not be enforced. Not-All Of The Pai1ies Have Been Consulted_ The Attorney General's letter ofJime 4, 2003 (hereafter-the June 4 letter), strongly urges the Board to seek input from the three school districts in Pulaski as well as Joshua and the Knight Intervenors before determining whether or not .creation of the new district would \"hamper, delay, or in any manner affect 'desegregation efforts of a school district or distrkts in the State.\" While tht'. PCSSD has supplied information to the Board, the -PCSSD is unaware that the Knight Intcrvenors have been solicited for their input. The Focus Of The Petitioner's New Submissions Is Much Too Nan-ow As .the June 4 lctter explains (and even Mr. Fendley's letter quotes the same language), dest:grcgation includes much more than racial balance from school to school. Accordingly, the Board should look nor only at student assignments, but to every facet of school operations including faculty, staff, transportation, extl'acurricular activities and facilities. (June 4 letter at page 2). While the submissions of the petitioners do touch upon student assignment, faculty and somewhat upon transportation, there is no mention of staff (which is also unionized in the PCSSD) or extracurricular activities. This omission alone is sufficient for this Board to 428244-vl 8 I   1 conclude that insufficient information concerning desegregation in the area of staff and extracurricular activities has been presented. While .the supplemental submissions address current enrollments by school, enrolhnents before and after M-to-M and magnet transfers and deployment .of staff at schools, (all under cenain assumptions about which we will write later), the submission is otherwise largely devoid of analysis and specificity, particularly as it relates to specific matters set forth in the PCSSD's \"Analysis\" previously submitted to this Board. '\\, for instance, there is scant mention of the three specialty schools. in th~ southeast portion of Pulaski County, all of which contain programs which were specifically designed for aml gained Court approval for .desegregation. The supplemental filings simply do not contest the PCSSD calculation that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment  attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills Uniyersity Studies High School, recently recognized as the 201 !, \"best\" high school in the country. }lewsweek, May 2003. (Exhibit 16). Does this Board really want to play a role in undermining one of the most shining success stories in Arkansas .education? el 1 Included as Exhibit 17 is a memor11ndum from Davis Hendricks, the.District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both JacksonviJle High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, .Fuller and Mills progl'ams. 428244-vJ 9 - I  While the supplemental submissions do purport to Cl!lculate enrollment in the / \u0026lt;letachment.schools if M-to-M and magnet transfers ended, Lhey singularly do not provide any analysis as to what affect the lack of such transfers would have not only upon the finances of the PCSSD but upon the schools and finances affected in the NLRSD.and .theLRSD. Although the June 4 letter was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite ~pecific as regards certain areas. As the Allorney General opined: (a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the -PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisjons concerning M.:M students and the Magnet schoolsjh the LRSD. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out thena1ve position that the Federal  District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully enjoined an on-goinJ teacher strike fo .1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of A.ppeals arguing that the union negotiated contract beLwccn lhc PCSSD and .the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court ~d explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953 @ 955 . . Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district . .Is this or js this not pan of their proposed calculus? As the.! 428244-vl 10 - - - - - --- -  PCSSD knows from prior difficult and n-ying circrunst\u0026gt;nccs, many teacliers prefer working in / a district which reco_gnizes a union. I I  e l J The PCSSD \"Analysis\" Revisited Petitioners claim u1at Exhibit 5 in their supplemental submission demonstrates that detachment will not have a negative impact upon the PCSSD. However, even though petitioners purport to have used data obtained from the PCSSD, the PCSSD cannot reconcik its data with chat presented by tne petitioncr.2 For instance, petitioners' Exhibit 5 predicts that the detached school district would have 3,345 elementary students of whom 34.1 % would bt! black. However, the PCSSD .calculates lhat the detached district would have 3,700 elementrtry srudents of wlmm only 32. 7% would be black. (Exhibit 18).. At the secondary level, the petitiom;:rs project 3,750 students of whom 36.6% would be black. While the total number calculated by the PCSSD is similar a.t 3,757, it calculates that ollly 32.4 % of those students would be black. (Exhibit 18). Since the petitioners calculate that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentaie points. Also, while the petitioners project a .total .enrollment of 7,095 students, the PCSSD calculates that the new district would enrolt 7,457 srudents. (Exhibit 18), As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachmem would cause the loss of 124 sLudents and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60% black. (Exhibit 18). It is required to be no more than 50% black. : The PCSSD once a.ga.iu 1ecommends that these discrepancies be .evaluated by the staff of the ADE. 4282M-vl 11 )  l' -! l e l I As we previously projected, 61 students would leave College-Station reducing its enrollment from 215 .to 159. (Exhibit 18) . This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39 % to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceed~d- (Exhibit 18). Court Orders While the petitioners seek to cast doubt upon the over capacity reported for the Sylvan Hills schools, they are either unaware of the fact or.have neglected to inform the Board that as recently as March 25, 2003, the District CoUit noted that: Fur.ther, the Court is jnformed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no Ionger has tho capacity .to .accommodate all 6111 _grade M-to-M students who attended Clintou Interdistrict School through the 5111 grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Mawnelle. (Order, Exhibit 19, at page 2.) Accordingly, the PCSSD supplements its previous Analysis and reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, the Federal Court ruled that: 428244-vl African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato El~mentary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will.remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 20 at page 2.) 12 \\ I  l Of course, the petitioners arc excluding the Brushy lsland students from Cato and are leaving them .to he assigned somewhere in the PCSSD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has .said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority snidents (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of.eff 01t. Of course, if most of the PCSSD nonh of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter, the following statements are made: Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court coo.ld address the problem in a number.of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has .nor revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows smdents residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a tirnc when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A rhir4 option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently addcdnew classrooms at Robinson High.Sc;:hool to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. 428244-vl 13 i  l I I J, e l As to revisingattendancezones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegre_gation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix ic\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would .immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, ifthe PCSSD is compelled Lo build .additional classrooms because of the efforts of the pelitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State'? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact lhat .much of the increase in black enroilment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from- the LRSD. To discontinue or ecn diminish the specialty program, affects not only the; PCSSD but the LRSD as well. F..nrollmcnt The foasibility study at page 1 predicts the new district would contain 5,700 students. Alternative IV predicts 6,578. The supplemental submissions (Exhibit 5) predicts the new district will contain approx.imately 7,500 students if transfers cease. The numbers keep growing and growing. While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain .the .second largest district in the State, it is clear that a comparison of petitioners' Exhibit5 to its \"district size\" exhibit would relegate the PCSSD to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer tban 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33;000 students and was by far the largest school district h1 the State.) 42.SZ44-vl 14  I e l l ! Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and ,car.eer affecting decisions will be unnecessary if this Board finds the petition to be invalid. Further, lhe feasibility study points outthatdensity ofstudents per square mile would improve from 25 in. the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile- in 'the new dislrict. While the feasibility study boasts that this will irnprnve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and .necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted ne_gative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students . The Stipulations The M~to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the Norl.h Little Rock School District, the J,irtle Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before tllese \"agreements\" cm1ld be made operative as to a detaching district. Indeed, as w~ know from the Eig_hth Circuit, a District Coun cannot impose agreements but can only -accept or reject them. 921 .F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further. both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems log.ical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and rc--cxecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the re, negotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to 428244-vJ 15 . I  dctcnnine if !he legislature was Willing l-0 fund tl1i modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. I  Federal-Court An emerging strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as muc~ of the process ar,d decision making as possible to the. Federal District Court often re-assuring this 'Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to 1mpose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in sehoolswhere11one exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court 'is \"only\" to enforce the -SettlemGnt Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it. continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. However, to the extent that the petitioners ,can convince lhis Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\", it can perhaps win the authorization for an election, presumably hay..c ,a successful election followed by a large street party and then show up onthe District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issue!i to be decided. This scenario is not likely to result in a very happy District Court judge. 428244-vl 16  I  I The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone In no shape, .form or fashion does the proposed detachment auempt to follow current Board member 'zoneboundarics. For instance, Zone 5,. from which Board Member Carol Burgett was elected last year, is largely eviscerated. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD. to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. Tliis would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted ~xpense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCSSD. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Board should determine that the petition is invalid and decline to aulhorize an e1ection. 428244-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, .Suite 2.300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376:..9442 -- By ----'-=;,.,,\u0026lt;e---.----:...=-r--f=--- cy Special School 17 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE 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 111 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 McSPADOEN JOHN 0 . DAVIS JJJOY 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 mjoncs@wlj .com July 25, 2003 R5ElYED JUL 2 8 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: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARX DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING Lia::Dsi=d IO pn,cti be\u0026amp;-e tbe UDilt/ Suta hlt:DI ud Tndt:mvt Olfice Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD's fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief, together with supporting memorandum brief and statement of material facts . The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: d,(__ \\ Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Mr. Ray Simon Mr. Scott Smith Mr. Will Bond Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Mark Burnett 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 )-c1.,f \\\u0026lt;J JY7uv{_ JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD for its fourth motion to enforce Settlement Agreement, states: 1. This motion is brought both by the PCSSD and its Board of Directors. The individual directors are named defendants in this action. For purposes of this motion, Directors, Mildred Tatum, Pam Roberts, Don Baker, Jeff Shaneyfeld and Gwen Williams, are moving in both their official and individual capacities because of the equal rights issues asserted herein. 2. This motion is accompanied by a lengthy Statement of Material Facts. The movant respectfully suggests that the reader first examine this Statement for a full and complete context for this motion. 3. On July 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education purportedly acting - pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 , et seq., voted to order an election on September 434830-v1 - 16, 2003, for the purpose of allowing voters in the greater Jacksonville area to consider approval of a ballot measure to detach certain territory from the PCSSD and form a new school district. The statute does not provide for a vote by those residing in other areas of the PCS SD. 4. The statutory scheme, as well as the election which the State has authorized, violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement in this case. This Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State via the Arkansas Department of Education to enforce compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 5. The actions described above violate Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement which states in its entirety: 6. The State, Joshua and 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. [emphasis added] The above-described actions also violate Section ILL of the Settlement Agreement which states in pertinent part that: The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. 7. As the PCSSD will demonstrate, the creation of a \"new\" district as agreed to by the State Board of Education will both \"substantially affect the ability of the district to desegregate\" and will violate Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(2)(b) since the detachment would \"hamper, delay or in any manner negatively affect desegregation efforts\" of the PCSSD. 434830-v1 2 8. The detachment, if successful in the State-authorized scheme, would call upon this Court to recognize a \"new defendant\" in this 20 year old case while the case is in its remedial phase, liability having been long ago established and subsequently settled in the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court should not and cannot embark upon such a slippery slope. Unless or until this case ends, the parties have been established, their liability adjudicated, their differences compromised and settled and a new and different entity should not be introduced to this litigation in the remedial phase. 9. The statute is also unconstitutional because it denies due process and equal protection to those patrons in the PCSSD who do not reside in the area proposed in the petition for detachment and therefore are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote upon the issue. Specifically, Directors Tatum, Williams, Roberts, Shaneyfeld and Baker and all others similarly situated are being denied the opportunity to vote upon the detachment question even though each represents a zone of patrons and voters who will be directly and negatively affected if the detachment is successful. Further, each of them will be negatively affected individually if the detachment proves successful. 10. Discreet provisions of orders of this Court would be violated if the detachment proved successful. For instance, this Court noted on March 25, 2003, that: 434830-v1 Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, Exhibit 22 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) 3 However, if the detachment proved successful, several hundred students who currently attend Cato and other schools in the area proposed for detachment would, in the eyes of the petitioners, be reassigned to the several Sylvan Hills schools. Simply stated, there is no room for these students, many of whom are black and no feasible alternative exists for reassignment that does not involve a significant bus ride. 11. The detachment, if successful, would also negatively impact this Court's order of January 28, 2003, which stated in pertinent part that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 23 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) The detachment would leave the Brushy Island students in the residual PCSSD but would take Cato from the PCSSD. The petitioners propose that these students be reassigned to Sylvan Hills as well. However, there is simply no room for these mainly black students and they would face a long bus ride somewhere. 12. Sylvan Hills has proven to be a popular destination for M-to-M students from Little Rock. Obviously, the detachment would place all of the Sylvan Hills schools well over capacity. Since the M-to-M stipulation specifies that M-to-M students can only be accepted on a space available basis, it is likely that all current M-to-M students would have to be evicted from Sylvan Hills if the detachment proved successful. 13. The detachment would artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCS SD to a majority black school district, facilitating the State's inevitable argument that, at such a point, 434830-v1 4 - M-to-M funding should end. The State should not be permitted to effect such an artificial change in enrollment percentages. 14. Mills University Studies High School was recently recognized by Newsweekas the twentieth \"best\" high school in the country. This is a remarkable achievement for any Arkansas school. However, if the detachment proves successful, approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment would no longer qualify for transfer to College Station, Fuller Middle and Mills. These three schools are among the centerpieces of Plan 2000 and previous desegregation plans and this Court should not tolerate an action that would likely wreck these successful desegregation programs. 15. If successful, the detachment would work a substantial negative impact upon the current employee force in the PCS SD. The PCS SD calculates it would have to undergo a reduction in force of approximately 475 employees. Since seniority controls such a reduction, the PCSSD would be left with an artificially senior teacher corps and with an artificially imposed salary schedule that would be top heavy in the highest paid teachers. Such an outcome would work a substantial financial hardship upon the PCSSD and interfere with its ability to desegregate. 16. Such a reduction in force would also artificially make the residual PCSSD teacher force whiter than it currently is since the PCSSD has been aggressive the past several years in hiring young minority teachers. These would be the first to be laid off in a reduction in force. 17. If the detachment were successful, Clinton Elementary would lose 124 students and would move from being 55 % black to 60 % black. 434830-v1 5 18. College Station would lose 61 students reducing its enrollment from 215 students to 159. This would also artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. 19. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972. The building capacity is only 925. Even if they could be accommodated, this infusion of students would increase the enrollment from 39 % black to 45 % black. 20. The detachment, if successful, would reduce the student population in the PCSSD to only approximately 10,500 students. It would change it from the second largest district in the State to only the sixth largest district. With a reduction in enrollment of approximately 7,500 students, the PCSSD would be substantially reduced in its capability to send and receive M-to-M students and to send magnet students to the stipulation magnets. 21. The current student density per square mile in the PCSSD is 25 students per square mile. The detachers calculate that the new district would improve this density to 53 students per square mile in the new district. Logically, however, the current density of 25 students per square mile in the current PCSSD would be significantly reduced leading to longer and less efficient transportation of students in the residual PCSSD and likely imposing an artificial and unwarranted busing burden upon black students. 22. The State Board granted the petition and in its subsequent order for elections based its decision largely upon \"the petitioners' willingness to seek, accept, and comply fully with any and all additional orders and requirements that might be imposed by the Federal Court ... \". The PCSSD submits that that which petitioners seek is legally impossible, particularly as respects the agreements entered into in this case. For instance, the M-to-M 434830-v1 6 - stipulation, the magnet stipulation and the 1989 Settlement Agreement are just that. They are agreements entered among the current parties and this Court cannot \"impose\" those agreements upon a new entity. Rather, all of the parties would have to consent and presumably the legislature would have to concur. 23. As the Court of Appeals has explained, the current jurisdiction of this Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans. The detachment statute is an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. The PCSSD knows of no precedent for this effort. 24. This motion is brought now because the action of the State Board in authorizing the election has created a clear and current case or controversy. Since the effects of a detachment are palpable and provable, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction now to end an effort which violates the Settlement Agreement and would work a manifest injury upon the ability of the PCSSD to carry out its Court approved plans and obligations and would have significant adverse outcomes financially and enrollment wise upon the other parties to this case. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter its order finding that the Settlement Agreement has been violated or that the detachment would work an impermissible negative affect upon the PCSSD's efforts to desegregate and comply with Court orders and agreements entered into with the other parties. For all of these reasons, this Court should enter its order directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election. 434830-v1 7 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 Att Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 25, 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 434830-v1 8 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 Roach ell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 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 434830-v1 9 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 J 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. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FOURTII MOTION TO ENFORCE SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF REf,1~0 JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Simply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which the State Board of Education is a signatory, precludes any such usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence, as would result from the detachment the State recently authorized. It is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to insure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as well as the settlement plans. (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 2, Docket No. 2337). The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: 435830-v1 The State, Joshua and 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. [emphasis added] This language, which remains operative, was not some idle boilerplate or filler. Indeed, as we will explain further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after the State bad first reached agreement with the LRSD and  then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. (Exhibit 2). Further, there was then a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this negotiated language which, while it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. (Exhibits 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14). It should thus be clear that Section II J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSD) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear. Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also against any new usurpation of its territory, facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the early phases of this case. Absent this promise by the State, it had no logical reason to join the settlement. Were it to be either consolidated or carved up into pieces, it would have no reason to settle. While it is clear that many in the legislature and those \"commenting on the scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter (Exhibit 16), generated as part of the proceedings before the State Board, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, he noted 435830-v1 2 that no such language was presented as regards the PCS SD or the NLRSD. As the Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within the PCSSD, or (b) the parties specifically intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a party to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct analysis because of the presence of Section II J. On the same page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a school district under supervision, at least not without the consent of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this particular case, the parties with standing to object would be the State itself, the three Pulaski County districts, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors. Section II L. The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was to minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release of all claims for all violations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful claims by the school districts for departures from the Settlement Agreement, (Statement 1s 20, 21, 22 and 23) it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a claim or contention that it has violated the constitution or 435830-v1 3 enacted statutes which either promote segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in Arkansas law. As counsel for the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is prohibited by law from approving any petition for detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negatively affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts in this state.\" (Exhibit 16) Indeed, it would appear that the legislature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] Districts to desegregate.\" By ultimately approving a new school district, the State will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its obligation to fund M-to-M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) If and when this day comes, the financial consequences to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. 1 After each legislative session, the ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the other Pulaski districts, to identify new legislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affect its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by letter dated April 26, 2002, that it believed the detachment statute at issue would negatively affect its desegregation efforts. 435830-v1 4 This Court has consistently reiterated the proposition that: \"A party may not unilaterally change the implementation or language of an agreement or order without the prior approval of the Court and/or the consent of the parties.\" (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 10, Docket No. 2337). The State of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The Court reminds the State of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the State's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation. The swiftest and surest way out of the federal court is to abide by the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, and this includes following proper procedures for modification of the settlement. (Emphasis in the original) (Order dated January 13, 1995, at pages 16, 17, Docket No. 2337). The Equal Protection Claim Under the new detachment statute, when part of a school district attempts to detach itself from the school district, and become its own entity, a majority vote of only the voters in the area to be detached is permitted. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3)(C). This provision is clearly unconstitutional and denies equal protection of the laws to those voters remaining in the original school district who are not allowed to vote even though they will be materially affected by detachment. The United States Supreme Court has stated that if a state statute is challenged on the grounds that it grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters, but denies it to others, then the court must be called upon to determine whether the exclusion from the election is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Kramer v. 435830-v1 5 Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 633 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704 (1969). The Kramer court went further to point out, that when the State's sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides merely a reasonable basis upon which to determine which voters have a special interest in the outcome of the election, then the statute fails to meet the \"exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise .\" Kramer, 395 U.S. at 632. In determining whether there has been a violation of the equal protection clause, the court's attention should be focused on two inquiries: (1) whether there is a genuine difference in interests among the two groups that the State has created, and (2) if so, whether any resulting increase . in voting strength of one group over the other amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Town of Lockport, N. Y. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action At - the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 268 (1976). In several cases the Supreme Court has allowed the electorate of a special-purpose unit of government to be apportioned to give more weight to a certain sector which is found to be most affected by the government unit's functions. Id. at 266. But, as Kramer points out, the classification of voters into \"interested\" and \"non-interested\" groups must be reasonably precise, and the State must have a compelling state interest that the statute, and its classification of voters, furthers. Kramer, 395 U.S. at 633. Several United State Supreme Court cases demonstrate these principles. For example, in Kramer the court found it was unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection to restrict the voting in a school board election to either those people who paid property taxes or rented homes, or to those people who had children enrolled in the schools. Id. The court applied 435830-v1 6 - heightened scrutiny, and reasoned that this distinction among voters was not necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The court did not afford the usual presumption of constitutionality to this election statute. Presumptions of constitutionality for statutes are based on the premise that the state governments are structured to fairly represent people. Id. at 628. But, when the challenge to the statute is basically a challenge of the basic premise, the premise can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. Id. Additionally, the court in Kramer pointed out that the statute defining who could vote in school board elections was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, because it was simultaneously too over inclusive both as well as too under inclusive. Id. at 632. The court stated that these election criteria excluded \"senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; military personnel, and others who live on tax exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither lease nor own qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school; and parents who neither own nor lease property and whose children attend private school.\" Id. at 630. Further, the Supreme Court in Cipriano, decided that a Louisiana statute conferring the right to vote in bond issuance elections only to those people who paid property taxes was unconstitutional as denying equal protection. Cipriano, 395 U.S. at 704. Just as in Kramer, the Cipriano court pointed out that when the vote, in a special purpose election, is given to some people, but denied to others then the court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The Cipriano court also noted that it is unconstitutional to deny the vote to some people because of the way the members of that group might vote. Id. at 705. 435830-v1 7 Similar to the voting classifications drawn in Kramer and Cipriano, the Arkansas statute which only allows voters in the area to be detached to vote in the detachment proceedings, and denies the vote to those in the remaining area is unconstitutional, because the statute offends the notion of \"one person, one vote.\" By denying interested and affected voters the right to vote, the state is ultimately denying equal protection of the laws to those who are not allowed to vote in this school district election. This distinction of the voters does not further a compelling state interest, and is therefore unconstitutional.2 First, as indicated by the Kramer court, this statute should not be given a presumption of constitutionality because the challenge to the statute is to the basic premise that the laws are created by a fair process. Because the process is being challenged in this case, the usual presumption of constitutionality cannot be afforded. Therefore, in analyzing whether there has been an equal protection violation the court must focus on whether there is a genuine difference of interests among the two groups the state has created, and if so whether the resulting increase in voter strength in one of the groups amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. Since the Arkansas statute allows only those people residing in the area to be detached the vote, one gets no further than the first step under this analysis. There 2 Indeed, the principal interest being endorsed by the State in this instance is to apply detachment only to the PCSSD. As we noted in our State Court complaint (Exhibit 20), the detachment provision applies by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district. Thus, is not even dealing with \"special purpose elections\" Statewide but only to one that is limited to the PCSSD. Stated another way, to the extent that others in other school districts might wish detachment, there is no statutory provision available to them to seek it. The detachment statutes apply neither to the largest district in the State, middle sized districts or the smallest. It applies only to the PCSSD. 435830-v1 8 is no real and distinct difference, and certainly not a compelling difference, in the interests between those in the Jacksonville area and those remaining in the Pulaski County Special School District. The state must have a compelling reason or justification for distinguishing between those wanting to be detached and those who would remain from the original school district. It is not enough to say that distinguishing them in this manner is for purposes of determining who is interested or affected by the election and who is not. The residents of the PCSSD who do not seek to be detached have a real and palpable interest in the matter of the detachment, yet they are being denied the right to vote in the election. If Jacksonville were to detach, this would have a definite and immediate impact on the processes and operations of the other schools that would remain in the PCSSD. School funding, transportation and busing, teacher school assignments, and student assignments would most certainly be affected. The school district would have to immediately reconfigure its processes, resources and operations. Therefore, as a result of the sudden impact the detachment would have on the entire PCS SD, it is disingenuous to claim that those residing in the area that would remain the PCSSD are not interested or affected by this vote. Further, this distinction the State has made is not so precise as to satisfy the exacting standard set forth in Kramer. Just as in Kramer, this election statute is not narrowly tailored to achieving the goal of franchising those people interested or affected by the vote. The statute is over inclusive in the sense that it allows people in Jacksonville to vote that have, at best, a remote or indirect interest and are not affected by the school detachment election whatsoever. For example, a senior citizen residing in Jacksonville with no children, and no more children 435830-v1 9 expected in their lifetime are allowed to vote in this school detachment election. A single airman with no children living in base housing during a two year assignment may vote. On the other hand the statute is under inclusive because it denies the right to vote to those people in the PCSSD who do not live in the Jacksonville area and who would be severely affected by the outcome of the election, such as those people with children currently attending a school in the PCSSD particularly schools such as College Station, Fuller and Mills whose very programs are threatened by the detachment. This distinction is not made with the precision necessary to safeguard equal protection of the law. Negative Impact Upon Desegregation Although the June 4 letter of the Attorney General was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite specific as regards certain areas. As the Attorney General opined: [a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the 435830-v1 PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisions concerning M-M students and the Magnet schools in the LRSD. The Court of Appeals has previously succinctly explained the M-to-M arrangement: M-to-M students are peculiar to the districts that are parties to the Settlement Agreement. They are students who are of the majority race in their home districts, and who voluntarily transfer to .another Pulaski County district where they are of the minority race. The State, by way of a funding formula contained in the Settlement Agreement, compensates both the home district and the receiving district for each M-to-M student. The home, or sending, district receives one-half of the state aid that it would have received if the student had remained in the district, while the receiving, or host, district receives the full cots of educating the student. (United States Court of Appeals, No. 95-1481EA, Docket No. 2718, Opinion filed May 15, 1996). 10 The three specialty schools in the southeast portion of Pulaski County all contain programs which were specifically designed for and gained Court approval for desegregation. The PCSSD calculates that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills University Studies High School, recently recognized as the 20th \"best\" high school in the country. Newsweek, May 2003. Included as Exhibit 17 is a memorandum from Davis Hendricks, the District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both Jacksonville High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, Fuller and Mills programs. The PCS SD calculates that the detached district would have 3, 700 elementary students of whom only 32.7% would be black. At the secondary level, the PCSSD calculates an enrollment of 3,757 and that only 32.4% of those students would be black. Since the petitioners calculated that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentage points. The PCSSD calculates that the new district would enroll 7,457 students. Individual Schools As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachment would cause the loss of 124 students and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60 % black. It is required to be no more than 50 % black. 435830-v1 11 Clinton is an inter-district school. The Court of Appeals has specifically stated that one of the elements of the Settlement Agreement it considers to be crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved, is the operation of the agreed number of inter-district schools according to the agreed timetable. (Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F .2d 253,256 (8th Cir. 1991)). The PCSSD projects that 61 students would leave College Station reducing its enrollment from 215 to 159. This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39% to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceeded. Court Orders As recently as March 25, 2003, this Court noted that: Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, March 25, 2003) Accordingly, the PCSSD reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. 435830-v1 12 Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, this Court ruled that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, January 28, 2003). However, the petitioners are excluding the Brushy Island students from Cato and are leaving them to be assigned somewhere in the PCS SD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority students (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of effort. Of course, if most of the PCSSD north of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter (Exhibit 17), the following statements are made: 435830-v1 Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court could address the problem in a number of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has not revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 13 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows students residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a time when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A third option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently added new classrooms at Robinson High School to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. As to revising attendance zones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegregation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, if the PCS SD is compelled to build additional classrooms because of the - efforts of the petitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact that much of the increase in black enrollment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from the LRSD. To discontinue or even diminish the specialty program, affects not only the PCSSD but the LRSD as well. Enrollment While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain the second largest district in the State, the PCSSD calculates it would be relegated to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer than 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation 435830-v1 14 case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33,000 students and was by far the largest school district in the State.) Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and career affecting decisions are simply unnecessary. Further, the feasibility study (Exhibit 15 at page 39) points out that density of students per square mile would improve from 25 in the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile in the new district. While the feasibility study boasts that this will improve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted negative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students. Strong Precedent Supports The PCSSD Position Many unsuccessful efforts to detach from districts operating pursuant to desegregation orders litter the legal landscape in this jurisprudence. The latest appears to be Lee vs. Chambers County Board of Education, 849 F.Supp. 1474, (M.D.Ala. 1994). The case is an outgrowth of Lee vs. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.Ala.) (threejudge court), aff'd sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215, 88 S.Ct. 415, 19 L.Ed.2d 422 (1967). In that case, a three-judge district court ordered Alabama's local school districts, including Chambers County and Lanett City, to disestablish their racially segregated - and discriminatory systems. 435830-v1 15 While the Lee case is procedurally and statutorily complicated, it does bear remarkable similarities to the case at bar. By 1990, the City of Valley, located within Chambers County, had become frustrated with the Chambers County Board of Education believing it had ignored requests to improve the schools in the City of Valley. Id. at 1478. The City of Valley attempted to form its own separate school district which was opposed by the county. Among the complaints of the City of Valley was that the county enrollment had been declining, that historically there had been a tension between the Valley area and the rest of the county, and that no new facilities had been built in the Valley area since the early 1980s. As part of its proposal to create its separate school system, Valley agreed to abide by any orders of the Court which orders are designed to assure that such a system will not impede the desegregation process in Chambers County. It also committed itself to operate a totally integrated system including utilizing existing attendance zones. Id. Valley considered at least three options for configuring the district but chose Option 1 because it would leave existing attendance zones intact, cause the least student disruption, allow children to attend schools they or their parents had historically attended and effect no changes in the remaining schools. Id. at 1485. Among the factors that were not considered by Valley was the affect upon children having special educational needs, the Court pointing out that these costs are not fully funded from State or Federal sources and that the local cost for these programs can be a substantial burden. 435830-v1 16 We note that Jacksonville has performed no such analysis in this case either, even though the PCSSD facilities for children with multi handicapping conditions are all located in schools proposed for detachment. As the Court noted in Lee. (Id. at 1490) If the court permits the Valley district to operate, the Chambers County district would have to equip and operate special education programs now offered only at schools in the Valley area, such as the pre-school handicapped student program at Fairfax Elementary School and the gifted student program at Fairfax Elementary School. After a long discussion of the facts and the law, the Court finally came down to the issue of \"Practicability\". Beginning at page 1498, the Court explained that: (Id. at 1498) (Id. at 1498) 435830-v1 The court must also consider whether Valley's proposal introduces a level of complexity to the desegregation process in Chambers County that is so great that it will itself be an impediment to the speedy and effective elimination of the remaining vestiges of the dual school system. Valley takes the position that the ongoing desegregation process in the Chambers County school district will not be affected adversely by its establishment and independent operation as a separate system because any issues that may arise can be negotiated between the school systems, resolved by the State Superintendent of Education, or be determined by this court. Thus, at a time when Chambers County school authorities should be devoting their energies and attention to implementing the recent Orders of this court and to devising and implementing the comprehensive blueprint for final constitutional compliance as agreed by the parties and that is required by the 1993 Agreed Order, if operation of a Valley district were permitted, they would instead be enmeshed in negotiations, state administrative 17 (Id. at 1499) - (Id. at 1499) (Id. at 1500) proceedings, and possible further appearances before this court to resolve disputed matters. If the City of Valley is permitted to operate a separate and independent system, these efforts-and the progress of the Chambers County public schools toward unitary status-will become far more complex. For example, each teacher assignment decision presently is affected by current assignments throughout the existing Chambers County school district. To the extent that full constitutional compliance has not been attained-and it currently has not been attained at the time a separate Valley district begins operations, both school systems will share in the responsibility for achieving the original goal of having racially non-identifiable faculties among all of other schools that either operates. If the districts operate independently, however, ensuring the realization of this goal will inevitably cause friction and ultimately involve this court in a level of detailed supervision and administration of local schools that would be unwieldy and unwise. The court finds that the introduction of an independent decisionmaking body (a new school district) in the midst of the desegregation process in Chambers County will greatly complicate planning and implementation of measures necessary for constitutional compliance, will increase the potential for conflict, will be likely to involve this court in an unnecessarily detailed level of supervision and administration (thus displacing local control), and ultimately will impede the County's progress toward a unitary system from which all vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated. In its conclusions of law, the Court appropriately traced the cases from the United States Supreme Court which culminate in the lead decision: 435830-v1 Over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court firmly established the test which must be applied in situations such as this: 18 435830-v1 We have today held that any attempt by state of local officials to carve out a new school district from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system \"must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.\" United States v. Scottland Neck Bd. of Educ., 401 U.S. 484, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 2217, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972) (citing Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 401 U.S. 451 , 460, 92 S. Ct. 2196, 2202, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972)). In Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, the city which wished to form and operate a splinter school district made much the same argument as that of Valley here: ... Emporia advances arguments that a separate system is necessary to achieve quality education for city residents, and that it is unfair in any event to force the city to continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of the character of its arrangement with the county, has very little control. Id. at 467, 92 S.Ct. at 2205. The Supreme Court's answer to that argument must guide the court in its decision in the case at bar: The District Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for segregation in the entire city-county system could not property allow the city to make its part of that system more attractive where such a result would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining in the county. Id. at 468, 92 S.Ct. at 2206. The year before, the Fifth Circuit had dealt with the issue of a splinter school district in a case involving Alabama splinters (Pleasant Grove, Vestavia, Midfield and Homewood) withdrawing from their parent (Jefferson County). Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Ed., 448 F .2d 403 (5th Cir., 1971 (\"Stout I\") [FN26] The court held: .. . [W]here the formulation of splinter school districts, albeit validly created under state law, have the effect of 19 435830-v1 thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, the district court may not ... recognize their creation. Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). On remand, the district court ordered the splinter districts to accept a proper role in the desegregation of the county system. This was affirmed on appeal, Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 466 F2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1972) (\"Stout II\"), cert. denied, sub nom., Stripling v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1361, 35 L.Ed.2d 589 (1973), with the Fifth Circuit holding that legally created splinter school districts could be disregarded if their existence thwarted implementation of a unitary school system in the county as a whole. The court went on to say that courts should not remove local control indefinitely and that sovereignty should be returned to a splinter district when the splinter demonstrates \"by clear and convincing evidence\" that it is able and intends to comply with the court's orders concerning its role in the desegregation of the county school district. Id. at 1215. Valley argues that the latter holding in Stout II should cause this court to authorize it to operate a separate school system because it has pledged to the court that it would follow any order which the court might issue as to the role which the Valley district should play in assisting to complete desegregation of the schools in Chambers County. Valley also emphasizes its commitment to operate an integrated system, even hopefully a \"model\" system, within its new district for the benefit of children of all races. While the court accepts the sincerity of Valley's officer, accepts Valley's assurance that it intends to operate a fully integrated school system that would be eligible to be adjudged a unitary system if judged along, and accepts Valley's commitment that it has no intention to impede the progress of desegregation in the county system, this begs the real issue. As the Supreme Court has stated, \"[t]he existence of a permissible purpose cannot sustain any action that has an impermissible effect.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 462, 92 S.Ct. at 2203. The issue here is not whether Valley could create a fully integrated unitary system for itself, or whether Valley is willing to accept a role in desegregating the county system. The basic issue before the court is whether a separate Valley system can be operated at this time, even accepting whatever role the court might assign it, in a way which does not impede the final dismantling of a dual school system in Chambers County. (Id. at 1500, 1501). 20 (Id. at 1502) (Id. at 1503) (Id. at 1503) The court has carefully considered Valley's proposals. Although it has expressed preferences, Valley has suggested several alternatives designed to address the various Green factors, all of which it is willing to accept. And, while the burden of proof is properly on Valley, the court has struggled with Valley's request that it \"mandate a desegregation plan that incorporates, recognizes and accommodates the existence of and in turn operation of a city school system by the Valley City Board of Education.\" (Brief in Support of Amended Petition to Intervene on Behalf of the Valley City Board of Education and the City of Valley, Alabama.). The court has concluded that it cannot be done at this time. What we must all seek -- the parties, the lawyers, and the court -is to finally remedy the constitutional violations created by the old state-imposed system of segregated schools to the end that the federal courts no longer have to supervise the operation of the public schools of Chambers County, not to adopt a patchwork approach which depends on continued court involvement to make it work. The facts in this case impel the court to the inevitable conclusion that this ultimate objective for the Chambers County schools would be impeded by the operation of a Valley school system at this time. Accordingly, the court will deny Valley's request to operate as a separate school district. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out the naive position that the Federal District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. (Exhibit 17 at 8). This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully 435830-v1 21 enjoined an on-going teacher strike in 1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals arguing that the union negotiated contract between the PCSSD and the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court and explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953@ 955. Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district. Is this or is this not part of their proposed calculus? As the PCSSD knows from prior difficult and trying circumstances, many teachers prefer working in a district which recognizes a union. The Stipulations The M-to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the North Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before these \"agreements\" could be made operative in a detaching district. Indeed, as we know from the Eighth Circuit, a District Court cannot impose agreements but can only accept or reject them. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further, both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems logical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and reexecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the renegotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to determine if the legislature was willing to fund this modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth 435830-v1 22 Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone Zones 4 and 5 would be completely removed from the PCSSD. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. This would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted expense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCS SD. Time has yet to permit an analysis as to the effect such rezoning would have upon those protected by the Voting Rights Act if detachment was successful. Federal Court The strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as much of the process and decision - making as possible to the Federal District Court often re-assuring the State Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to impose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in schools where none exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court is \"only\" to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. 435830-v1 23 However, petitioners successfully convinced the Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\" , and won authorization for the election. Presuming a successful election followed by a large street party, the new district would then show up on the District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issues to be decided. This scenario is not calculated to advance the ultimate resolution of the case and should be ended now. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should determine that the statutes violate the Settlement Agreement, are an unconstitutional denial of equal protection, and will negatively impact desegregation and the ultimate resolution of this case. 435830-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 '-y)7 ' ?~ ~0~ M. _Srunuel Jones III (769 0) A-ifurneys 'or Pulaski c6un Special School strict 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ;25, 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. 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 Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 435830-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. 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 M.S~nesII( 25 .. I  II II II II II  I I I I I I 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. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS History of the Settlement Agreement RE?L~D JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. 1982. The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1376. 2. 1985. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1377. 3. 1985. This boundary adjustment caused PCSSD to lose fourteen schools and over one-third of its tax base. 4. Late 1988. Initial settlement discussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376. 5. January 12, 1989. Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District schools . (Exhibit 1) 434696-v1 I   I 1:  .- 1  I I I I .. I I 6. January 31, 1989. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed settlement. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain the agreement of the other parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Board, PCSSD and NLRSD.\" (Exhibit 2) 7. February 9, 1989. The State hires the national law firm of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. (Exhibit 3) 8. February 14, 1989. Counsel for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J . (Exhibit 4) 9. March 1989. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section II J. (Exhibit 5) It is submitted to the legislature for funding . 10. March 3, 1989. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the Arkansas Gazette notes that: \"A key provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain 'independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\" (Exhibit 6) 11. March 7, 1989. The Arkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made public because of the complexity of the issues. (Exhibit 7) 12. March 11, 1989. In explaining the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it's going to fall apart and unravel in 100 434696-v1 2 I   I I I  I I I I I I -~ I different ways.\" In the same article, Senator Max Howell noted he did not want to vote for the settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I understand the small print.\" (Exhibit 8) 13. March 12, 1989. One statewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, opined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" (Exhibit 9) 14. March 16, 1989. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but adds an amendment asking the Federal Courts to consider four changes in the settlement including: \"Disapproval of language that would retain the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope the Court would be aware that we in the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" (Exhibit 10) The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, and the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the Special Master) apparently shared that concern.\" (Exhibit 10) 15. March 18, 1989. Press reports described II J as one of the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. (Exhibit 11) 16. March 24, 1989. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the vote to fund the settlement in this case, I was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your 434696-v1 3       I I I . I  I ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were duly considered by the parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . . . Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters.\" (Exhibit 12) A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached as (Exhibit 13) . 17. March 31, 1989. Counsel for the AEA informs Mr. Friday that they object to removing any of the items from the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 14) 18. December 11 , 1989. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549 . 19. December 12, 1990. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should have been approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160@ 164, 165 . Previous Efforts To Enforce Violations Of The Settlement Agreement 20. At least three times during the decade of the 1990s, the Pulaski districts were forced to sue the State to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 21. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects Workers' Compensation payments due the three Pulaski districts. (Docket No. 2337). This order was affirmed on appeal. 22. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects \"loss funding\" for M-to-M students (Docket No. 2337) and the financial award was affirmed on appeal. 23. Later, the District Court rules that the State has violated the Settlement Agreement as respects reimbursement for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 434696-v1 4 I  I I I I I I II I  l _i I . I . I le I the three Pulaski districts. This matter was subsequently settled and the three districts continue to receive these payments to this day. The Detachment Effort 24. 2001. The General Assembly enacts ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. Representatives of the PCSSD testify against the measure. The statute permits detachment under specified circumstances but only for districts with an average membership of at least 15,000 students but not more than 20,000 students. The PCSSD is the only district in the State of Arkansas which fits this criterion. 25. November 21, 2002. A so-called feasibility study for forming an independent school district in Northeast Pulaski County detached from The Pulaski County Special School District is completed. (Exhibit 15) 26. The study examines three alternative areas for detachment and concludes at page 39 that Alternative I be selected. (Exhibit 15) 27. February 25, 2003. An \"Addendum\" to the feasibility study is completed and is inserted in the back of the November 21, 2002, study behind page 89, the concluding page of the November study. (Exhibit 15) 28. March, 2003. A petition drive is commenced, subsequently concluded and petitions are delivered on May 19, 2003, to the Arkansas Department of Education. 29. April 15, 2003. The Legislature approves an amendment to ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. adding a criterion allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of 700 square miles or more. The Pulaski district, at 726 square miles, is the only district which meets this criterion. 434696-v1 5        ,      le I I 30. May 30, 2003 . Carolyn Staley certifies that the petition has sufficient signatures. 31. June 4, 2003. The Attorney General's office, as required by this statutory scheme, renders an opinion but states he is unable to clearly opine as to whether or not the statutory requirements have been met because of the lack of information in the feasibility study. (Exhibit 16) 32. June 9, 2003. The State Board of Education conducts a hearing on the detachment petition but delays action. It instructs the petitioners to \"answer the questions\" raised by the Attorney General and to submit that information to the Attorney General's office so that the Attorney General may issue a \"definitive\" opinion on the issue. 33 . June 27, 2003 . The petitioners deliver their supplemental materials to the State Board and to the Attorney General's office including an opinion from an attorney regarding the affects or lack thereof upon desegregation. (Exhibit 17) 34. July 11, 2003. The Attorney General issues a new opinion which, while still highly qualified in many respects, opines that the petition could be granted if certain findings are made. (Exhibit 18) 35. July 11, 2003 . The State Board of Education, in the afternoon, gives notice that it has scheduled a hearing to take up this matter again on July 14, 2003. 36. The PCSSD objects to the timing of the meeting and the lack of notice. (Exhibit 19) 37. July 14, 2003 . The State Board of Education conducts another hearing and votes unanimously to authorize an election on the detachment issue. 434696-v1 6 I le I I I I I I I -I I I I I I  I I 38. 39. July 16, 2003. The State Board issues its \"Order for Election\". (Exhibit 20) July 24, 2003 . The PCSSD files suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court arguing that the Detachment Statute is unconstitutional and that the petition is invalid. (Exhibit 21) 434696-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 7 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July J.(io03 , 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. 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. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 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. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE II On July.2~003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the  following :  II   I I I  I I 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 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 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. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Eaucation JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville Ma~- Rebick u;7:'ffock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia REl, ... .-vED JUL 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF Arkansas D EGREGATIOH MONITORING Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 July 28, 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:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month ofJuly 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ia~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 9 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF 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 July 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~ 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 July __ , 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 j.1aL~ Smit IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIF~SEGREGATION MONITORING 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. Us_!:! 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 July 31 , 2003 l@b.!iiij1w:~b.~ffii:;~~ii!ir~B~Jli~f.~'2'-i9.ailii!li!l:ifYt.~t~d.\\ffi~ 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 July 31, 2003 ~lt.\\i;ie~iil~i~tlll\u0026amp;.i:1ir\u0026amp;liifi4nif;.$.QJ~i\u0026gt;.O~;Iif.i~:.A:t.li;\\~I~.a:r~:i~:tj_fq,r.;;fX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1i~~~-~~91i::g91t~E~t~.td~.Yti9'0:;2.f~~I~;:~!J~.!\\~~'tr2.t\\.\"'E;~nfffri:ef1.9.f.~.6X:q?/.9~-w.~re 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 July 31, 2003 ~1'9\\1~ Bi~~{~!~flilj~;i~f \u0026amp;iliklr40g:9.?lti'.ai~c(a(::JlJH~::3.0}~'bo~.f.off.Y 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Little Rock Division Eastern District of Arkansas JUL 3 0 2003 NOTICE JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ __,,=~- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff vs. Case No.: 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Defendant ******************************************************************* Type of Case: CIVIL ** ****** ***************************** *** *************************** TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date and time set forth below: ******************************************************************* Place: U. S . Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Ave., Room 431 72201 Date: MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 A.M. *- **************************************************************** Type of Proceeding: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HEARING ******************************************************************* Presiding Judge : BILL WILSON ******************************************************************* Instructions: ******************************************************************* James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court r By: JOHNSON Deput c9 Counsel of Record Dated: 07/30/03 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Fit1: ~-- tAsr~1:it g\\SiR1cr P STR1cr A2!J~, '\"\"NSAs JUL 3 0 20u3 JAMES W By:  McCORMACK - , CLERK UPDATE ON THE REDESIGN OF HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEEPCLERi,; REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT July 30, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor    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_1083","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":["2003-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--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/1083"],"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.\nREC::IVED JUL 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting July 2003 n~  ::O i= ~ ...\ni:: Oz o\u0026gt;\na::O c-\u0026lt; m-., ::a C: -z\nan o-\u0026lt; .- i5 r-z ncn ~ I. 11. 111. 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 July 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education Program - New Partnerships Woodruff Elementary School - Janice Wilson Perfecting Community Development Corporation - Marchell Seawood Perfecting New Life Church - Rev. Kevin Allen C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update/ Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Update: Mitchell \u0026amp; Rightsell E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Human Resources Report: Recruitment \u0026amp; Selection of New Teachers (\")~ :,,.\n:o ,r.-...~_ ... !I: Oz Q),,\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-n\n:o C: -z\n:on o,.... -c\u0026lt;5 ,....z (\") U\u0026gt; ~ Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MA TIERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - June 26, 2003 Special Meeting - July 2, 2003 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Grant Proposal: Advanced Placement Incentive Program B. Revised Strategic Plan C. Resolution: MSAP Grant D. 2002-03 SAT-9 Results VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School B. Financial Report VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT c-,-., \n:o ~ ~ ... i: Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-..\n:o C: -z\non 0 ... ,-15 ,- z ncn ~ .., ~ m C C: ~ ~ m ill r\u0026gt; Cc-,\n.,=l ... p:\nj \u0026gt;_mz mu, ~8 !j!I c: m \u0026gt;Z.... en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS COMMENTS 0. CTA / E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 July 24, 2003 Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education Don Stewart, 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 school and business have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnership: Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting Community Development Corporation Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Church XI \u0026gt; mc3 IX\u0026gt; XI o-. \u0026gt;~ XI c-, Oo EE mE Ee IXIZ mt\"i ill~ 0z u, Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life/Westside Church have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life/Westside Church commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the church for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 CD\n,:, o .... \u0026gt;$!!\n,:,C') Co :I:\nc m\nc\nc C: CD Z mc\"i ~~ 0z en C: -co.c ~C') .m. zo\nc en =l .... C')~ :CC') m--\u0026lt; !\n=iii ~ Rl ::c c3 gt~ I= Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Sponsor a Community Day in the Woodruff neighborhood  Help Woodruff families with needed referrals to social service organizations  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the CDC for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 a,\n,:, 0-4 \u0026gt;S!!\n,:,(\") Co ii::!:: m:1:: ii:: C: a,z ml'\n~~ 0z Cl) C: -co.c ~(\") .m. zo :=1I ::..\"..' (\")~ ::CC\") m-1 F o ,z\n,:,\n,c c:\nm :::c c3 ~~ F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DATE: July 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Board of Director~ Donald M. Stew~erim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: July 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that bids will be taken July 23rd on the addition to Southwest Middle School. I will give you an update on the results of the bidding at the Board meeting. The interior renovation of Baseline Elementary project was bid July 10 1h  The contract has been awarded to the low bidder, and construction will start soon. The project will be completed in July 2004. The drawings for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary have been completed, and the bids for the construction will be received on July 29 1h  The new building will be completed during the summer of 2004. In addition to the attached information, Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give an oral update at the Board meeting on the plan to renovate Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me if you have any questions. My telephone number is 447-1146. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 ~ ::0 m c3 ~ ::r:: C: ~z ::0 m ~ C: ~ emn !X' \"D m ::0 ~z z ,m... !'\" .z... m ::o~ mc3,\u0026gt;...\no\u0026gt; .... C: C =1 0 ::0 en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 t::st. c.\nompIet1on Date Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-03 Dec-05 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Feb-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 t::st. c.\nompletton Date Dec-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. ~ompteuon 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 Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown ~\n,:, m \"D 0 ~ ::c C: I: z\n,:, m g ill m V, !11\nl:l\n,:, is z z m I'\"' !'\" .z.... m\n,:,!l!l ~m,....\n,:,\u0026gt; ..... C: 0 a\n,:, V, =....\". Pl ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting I $82,QQQ I Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system I Bale Partial roof replacement I $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement I $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est. Completion Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 p ~ m c3 ~ ::c C: ~ z ~ m ~ C: ~ m en ~ -\u0026lt; p:: ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann 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 Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 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. 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 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:st. t.\nompletIon Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 ~\nJl m ~ ~ ::c C: 'z=:\nJl m ~ C: ~ m \"' !'\" .z... m\nJl s! ~m,.\u0026gt;..\n,,\u0026gt; .... C: C =i i \"' :n .... m n ::c z: 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Romine Romine SecurityfTransportation Southwest Southwest 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 Woodruff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras I $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 1 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 l Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 1 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting I $73,850 , Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Media Center addition $704,932 I Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement - $200,000 Security cameras I $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Auo-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 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 Auo-02 ~ :,0 m i!! ~ ::c C: i z ~ ~ C: ~ m V, .!.II, m :,0 ~ z z ,m.. !\"' z m-:, o~ im!! ,\u0026gt;.. :,0,. -- 0C : a :,0 V, :,, P--l ::c z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJ: July 15, 2003 ool District Board of Directors Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School Projects We are just now beginning to plan our work on the Phase IV Bond Projects. By special request and circumstances we are beginning that process with Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School respectively. The bond projects at Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools are relatively simple and entail classroom additions, restroom renovations, ADA adaptations, some landscape and sewer work, and some miscellaneous mechanical work, in addition to upgrading the buildings electrical capacity to sustain computer operations. In late 2002, we inspected both of these elementary schools. Environmental problems that we had been periodically correcting over a period of years, as they arose, seem to be getting more serious. As a result, we commissioned a study of both schools to determine what environmental projects might be necessary to make the schools a clean, habitable environment for their students, staff, and faculty. That study was completed at the end of calendar year 2002. In early 2003, we were able to detail the environmental scope and provide rough cost estimates for the price of these environmental upgrades. Most recently, we have hired an architectural firm, Morris and Associates, who are knowledgeable in both environmental and architectural work, to be our design firm on both of these schools. It is our intent to combine the bond projects that were approved under the millage bond vote, and the p ::c m ~ ::c C: ~z ::c m g i!=: rn !\"' .z.. m ::c~\nmg ,-\nc  ... C: C ~ 0 ::c u, :..n. Pl :z:c  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m environmental projects, which were a result of our study. Presently we are in the preliminary planning phases\nwe have met with the design architects and are beginning to detail the scientific scope of work. We will soon be meeting with the Campus Leadership Teams, principals, and staffs to receive their input regarding the bond projects. While a definitive schedule has not been established, it is our intent to do the design for these schools over the winter of 2003-2004, and hopefully have contracts advertised and ready for award in late spring 2004, so that we may begin work in the summer of that year for an estimated completion in the summer/fall of 2005. The environmental problems at both of these schools are primarily water and air quality related. We are capable of keeping up with any emergencies and can continue to provide a safe environment for the inhabitants of the school, however\nlong term solutions are deemed necessary at both of these fine old facilities. p\na m ~ :,: C: f\nz\na m l3 C: ~ m tJ\u0026gt; !\" ! m\na~\nmg ,. I'\"'\na\u0026gt; .... C: C =I 0\na tJ\u0026gt;\nn .... ~ :,: z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Date: July 24, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From:@Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - July This is the forty-fifth 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. !II iii ~ zz ,m- =...\". ~ :i: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Audit Report - July 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. !..I.I, m ,a is z z p:! Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update July 24, 2003 o All sites are now cut over to the new network. o Network training has begun. New training documents are now posted on the district web site.  Computers o Approximately 600 computers have been ordered for installation this summer. Computers have been installed at Hall, McClellan, Geyer Springs, and Franklin. Computers are scheduled to be installed this week at Central, Chicot, Parkview, and Rockefeller. Computers for Henderson will be installed August 4.  Training o Twenty-three LRSD teachers are enrolled in the UALR CyberTeacher program this summer. o Technology training will be provided during pre-school inservice week in using GradeQuick, Spectrum library system, and Safari media retrieval system. :\u0026lt; :a \u0026gt;0  C: !-IC z.... Zm ~ ~ Ch ::l m ~ .!X.,' m ~\"' zz m r- TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education W Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Screening interview procedures !.J,I, m ::0 z~ z p::! Human Resources Screening Interview Procedures July 2003 The Human Resources Department began the implementation of a revised teacher applicant screening process in the spring of 2003. The primary purpose for this process was to insure that Little Rock School District hires the best candidates for its teaching positions. Ways to accomplish this goal were to increase the applicant pool, to screen more candidates, and to involve more administrators in the process. The implementation of this process has several steps: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) Involvement of School Services last fall in a discussion about the process and their assistance this spring in identifying principals for the elementary screening interview teams. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction last fall in helping to develop the Interview Handbook printed in March 2003. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction as curriculum leaders from that division chaired the interview teams for subject area candidates at the secondary level. Each team developed its own questions whether it was elementary, math, science, social studies, English, business, or special education. In the screening interview process itself, candidates are required to do an impromptu writing sample from one of the various prompts developed. There is a rubric with which each candidate is scored. (This rubric is a modification of a previous rubric utilized in HR\nthe domains of PT AS have been included.) Information obtained from the interview, the writing sample, references on file, and other information from the application packet are utilized in arriving at a recommendation for each candidate. Mr. Robinson also conducts interviews, especially when an interview team is unavailable or if an out of town candidate is only in town for a few days. HR provides recommended candidates' names, phone numbers, certification/ licensure areas, degrees earned from colleges/universities, and samples of their responses regarding the teaching domains of PTAS from the interview in the information to the principals. Principals also have access to the applications room in our division where they may review applications for teachers, aides, and clerical applicants. A weekly computerized list of all certified applications is available for them to review in this room as well. Principals continue their interviews, selection, and recommendation for hiring through their appropriate supervisor in school services and then through the human resources department which forwards the names of those recommended for employment to the Board of Directors. !J:)\na ~ ~ 0 i !!l 0 s\nz Rationales for adding the screening step to the hiring process are: a) To offer a larger pool of candidates to our principals. b) To become more proactive in the interview process thus beginning the process earlier. c) To have a structured process that increases equity among our candidates by affording more interview opportunities. d) To provide principals with a viable list of candidates. e) To minimize any errors regarding certification/licensure or employability in hiring since all candidates must complete the initial paper screening through HR prior to being interviewed. f) HR views this as a service to the principals. As with any new process we have already discovered some procedures which through principals' input, we will be \"tweaking\" for next year. We believe that these ideas will make the process even smoother and enhance all components of the process. Some of those ideas are to: a) b) c) d) e) f) Have interview teams conduct screening interviews at the District's Job Fair. (We are also investigating the possibility of on-line research based screening interviews.) Include in the information provided to principals the number of years of teaching experience for each candidate. Include in the information provided to principals the grade levels the applicant has either been employed to teach or grades he/she student taught. Include both race and gender on the information provided to principals. Include all recommended candidates on one list. Communicate to candidates their need to submit their applications earlier and call for a screening interview. !.J,I, m :,0 !S zz I!! SUBJECT/ M/M *RECOM. LIST FOR HIRE Elementary A 1 1 B 2 1 Science/Math A 2 1 English A 1 1 B 0 0 Special Education A 0 0 B 0 0 Social Studies A 3 2 B 2 0 Business Education A 2 1 B 0 0 Total 13 7 INTERVIEW TEAM/ RECOMMEND HIRE DATA as of 7-18-03 M/F *RECOM. W/M *RECOM. W/F *RECOM. FOR HIRE FOR HIRE FOR HIRE 10 8 2 1 42 30 9 8 2 1 43 35 3 3 3 2 12 7 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 1 1 1 8 2 3 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 36 24 14 9 119 79 *Recommendation for hire total is based on vacancy documents or e-mailed recommendations for hire. 7/21/03 NVld :\u0026gt;1031VH1S 03SIA3\"tl a 1VSOdO\"tld1NVHOdV y \"S:JAS 1VNOl1:JO\"tl1SNI \"IA 13NNOS\"tl3d a S31nNIIII v S\"tl311Vlll 3NUOO\"tl \"/\\ TOTAL TOTAL# #APP. RECOM. HIRE 55 40 56 45 20 13 7 6 12 4 8 3 0 0 8 4 6 2 4 2 6 0 182 119 lNV\"tlO dVSIII :No11n10S3\"tl ::, TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education ~Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of 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. Personnel Changes Page 2 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified EmJ?IOl'.ees Barre, Frances 4 Yr. Old 8-19-91 5-19 Reason: Retired ClllCOT 7-1-03 4YROLD Batson, J eaneau Instr. Music 8-13-01 2-02 Reason: Accepted Another PARK.VIEW 6-24-03 TCH925 Position Blackwell, Willie AP Chemistry 8-13-97 6-11 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Bonds, Roselyn Elem II 8-1-02 1-02 Reason: Returning To School CLOV. ELEM. 8-2-03 TCH925 Brown, Yolonda Oral Comm. 1-21-03 1-01 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Butler-Green, Rachael Biology 8-24-93 2-02 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Chadwick, Ryan Art 8-21-00 6-04 Reason: Accepted Another MITCHELL 8-5-03 TCH925 Position Charles, Glenroy Math 1-21-03 6-12 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Davis, Mabel HomeEc. 8-24-87 2-17 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 6-12-03 VOCl0 Dobbins, William English 12-17-02 4-12 Reason: Contract Ended PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 49288.00 28384.00 42524.00 27056.00 26546.00 28384.00 35377.00 43545.00 43667.00 40763.00 !=' 8.., .c.!., !\n:o men .,C....:.. en\n,,, OS m=- !\nI a, ~~ c-,:mZ j!:l men en~\n!I' en\n,,,\nS  z \"Cl~ C,\n:o z~ ~.... .... c5 \"CIZ ::O  or-\ng ~ enn \"f:!!I' !X'\n:o ~ Kl 0 e..n.. ~ m C, 0 ~ z Personnel Changes Page 3 July 24, 2003 NAME Finney, Jason Reason: Contract Ended Flynn, Laura Reason: Leaving City Gangluff, Tracey Reason: Leaving City Gay,Myla Reason: Accepted Another Position Glenn,Betty Reason: Retired Harris, Christopher Reason: Contract Ended Harrison, Lisa Reason: Personal Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Hopper, Beverly POSITION SCHOOL General Science MANN ElemV WILLIAMS Speech Pathology CLOY.MID. Science WASHINGTON ElemV CARVER English CLOY.MID. Elem III FULBRIGHT Voe. Music CLOY.MID. English Reason: Returning to School CENTRAL Jackson, Barbara Business Ed Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 7-1-02 6-2-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 9-21-02 7-8-03 8-12-99 8-1-03 8-24-72 8-1-03 11-1-02 6-2-03 8-9-00 6-13-03 10-22-02 6-2-03 8-20-90 8-5-03 1-13-03 6-3-03 SALARY CLASS 4-04 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 62-11 SPE925 4-09 TCH925 5-20 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 1-13 TCH950 ANNUAL SALARY 32595.00 35658.00 43680.00 37700.00 50788.00 30553.00 30630.00 31651.00 48389.00 37777.00 !=' 8 N .0.. !\n:o m \",.C.-.':. \"' ~ ~s m:- ~a:, \"'C: o!!! C_:, mz i gi m\"' \"-\u0026lt;'u~, I:. \"' \u0026lt; ~:- ,-z .., !!l C\u0026gt;\n:o ~~ z-\u0026lt; .... c5 \"DZ ~ f'! c3 ~ ~,-~. !II\n:o ~ Kl 0 \"...'. ~ m C\u0026gt; .0.,  z Personnel Changes Page 4 July 24, 2003 NAME Jackson, Christy Reason: Accepted Another Position Jackson, Susan Reason: Contract Ended Jarrett, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Johnson, Carolyn Reason: Contract Ended Larkin, Donna Reason: Contract Ended Lawson-Lee, Lynda Reason: Leaving City Lyon, Harley Reason: None Given Martin, Catherine Reason: Contract Ended Mays, Romonda Reason: Position Eliminated McCoy, Eddie Reason: Personal Moore, Garrick Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Mathematic PARK.VIEW Counselor FAIR Kindergarten CLOY.ELEM. Business Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-15-94 7-3-03 3-3-03 6-9-03 8-12-99 7-16-03 9-16-93 MABELV ALE MID. 6-3-03 Computer Literature 8-19-91 MABELV ALE MID. 6-2-03 Spanish I 8-7-02 DUNBAR 7-2-03 Counselor 7-29-02 PARK.VIEW 6-12-03 French I 1-21-03 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Voe. Home Ee. 8-2-00 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Elem IV 3-3-97 MITCHELL 7-24-03 Economics 11-25-02 CLOY.MID. 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 5-10 TCH925 5-12 CNLlO 2-05 K925 4-04 TCH950 6-15 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 6-12 CNLlO 4-01 TCH925 1-03 TCH950 6-21 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 40099.00 42141.00 30936.00 32595.00 46608.00 27056.00 43545.00 30553.00 27567.00 53213.00 30553.00 !=' 8 6\" ' \"' ~ co :,0 m \"C': !:\n\"' ?\" m~,.s.. i:\n, a, ~~ c-,:mZ ::z:\"' ~\"' m\"' \"....' ~\"' :I: \"' ?\"\ns \u0026gt;z -.:i!!l C\u0026gt; :,0 ~~ Z-1 .... i5 -.:iz :,O  or-el~ cnn '/?~ !Jl :,0 ~ ~ C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n s\nz Personnel Changes Page 5 July 24, 2003 NAME Neikirk, Matthew Reason: None Given Niswonger, Etta Reason: Accepted Another Position Ross, Thomas Reason: Accepted Another Position Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Shepherd, Laura Reason: Leaving City Voegele, Crystal Reason: Accepted Another Position Washington, Lapara Reason: Contract Ended Wooten, Russell Reason: Leaving City Autrey, Debora POSITION SCHOOL Elem II FULBRIGHT Earth Science DUNBAR English FAIR English SOUTHWEST 4 Yr. Old GEYER SPRINGS English DUNBAR English FAIR Special Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-12-98 6-19-03 8-13-01 7-1-03 8-13-97 6-2-03 8-13-01 7-18-03 8-13-98 7-15-03 1-1-99 6-25-03 12-18-02 6-2-03 8-13-01 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. 6-24-03 New Certified Eml!lo:rees ElemV 8-7-03 BRADY SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 3-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-07 4YROLD 2-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 2-03 SPE925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 28588.00 34305.00 27567.00 31651.00 30936.00 30553.00 28894.00 31651.00 !=' 8 N b \".~..'. \"' ::0 m u, C: !:\nu,\na,, ::ils m,.. ~a, ~~ ~~ ::cu, m== uu,, u,\n!i .... u, IC. u,\ni,,\ns  z -0~ C)\nc z~ ~.... .... ~ -0 z\nc  0 ,-\ng ~ u, 0 ~!I' !II\nc ~ kl 0 ~ ~ m C) 0 -0 z Personnel Changes Page 6 July 24, 2003 NAME Ball, Bethany Beals, Yolanda Burnworth, Brandi Carlisle, Holly Collins, Kimberly Doolittle, Heidi Harder, Mariah Headley, Debbie Higginbotham, David Hill, Stephanie Holl, Maria Humphries, Laura POSITION SCHOOL Elem II CARVER ElemV BRADY Elem II FRANKLIN Elem I WILLIAMS Music FRANKLIN Elem II FRANKLIN Elem/Drama BOOKER Music BASELINE Music STEPHENS 4 Yr. Old CHICOT ElemV WILLIAMS Kindergarten RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-08 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 1-06 TCH925 1-02 K925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 26546.00 27056.00 27056.00 35658.00 26546.00 27056.00 32672.00 26546.00 26546.00 30630.00 27056.00 !:I 8,., .0. , ! \"m' \".,C.-.': \"'\n,,, ~s m,.... !=? a, ~~ c_.:.mZ i g: m\"' .\"..' r.',i, :I:  \"'\n,,,~ \u0026gt;z \"'D!!l C\u0026gt;\"' ~~ .z..- \u0026lt; ~ \"'DZ ,O\u0026gt; or-c3 ~ U,C') '1!,!I\u0026gt; !D \"~' i:l 0 !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n \"'D ~ z Personnel Changes Page 7 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnston, Margaret Khoury, Cynthia Loyd, April Moore, Allison Spencer, Joel Thomas, Sommer Barnes, Barbara Busbea, Patricia POSITION SCHOOL Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Elem ill BRADY Elem II STEPHENS Counselor BRADY Elem IV CHICOT Elem I BOOKER START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 K925 1-01 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 4-03 CNL925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 Promotion Certified Employees Director 7-28-03 75-20 DIV. EXCEPT CHILD. ADC12 Coor. Reading 7-14-03 62-12 EARLY CHILD ADC12 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 26546.00 34637.00 31574.00 27056.00 26546.00 84240.00 1500.00 EDU 601.00 CAR 57144.00 annual 55315.00 prorated !==' 8.., .b., E co ::D m (/) C: !:j (/) ?- ~ ~ 9a, (/) C: o!!1 .c...: Zm :c (/) ~(/) m\"' .(../. )~ (/) I:. (/) .,.,.\u0026lt;... :,,.z .,,!!l C\u0026gt; ::D ~~ z--\u0026lt; .... \u0026lt;5\ng f\nor- ~~ (/)C') \",-\"\". ' !X' ::D ~ Kl C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; .n,, \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 8 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Eml!lorees Allen, Carol Child Nutrition 9-14-01 1-03 Reason: None Given HALL 6-30-03 FSH5 Brown, William Maintenance 2-24-75 50-20 Reason: Retired FACILITY SERV. 6-30-03 AN12 Bryant, Dale Custodian 9-16-02 1-02 Reason: Personal GIBBS 7-10-03 CUS928 Carr, Susie Child Nutrition 4-13-87 5-16 Reason: Retired MITCHELL 6-30-03 FSH6 Cooper, Diedre Instr. Aide 8-24-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Deal, Keith Instr. Aide 9-28-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Feurig, Janet Occupational Therapy 8-9-00 60-15 Reason: Leaving City SPECIAL ED. 7-15-03 AN925 Goad, Lena Parent Coor. 1-22-03 1-02 Reason: Position Elim. BASELINE 6-4-03 INSTR. Gordon, Eura Child Nutrition 3-7-88 4-15 Reason: Retired MCCLELLAN 6-16-03 FSH575 Grant, Curtis Child Nutrition 8-28-02 1-02 Reason: Health METRO. 6-30-03 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7368.00 39936.00 10737.00 9283.00 11635.00 11635.00 46368.00 11720.00 8854.00 7340.00 !=' 8.., .c.!.:,, E co\n%1 m u, C,..:. ..... u,\ni,, ~ :S m,... !=? a, ~~ c:Z -,m jg: mu, ~~ 1:!\" u,\ni,,\ns .,..._,~z C)\n%1 z~ ~..... ..... c5 -oz i3 ~ c3~ ,~...~. !D\n%1 ~ gi C .u...,. .~.... m C) .n.., \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 9 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnson, Claude Reason: Health Merritt, Augusta Reason: None Given Merritt, Reginald Reason: Position Elim. Osborne, Linda Reason: Reduction In Force Smith. Jeny Reason: Position Elim. Renaud, Nan Reason: Retired Roberts, Kathleen Reason: Position Elim. Strong, Yolanda Reason: Position Elim. Tanner, Gail Reason: Position Elim. Vester, Courtney Reason: Personal Withers, Myrtle Reason: Position Elim. POSITION SCHOOL Clerical PUL .. HGTS. MID. Bookkeeper FACILITY SERV. Vio Specialist START DATE END DATE 9-27-95 6-2-03 8-20-02 7-15-03 10-8-98 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-6-03 Nurse 1-24-03 HALL 6-2-03 Security Officer 8-21-00 SAFETY \u0026amp; SEC. 6-4-03 Data Processor 8-21-78 Comp. Info. Serv. 6-30-03 Instr. Aide 8-15-90 PUPILSERV. 6-2-03 Instr. Aide 8-11-93 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-9-82 VJPS 6-2-03 Clerical 1-9-90 VIPS 6-10-03 Clerical 10-30-00 VIPS 6-10-03 SALARY CLASS 39-14 CLKl0 49-08 AN12 41-20 ANl0 1-07 NURSES 37-20 ANlO 60-20 AN12 1-10 INA925 1-01 INA925 35-12 CLK925 40-08 CLKll 38-20 CLK105 ANNUAL SALARY 24048.00 27096.00 30528.00 31651.00 27096.00 53832.00 14067.00 10577.00 20100.00 20712.00 27912.00 !=' 8 c\"' \"\" ~... co\nl0 m C/l .,C.-.: C/l\n,,, ~~ !=?a, C/lc: o!!! ~~ jg: mU\u0026gt; C/l ~ ... C/l I:  C/l\n,,,\ns\n\u0026gt;z -0 ~ C)\nl0 ~:=s z--\u0026lt; ... c5 \"OZ ~~ ~~ C/lC') ~!\" !D\nl0 ~ kl C .C./.l ~ m C) n ~ z Personnel Changes Page 10 July 24, 2003 NAME Young, Nicole Reason: Leaving City Miles, Michael Stewart, Marlon POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition BASELINE START DATE END DATE 10-11-99 5-30-03 SALARY CLASS 1-05 FSH5 New Non-Certified Employees Team Leader FACILITY SERV. Custodian HALL 6-23-03 6-9-03 44-06 MAINT. 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7424.00 21984.00 13399.00 DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education - / Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development ~~ Grant Proposal - Advanced Placement Incentive Program The U. S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Grant program. The purpose of the program is designed to increase the successful participation of low-income students in pre-advanced placement and advanced placement courses and tests. By supporting increased access to and participation in pre-advanced and advanced placement courses and tests, the program provides greater opportunities for low-income students to achieve to high standards in English, mathematics, science, and other core subjects. Two LRSD high schools, Hall and McClellan, were selected to participate in the API grant program based on their students' eligibility for free-or-reduced lunch (42% and 50% of their enrollments, respectively) and low rate of participation in Pre-AP and AP courses compared to other District high schools. The four highest-poverty (and low performing) LRSD middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) were also chosen to participate in the program. In 2002- 2003, 84% of Southwest students, 78% of Cloverdale, 68% of Mabelvale and 71% Henderson students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The API proposal includes five broad goals that articulate the major \"systems improvements\" that will be brought about as a result of this initiative. The major goals include: Goal 1 - Leadership Development: To strengthen the abilities of school-based instructional leaders to provide support to classroom teachers in designing and delivering rigorous, high quality pre-AP and AP English, math and science classes. Goal 2 - Professional Development: To further develop the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of middle and high school teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses in English, math, and science achievement and performance. Goal 3 - Curriculum Development: To support the development and implementation of a Pre-AP and English language arts curriculum that prepares middle and high school students for success in English AP courses. Goal 4 - Student Support: To provide students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with a full range of support services to increase their enrollment and success in PreAP and AP courses. 8 i \"\" E co\na m ~ !:\nu, .!.I,I z \u0026gt;z C, \u0026gt;.... u, Goal 5 - Parent Involvement: To enhance the awareness of middle and high school students' parents of the requirements of postsecondary education and the resources available to effectively plan for this goal. The professional development initiative will be supported by three lead teachers, (English, math, and science) who will work intensely with Pre-AP and AP teachers in the six target schools over the three-year period. Grant funds will be used to support teacher participation in both on-site and off-site training activities sponsored by The College Board, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock: Advanced Placement Teacher Development Center and AVID (Advanced Via Individual Determination). The LRSD will collaborate with Metis Associates, Inc. on the implementation of a rigorous research and evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of project activities and their impact on the target population of participating middle and high school students, teachers and parents. The grant was submitted on July 3, 2003 in order to meet the July 3, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total three-year award request is $1,989,216. The requested funds are primarily targeted for the implementation of the intensive ongoing professional development plan and to establish partnerships with outside organizations with the expertise needed to support program implementation. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. .!.I,' z z\u0026gt; 0 \u0026gt;,... \"' DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development~ Revised Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Strategic Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and updated in 1998. On January 27-29, 2003, a 30 member Strategic Planning Team composed of parents, community members, teachers, students, Board members, and school administrators came together to review and update the plan. The team arrived at consensus in identifying common beliefs, creating a mission for the school system, setting parameters and developing objectives and far-reaching strategies for accomplishing the mission. For each of the strategies identified by the Planning Team, an Action Team was formed to develop plans for implementation. On June 19-20, 2003, the Strategic Planning Team reconvened to receive the Action Team's recommended implementation plans and prepare the 2003-2008 draft strategic plan for submission to the Board of Education. The draft Little Rock School District Strategic Plan is submitted under separate cover. It is recommended that the Board approve the 2003-2008 Little Rock Strategic Plan. .!.l,' z \u0026gt; l\"5 ~ \"'\n,,, nS :z\n= \"'en \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;n :Z::z: og ,~... \"...'. 1c::: :m\n,a lH~ om m\"' ~ Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Resolution The attached resolution is presented for the Board's review and adoption, to assure compliance with the federally funded MSAP grant as it relates to the District's receiving release from federal court supervision. The resolution pledges our commitment to improving educational opportunities for students attending Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle Schools, and Fair and McClellan High Schools, and provides assurance that the achievement of Unitary Status will in no way jeopardize the original intent of the Grant. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 Cl) z C) Rl f\n~ Cl) 8 .~.. ! U)\n,o m Cl) C: !:\nCl) .!D., z z\u0026gt; (\") \u0026gt; rC/) :,,,, nS :z:\n= \"\"'n\"' :Z::z: og s'\nr-r- Cl) 1:m C:\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!l RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District has applied for continued funding of a grant for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Fair and McClellan) for the 2003-04 school year\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to improve educational opportunities and reduce racial isolation in those schools. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Education that any grant funds received for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools will be used exclusively for the benefit of those schools and not for other purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands on behalf of the Little Rock School District Board of Education on this 24th day of July, 2003. Larry Berkley, Secretary Judy Magness, President .!,I,' ,z.. z 0 \u0026gt;..... \"'\n\u0026gt; o:S ::c\n= \"O'\"o' ::C::c 08 .~.... ...,..,. 11::m C\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!I Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ 2002-2003 SAT-9 Results We have received the results of the 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Tests, ninth edition, for grades 5, 7, and 10. District wide results show that students in grades five and seven improved on all subtests, while students in grade ten stayed at approximately the same level. Fifth grade students showed the most improvement by scoring nine percentile points higher than last year's fifth graders on the complete battery. Seventh grade students scored eight percentile points higher than last year's seventh graders, while tenth grade students scored two percentile points higher than last year's tenth graders. A review and report of these results will be provided at the July 24 board meeting. ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:. 5\nm ::c ~ z~ C) en 1D' nS ::,:\n= en en On ::C::,: 08 ~ ..... ,.... en 31:.m c::\nJD ~~ cm men\n!l '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" July 24, 2003 TO: ~ittleR ock School District Board of Directors FROM: H.Eat~ Director of Facility Services THROUG nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 20-footradius dedication deed for the installation and maintenance of public utilities on the southeast comer of 32nd and South Bryant Streets. See Exhibit A, attached. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Southwest Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg Attachment 810 W. Markham  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ,. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m :::c ~\n,o z C') en ~::::c\nS= en en nn :::C:::c 08 ~ ... r- en 1:m C::\n,o ~~ om m Ul ~ 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 ?\u0026lt; m .!.I,:  ~ ::c ! cz! ! Cl en\n,\u0026gt; nS ::c\n= en en nn ::C::c 08 ~ .... r- en !l:m C:\no ~~ c,m men\n!I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this __ day of ____ , 20 __ , before me, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within named ----------and ---------- being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and ___________ respectively of 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 they were the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and for the said Little Rock School District, and were duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they 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 _____ , 20 _. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:  m m ::c ~ ~ C) en .,.. nS ::c\n= en en no ::C::,: 08 ~ .... ,... en 31:m c::\n,\n, ~~ cmmen ~ EXHIBIT A 20' RADIAL R/ W DEDICATION PART OF THE SW1 / 4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, T-1-N, R-13-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUND', ARKANSAS MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4 NE1 / 4, SECTION 13\nTHENCE S88\"23'E, 35.00 FT. TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1268.40 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF W. 32ND STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 20.00 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT TO A POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 20.00 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 86 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. / -------......_ ' \\ -+-\u0026gt; ~ ~ !.- -+-\u0026gt; V) -+-\u0026gt; ~ 1j ~ !.- ~ ..c: -+-\u0026gt; ~ 0 V) i\n' ~ c:, (0 '- W. 32nd Street (60' R/ W) ~,..2..0.... _00_' _________________________ ~ ~O, 'f\u0026gt;o ~ ?\u0026lt; m I: ~ m :c ! i!! z C) Cl\u0026gt;\n,\u0026gt; nS :c\n= n\"'\"o' :c :c 08 ~ .... ,-Cl\u0026gt; Em c\na ~~ om m\"'\n!l DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Directors PREPARED BY: Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services SUBJECT: Financial Reports The final stages of the financial report are still in process, and therefore, will not appear on the printed agenda for the month of July. However, should the reports be completed, they will be available at the meeting. ?\u0026lt; m I:: \"D 5 -m\u0026lt; m :c !\no z C') u, .,,. nS :c\n= u, u, nn :oc g:c ~ ... ,.. u, !::m C:\no ~~ cm mu, ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: July 24, 2003 To: Boao~f dir ectors From: Mar acey, Assistant Superintendent Sec Sc.s Sadie Mitchell, J\\ssociate Superintendent _ s.o1 Services Through: ~nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School I am attaching a proposal for naming the choral music department at Central High School as the Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department. Nancy Rousseau, principal of Central High School, completed the nomination process as requested by students and members of the Central High School community. This action would serve as a monument to the superior reputation of Mr. Brack and for his twenty-seven years of service to the Central High School Music Department. As required by District policy FF:Naming of Facilities, you will also find attached a copy of a letter of acceptance for this honor from Mr. Brack. The administration recommends approval of this proposal. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m ::r:: !\n!! z Cl \"' NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the Choral Music Department (Designation of building and/or location) 1500 South Park Little Rock, AR 72202 (Address) be named for Robert L. Brack I. Biographical Data: Mr. Brack was born on June 8, 1944. II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Uhile at Central, Mr. Brack was none less than superior in all performances \u0026amp; in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hun reds of students and the faculty \u0026amp; staff at Central High School. Ill. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: We feel that the naming of the ehoral Department in Mr. Brack's honor would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the standards that Mr. Brack set for them. The current choral music students would like the department to be names, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". 5-28-03 (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. ?'\u0026lt; m .i,i,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m ::,: ~\no z C\u0026gt; Cl) PROPOSAL TO HONOR MR. ROBERT L. BRACK Little Rock Central High School Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers May 1, 2003 4ss,\ns \u0026amp;l,i,l' S.11/\\ ~ --~,t:- Fc,'7', .S- 'I,.(/r O , .,.~ltf'~ ~le,, ,\u0026gt;:, V~,_ ~~ \u0026lt;Oo\n, , To whom it may concern: ~r ot/Jl ' In view of the fact that Mr. Robert L. Brack, Choral Music Director at Cen~h High, will be completing his final year in the Little Rock School District this May, the choral music students under his direction would like to propose to have the choral music department at LR Central named in his honor. While at Central, Mr. Brack has never received anything less than superior in all performances and in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hundreds of students, all of the faculty he has worked with, and the excellent tradition that Central High has and will always live up to. The current choral music students feel that having this department named, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\" would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the reputation that Mr. Brack left behind in his twenty-seven years of service to the school. We, the 2002-2003 choral music students thank you for this consideration. This proposal is very important to us and to Central High. Respectfully yours, ~~~~ ~ ~~ Kate Goodson and Tempest Williams LRCH Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers Members RECIUVD MAY I 02118 ?\u0026lt; m .i.i,:  m m ::,: ~ \"z' C') en Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Lacey and Board of Directors: 14217 Longtree Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 June 6, 2003 I have experienced so many great opportunities and successes at Central High School during my tenure as Choral Music Director. Being named \"Teacher of the Year\" by the Central High School faculty this year was a tremendous honor. It is the greatest honor when students recognize a teacher for providing quality instruction that makes a difference in their lives. I am overwhelmed by a sense of pride and with much gratitude that my students and principal, Nancy Rousseau desire to have the Choral Music Department officially named in my honor. Of all honors, this one has to be the greatest. It is with much gratitude, humility, pride, and dignity that I give my approval for the Choral Music Department at Central High School to be named in my honor: \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". Thanks to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors for giving me the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of many students for the past thirty-four years. Sincerely, ~~h ?'\u0026lt; m .i.i,,:  mm ::c !j'\n! i Cl Cl)\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_88","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":["2003-06","2003-07","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":["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/88"],"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.\nRaymond Simon Director s: 3te Board of Education Shelby Hillman, Chair car/isle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Little Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Marianna MAieRebick L-ock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 June 30, 2003 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED JUL 1- 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller OFACE Of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark DESEGREGA1l0N MON\\10RlNG Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.Kinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, gL~ J)wt-L f~!vJ Scott Smith - ~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1- 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2003. Respectfully Submitted,\n6~~ 2~xttA . L Jt,tJ Scott Smith, #92251 7 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 June 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depo~iting a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, ad~~'WI-IVED each of the followmg: 11. C \\., C 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. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 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 JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1- 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 ~ltll~i!l~1t~!i.!.tlW.f-illl!il~~1tiffif~ir~t~~,me B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 ~~~~1,:je~i!lif\u0026amp;ii::: ... ::/ii.il~liii:m~r-~y\n:a:uf~gq:~g!tigU\\QgjgjJqW:~J~ciIQfX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 i~u?]p20@:l'olstnoatlonstotsta1eTtciuattzauomEuaa,n~ffotEYrlt2.1oa.wefe mt1!?1fI!1::!I~t .. , Nbfs$P:H~::'Z1Zl1. ~tJ.\\H$4.]ij~~~I ~~~~rl.~~l~liill\niif3~~~~~ils~::: :, --:::\n::::f:::::::::-,:~lr-lfgr\nBXllP.,?ld~:'.~t'.:Mgy\n~\n,:1 ligs1lliiillil~, ecsso:M$$3i203128.1 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 June 30, 2003 ~~~ta.~~I~lf l1il!1.i11\n~~r:~pt\n:~1~Qf~t~cf~(~~yi1\n\"2q~:tQr:l:X 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 June 30, 2003 ~~~~~\n~~\n~~~i~t~r.\n1~7~1~~1~:~~\nA~~:~~i~=d~~l~~r~!\n~!~~~~~~'r~: 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 June 30, 2003 iJl~111i~~i~i~flli211~1lr.!1:At2!\n~Jgy~t~ij~~t\n:M~:@,l~lz.QOO\nfQtil~ 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 June 30, 2003 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 p~fifql.\nf\naJotJ~IQ~o~\nffiioBJ\nttl8:]j~rr4cil.i\n~,aig\nimeni~'.! 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 June 30, 2003 l~i5!i~!: :+. :  e'.c.ssD i~ffili~-,.,, ................ ,,w,'~ii~a]r2fitGlP2l.o~ll~UMl1:tiffliI2.oo~mti\u0026amp;t\u0026gt;l\u0026amp;GfUitlPgni~ ERs  Nt'Rs e\u0026gt;\"\" 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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 June 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 June 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 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 June 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 June 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. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 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 June 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 cunriculum 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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 June 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 June 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 Clarence 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. 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 June 30, 2003 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 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. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E'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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 regular oversight of the 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 June 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 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 June 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. i~lt:iifill~il:fliilfi!ii\\l119n.\n::r.@w~ggtoo.,.~pprgy~~J6~ 35 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 ACT AAP 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 Leaming 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 June 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 June 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 NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 June 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 June 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. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a valid ity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided t\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_1058","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":["2003-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--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/1058"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED JI ft~ 2 ,1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGRE3ATiON MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting June 2003 C')\"tl ,.,\u0026gt; .... ,\nm_.o. _.31: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no c-\u0026lt; m..,\no C: -z\no C') ,o..- i\u0026lt;5 r-z C')(JJ ~ \"ti g m C C: ,~..\nm ~ \"ti\no c:m a, c3 ri ~ C')~ o\no\ni:::m 3m1:g0 :!'iz (JJ =I 0z :2\no m c3 ~ (JJ C') 0 !I: !I: C: z c': )\u0026gt; ~ z u.\no m !I:~ m\no 31:::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; a, (JJ m..,\no\no \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;O !I: ~ ~ I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING June 26, 2003 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education Program - New Partnerships Mitchell Academy - Darian Smith \u0026amp; Wanda Varady Rivercity Gymnastics - Ola Russenburger C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update / Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update (\")\"0 \u0026gt;. \"m' ~c -1!1: Oz o\u0026gt; ~~ m.., -\"'Cz: ,:,n ,o--i\u0026lt;5 r-z ncn F \"0 g m 0 C: ~\nm ~ \"c0:m\"' t11 c3 ~~ n~ o,:,\ni:m\ni:\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ~8 -\u0026lt;Z cn::::i 0z :c: \"m' c3 ~ \"' n 0 !I: !I: C z c,.'i (! z u. Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Special Meeting- 05-21-03 Regular Meeting - 05-22-03 Special Meeting - 05-30-03 Special Meeting - 06-09-03 Special Meeting - 06-12-03 B. Personnel Changes C. Board Meeting Dates, 2003-04 School Year VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION A. Second Reading: Anti-Bullying Policy VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Refinancing of May 2000 Bond Issue B. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election C. Request for Easement - Henderson Middle School D. Donations of Property E. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT :- n~ ,..\u0026gt;. ...\n...\u0026lt;m._.I. --1!1: Oz o\u0026gt; el :31 m..,\n\u0026lt;IC: -z\n11n o,...- -c\u0026lt;5 r-z n v, \u0026gt; F :c ~ ~ ::!l ~ n 0 !I: !I: C: z ('\n)\u0026gt; ~ z er. I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 111. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITION PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. REPORTS/ COMMUNICA I ION~ A. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 June 26, 2003 Board of Directors Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~y-l T. Kenneth James, 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 school and business have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnership: Mitchell Academy and Rivercity Gymnastics ~ a, c cc mm zrn --tm r\u0026gt;nC. ) me c:\n-.i zC !C~ mm =S- 0 a, C g .m.. .C., ~ m :c:\n,:, m c3 ::!l rn (\") 0 !C !C C: z c'i )\u0026gt; ~ z V. ' PARTNER-IN-EDUCATION CONTRACT  Rlverc:lty Gymnatlcs and Mitchell Academy for the Creative Arts Mltchell AGademy, along with It staff and students, are pleased to ent..- Into a partnership with Rlv-,clty Oymnatics. As part of our wllll119n to IMlcome Involved, all partl commit to tlM following actlvltl= RIVERCITY OYMNASTI~  Agree to hotat th.a Juat Say No Gymnastics Team one  month for an hour-long lesson at their faclttty at 5310 South Shackleford Road.  WIii provide a achohl,.hlp for one outstanding student to take gymnastics cl-- WIMtkly.  WIit provide volunteers to speak to studnts during ca,..r w .. k at Mltchell Academy.  WIii provide consultation .. rv1c to the spDnllOf' of the school gym111aStlca tm and eheerteadlna aponaor. MITCHELL ACADEMY  Student groups wtH perform ts request9d for Rlveraide Oymnastles whenever poMlble.  Students wlll make birthday cards for staff membors of 11.IYerskle Gymnastics.  Staff wll Include Rlverclty staff in 11ctlvttles and \"nts takl\"f ~ at Mitchell AcINftly. fl . . [ LA ::tA Darian Smith, ........ clpal,___.,/LJ........o,'\"\"/4\"'.\"4'\"/\"'\u0026gt;\"t+O-+-V--~)l..-/_,_ _____ ____ Waneta Varady, Counsetor__\u0026amp;'b. ~4 ~ - - R-nbu-r, R ... ,clty otCl Vi~ .. d4te0 - Janll --- ,,,.._..,,-4-~ 0i.J~ : 71-::JL.r'\\ I - 1,,J '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: ~~Directors FROM: ~mald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman-!3b SUBJECT: June 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects The summer always presents challenges to the District's construction program. There are construction events that must take place while most of our schools are without students, i.e. power and air-conditioning being off for extended periods of time, asbestos abatement, etc. But to my knowledge, we have never had to tear down and rebuild a new building and have it ready for students in August, which is the case at Mabelvale Middle School. The part of the building that houses the administration, media center and cafeteria has been taken down and is being rebuilt. The cafeteria, the largest of the three, is scheduled to be ready for occupancy in August. The other two areas are to be completed later this fall. Construction for the renovation of Dunbar Middle School has begun. The same is true for the following additions: Williams Elementary School, J. A. Fair High School, McClellan High School, and the addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools. Construction has started for Phase II of the Technology Center and the renovation of Metropolitan. An architect has been hired for the renovation of Rightsell Elementary and Mitchell Elementary. These will be bid in 2004. Please call me at 44 7-1146 if you need additional information. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 .!.I,' m ::0 8 zz rm- :n -\u0026lt; ~ ::,: z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391 ,871 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111 ,742 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan . Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 I Otter Creek 1 Parking Improvements I $142,541 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS 'Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage / street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr / Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 , Williams I Renovation I $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 I Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 ' Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 Facility Name Project Description Cost Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 I Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Est. Completion Date Jun-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Dec-05 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jun-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Feb-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 t:.st. c..\nomp1et1on Date Dec-03 Dec-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. c..\nomp1et1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff ParkinQ addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 I Facilities Service Interior renovation I $84,672 Fair Park I HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 I Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 I J. A. Fair 1 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair ISecurity cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright reelace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,QQQ I Franklin Renovation I $2,511,736 -Gibbs 1E nergy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs , Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall 1 Energy efficient lighting $42,931 I Hall 1 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est. completion Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 .!J.:,I m \"' ~ z z .m... ~ 8 .~....~... m !I: en m m..... z G\"l =\" ..... p:J ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann 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 Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 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. 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 I Asbestos abatement $253,412 I 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 I $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 , Parking lot $138,029 16 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 1 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 I HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 I Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 I Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:.st. L\nompIet1on Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 AuQ-02 3 Facility Name Romine Romine Security/Transportation Southwest Southwest 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 Woodruff CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD JUNE 26, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Media Center addition $704,932 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 $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting I $122,719 Renovation I $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 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 Auq-02 4 .!J.,I m ~ z z ,m-rn z.... m\na i!jli\n~\n:\nac -\u0026lt;O ~\na en =...\". ~ ::,: z 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C. , 0 ~ m Date: June 26, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From: sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - June This is the forty-fourth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one 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. !J) .., m ~ :z: :z: .m.... '_.\", ~ ::c :z: 0  -\u0026lt; .C., 0 ~ m Audit Report - June 2003 Page 2 of 2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Book.keeper \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 book.keepers on book.keeping 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) 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. 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. Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update June 26, 2003 o All sites are now cut over to the new network. o Network training has begun. New training documents are now posted on the district web site.  Computers o Approximately 600 computers have been ordered for installation this summer. Schools receiving computers are Central, Hall, McClellan, Henderson, Chicot, Rockefeller, Geyer Springs, and Franklin.  Training o Twenty-three LRSD teachers are enrolled in the UALR CyberTeacher program this summer. o Computer workshops are being offered for LRSD teachers at the IRC and McDermott Elementary. ,\u0026gt;., .\u0026lt;.. z,. ~i C:. ,- Cl) ,- m -\u0026lt;\n:c z~ c,m c3 Cl) r- n -\u0026lt; \u0026gt;~ ~a, me: .. .,!z!? 8~ c,CI\u0026gt; a,C os ZCI\u0026gt; ~o Cl\u0026gt;Z Cl) C: m TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 26, 2003 Board of Education ().$verly Williams, Director, Human Resources / T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of 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. !D ~ :c 8 r, m- ~.... 0z a, C: g !!l f\u0026gt; ~ u, m :I:: zm -\n\u0026lt; :c m z C m ~ 0 z \u0026gt; s \u0026gt;  Z\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;c il:i:t:: C: . ,- u, ,-m -\u0026lt;\n:a ~~ ~ rn r-e'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; s,- ::0 a, m c: ..,!!?  Z ~ a,C cz su, ~o u, z u, C: m Personnel Changes Page 2 June 26, 2003 NAME Beggs, Melinda Reason: Retired Bell, Colette Reason: Leaving City Bell, Linda Reason: Retired Blackwell, Candace Reason: Personal Boggs, Natalie Reason: Leaving City Brown, Edrnonda Reason: None Given Brown, Robert Reason: Accepted Another Position Burnworth, Brandi Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE New Certified Employees SALARY CLASS Resignationff ermination Certified Employees English 1-21-80 4-19 CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 Elem V 8-13-98 2-05 BRADY 6-2-03 TCH925 American History 8-20-90 6-20 HALL 6-2-03 TCH925 Elem I 8-14-95 4-08 ROCKEFELLER 6-2-03 TCH925 Special Ed 8-13-01 62-08 WESTERN HILLS 6-2-03 SPE925 Pupil Personnel 8-16-00 1-03 BRADY 6-2-03 TCH925 Instr. Music 8-9-00 4-11 PARKVIEW 6-2-03 TCH925 Elem II 9-9-02 1-01 FRANKLIN 6-2-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 48339.00 30936.00 51713.00 36679.00 39936.00 27567.00 39742.00 26546.00 Personnel Changes !D V) Page 3 n June 26, 2003 ::c 0 0,.. . m,... mn... . 0z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL a, C: NAME SCHOOL SALARY 0 END DATE CLASS C\u0026gt; .m... f\u0026gt; ~ Brack, Robert Music 8-25-69 6-21 53213.00 V) m !I:: Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 mz -:\u0026lt; ::c m z Butts, Mary Kindergarten 10-31-83 6-21 53213.00 0 m Reason: Retired MEADOWCLIFF 6-2-03 K.925 :,0 V) 0 z Carlisle, Holly ElemV 1-6-03 1-01 26546.00 Reason: Contract Ended PUL. HGTS. ELEM. 6-2-03 TCH925 Carver, Tiffany Day Treatment 8-21-02 4-05 33616.00 f\u0026gt; Reason: Contract Ended ROMINE 6-2-03 TCH925 ..., 8 ~.....~... mll: Chandler, April Special Ed. 11-27-02 4-05 33616.00 v, m .m... Reason: Contract Ended STEPHENS 6-30-03 SPE925 z C\u0026gt; Chapman, Susan Special Ed. 5-6-87 68-20 68352.00 Reason: Retired SPECIAL ED 6-17-03 ADCll Clegg, Pamela Elem II 9-3-02 4-01 30553.00 Reason: Contract Ended ROMINE 6-2-03 TCH925   \u0026lt;  :- Z  Dennis, Beverly American History 8-24-92 1-12 36756.00 --\u0026lt;o ~!I:: C:  Reason: Personal MANN 5-27-03 TCH925 ,... V) ,-m -\u0026lt; :,0 zS C\u0026gt; n Ernst, Melody Elem ill 2-17-03 2-07 32978.00\n,.g.. ~ Reason: Contract Ended OTTERCREEK 6-2-03 TCH925 n -\u0026lt; Estill, Dana Counselor 7-30-03 6-10 41503.00 Reason: None Given PARKVIEW 6-12-03 CNLl0 s Field, Marie Elem IV 1-6-03 1-12 36756.00 .,.. :- :,0 a, Reason: Contract Ended WILSON 6-2-03 TCH925 m c: .. .,!z! ! ~ a, 0 os Zv, ~o VIZ V) C: m Personnel Changes Page 4 June 26, 2003 NAME Glenn, Randall Reason: Accepted Another Position Golston, Mary Reason: Retired Goss, Cynthia Reason: Leaving City Grissom, Yolanda Reason: Accepted Another Position Gwatney, Brandy Reason: Accepted Another Position Harder, Mariah Reason: Contract Ended Hicks, Hazel Reason: Retired Higginbotham, David Reason: Contract Ended Hill, Stephanie Reason: Contract Ended Hoffman, Georgia Reason: Retired POSITION SCHOOL Pupil Personnel SPECIAL ED. ElemV ROMlNE 4 Yr Old MCDERMOTT Data Processing HENDERSON Kindergarten TERRY Learning Skills BOOKER ElemV WAKEFIELD Music CHICOT 4Yr Old CHICOT Elem I TERRY START DATE END DATE 3-22-82 6-10-03 6-17-87 6-2-03 8-12-99 6-2-03 8-5-99 6-30-03 8-13-97 6-2-03 1-13-03 6-2-03 8-27-58 6-30-03 3-10-03 6-2-03 2-24-03 6-2-03 1-23-67 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 68-18 ADCllX 6-21 TCH925 1-12 4YROLD 1-05 TCH950 3-07 K925 1-01 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 4-19 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 64392.00 53213.00 36756.00 29609.00 34305.00 26546.00 48389.00 26546.00 26546.00 48389.00 Personnel Changes !l' Page 5 U\u0026gt; (\") :c June 26, 2003 0 0 r-mr- m (\") -\u0026lt; 0z POSITION a, START DATE SALARY ANNUAL C: 0 NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C\u0026gt; m -\u0026lt; f) ~ U\u0026gt; Holeman, Eleanor Voe. Business 1-22-85 6-21 53213.00 m\ni::: m Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-12-03 VOC105 z -\n\u0026lt; :c m z Humphries, Laura Kindergarten 1-6-03 1-01 26546.00 0 m :a Reason: Contract Ended RIGHTSELL 6-2-03 K925 U\u0026gt; 0 z Hurd, Ann Reading 9-1-66 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Reitred GIBBS 6-2-03 CED925 Hutson, Angie Coor. Career Ed. 7-29-02 4-11 39742.00 f) ..., Reason: Accepted Another MCCLELLAN 6-12-03 VOCl0 8 ~6 Position -\u0026lt;,.. m\nI: u, m m -\u0026lt; James, Emogene Reading 8-30-65 6-21 53213.00 z C\u0026gt; Reason: Retired MCDERMOTT 6-2-03 CED925 Johnson, Geraldine Counselor 8-25-69 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired KING 6-2-03 CNL925 Johnston, Margaret Kindergarten 8-29-02 1-01 26546.00  \u0026lt; Reason: Contract Ended MEADOW CLIFF 6-2-03 K925  :- Z  -\u0026lt; 0 ~11= C: U) Joiwall, Patricia Pupil Personnel 8-12-99 4-04 32595.00 Fm ~~ Reason: None Given GIBBS 6-2-03 TCH925 C\u0026gt; (\") c3 rn r- n Kaffka, Carol Earth Science 8-22-77 5-20 50788.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-2-03 TCH925 Killingsworth, Patricia Math Coor. 8-18-80 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired MATH 6-12-03 TCH105 s  :- ~ a, m c: Lehnoff, Denna ElemV 8-25-69 4-19 48389.00 .. .,!:z! ! srn Reason: Retired BOOKER 6-2-03 TCH925 oU\u0026gt; a,O os Zu, ~o U) z U\u0026gt; C: m Personnel Changes Page 6 June 26, 2003 NAME Lester, Rebecca Reason: None Given Manning, Tina Reason: None Given Matheny, June Reason: Retired Matlock, Nancy Reason: Retired Mays, Hazel Reason: Accepted Another Position Mathis, Melvia Reason: Retired Mitchell, Nancy Reason: Retired Moore, Allison Reason: Contract Ended Moore, Tikisha Reason: None Given Morgan, Keisha Reason: Contract Ended Morgan, Treva Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Elem ill BASELINE Biology PARK.VIEW Elem II PUL. HGTS. EL.. G\u0026amp;T CIDCOT English HENDERSON Science ROCKEFELLER Special Ed. GIBBS Counselor BRADY Elem II CARVER Special Ed DODD Elem II START DATE END DATE 8-9-00 6-2-03 8-13-01 6-2-03 8-27-74 6-2-03 8-24-87 6-2-03 8-13-97 4-17-03 8-20-90 6-2-03 8-21-73 6-2-03 8-26-02 6-2-03 8-13-97 8-5-03 2-3-03 6-2-03 9-11-02 MABELV ALE EL. 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 3-18 G\u0026amp;T925 6-08 TCH925 1-14 TCH925 6-21 SPE925 4-02 CNL925 3-09 TCH925 2-05 SPE925 6-05 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 27567.00 53213.00 46015.00 39461.00 38798.00 53213.00 31064.00 36347.00 30936.00 36398.00 Personnel Changes !Jl Page 7 \"n' ::c June 26, 2003 0 ,0.. . m,... mn... . i5 z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL CD C C NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C, .m... 0 ~ Neal, Jamie Kindergarten 8-23-76 6-21 53213.00 \"m' :I: m Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. EL. 6-2-03 K925 z 7' ::c m z Norman,Ann Music 8-25-75 3-18 46015.00 C m :,0 Reason: Retired FRANKLIN 6-2-03 TCH925 \"0 ' z Oxford, Robyn Spanish I 8-7-02 1-01 26546.00 Reason: None Given MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Pettis, Ashawn Elem IV 8-21-02 1-02 27056.00 fl Reason: Contract Ended ROMINE 6-2-03 TCH925 \"8' .~..:.r.\n.: m3: Price, Patricia Director-Early Child 9-10-73 75-20 84240.00 cnm .m... Reason: Retired EARLY CHILD 6-30-03 ADC12 z G) Ramsey, Kathleen Learning Skills 8-22-85 3-18 46015.00 Reason: Retired SCIENCE 6-12-03 TCHI05 Rollins, Helen Nurse 8-20-90 1-15 39818.00 Reason: Retired FRANKLIN 6-2-03 NURSES \u0026gt; s \u0026gt;  Z\u0026gt; --\u0026lt;c Ruska, Stacy Eleml 8-15-01 1-04 28588.00 ~~ ~~ Reason: Leaving City MITCHELL 8-1-03 TCH925 ~~ ~n Scott, Deborah ElemV 2-13-03 5-14 44183.00 ~,... rn 0 Reason: Contract Ended WASHINGTON 6-2-03 TCH925 -\u0026lt; Self, Elaine Elem I 8-22-88 4-18 46889.00 Reason: Retired BASELINE 6-2-03 TCH925 s \u0026gt;:- Self, Jennifer Physics 8-15-94 2-09 35020.00 ~CD me Reason: Leaving City CENTRAL 8-1-03 TCH925 .. .,!z! ! 8 rn o\"' CDC os Zu, c~ni5z \"C ' m Personnel Changes Page 8 June 26, 2003 NAME Selvidge, Connie Reason: Personal Shanks, Beth Reason: Reitred Sheppard, Karina Reason: Leaving City Shelly, Monica Reason: Contract Ended Spears, Marsha Reason: Contract Ended Spencer, Joel Reason: Contract Ended Suber, Kendra Reason: Accepted Another Position Standley, John Reason: Accepted Another Position Swanigan, Carrie Reason: Contract Ended Taylor, Laurie Reason: Accepted Another Position POSITION SCHOOL Spanish I MCCLELLAN Elem IV TERRY Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Special Ed STEPHENS Kindergarten CLOVERDALE EL. Elem IV CHICOT Elemill GIBBS Social Studies MCCLELLAN Elem I BASELINE ElemV BRADY START DATE END DATE 8-15-94 6-2-03 8-20-90 6-4-03 8-7-02 6-2-03 10-7-02 6-30-03 8-20-02 6-30-03 1-13-03 6-2-03 8-9-02 6-11-03 8-14-95 6-2-03 1-6-03 6-2-03 8-7-02 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 4-12 TCH925 3-18 TCH925 1-06 K925 1-02 SPE925 1-01 K925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-15 TCHlO 1-01 TCH925 4-12 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 40763.00 46015.00 30630.00 27056.00 26546.00 26546.00 26546.00 39818.00 26546.00 40763.00 Personnel Changes ?I Page 9 \"C\"\u0026gt;' June 26, 2003 ::c 0 ,0.. . ,m... m .C.\".\u0026gt;. 0z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL a, C: 0 NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C) .m... fl ~ Terry, Lashay Elem II 10-17-02 1-01 26546.00 \"m' ll: Reason: Contract Ended DODD 6-2-03 TCH925 m z 7' ::c zm Thompson, Sandra Elem II 8-20-79 3-18 46015.00 0 m\nc Reason: Retired MCDERMOTT 6-2-03 TCH925 \"0 ' z Tuck, Patricia Learning Skills 7-23-02 4-12 40763.00 Reason: Leaving City FAIR 6-12-03 TCH107 Van Brunt, Debra Special Ed. 12-3-02 2-12 38083.00 fl N Reason: Contract Ended ROCKEFELLER 6-2-03 SPE925 8 .~...: ,.: mll: Walls, Colleen Pupil Personnel 8-21-73 6-21 53213.00 u,m .m... Reason: Retired STEPHENS 6-2-03 TCH925 z C, Walsmith, James Voe. Music 8-7-02 4-01 30553.00 Reason: None Given MANN 6-2-03 TCH925 Washington, Charrisa Counselor 8-13-01 6-11 42524.00 Reason: Leaving City GIBBS 6-11-03 CNL925 \"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... Z\u0026gt; --\u0026lt;o West, Angela ElemN 8-13-98 5-10 40099.00 i ~ C:\"' Reason: Personal MABELV ALE EL. 6-30-03 TCH925 ~\na ~s C) C\"\u0026gt; Whitlow, Mary English 8-12-96 1-14 38798.00 2,.!..: rn 0 Reason: Retired HENDERSON 6-2-03 TCH925 -\u0026lt; Williamson, Mychelle Elem II 8-9-00 4-05 33616.00 Reason: Leaving City RIGHTSELL 7-31-03 TCH925 s \u0026gt;,... Willis, Vora Elem I 1-6-03 1-05 29609.00\n., a, m c: Reason: Contract Ended STEPHENS 6-30-03 TCH925 .. .,!z!? srn c,Ch a,O os Zu, o_o- U\u0026gt;Z \"C': m Personnel Changes Page 10 June 26, 2003 NAME Wilson-Gulley, Alicia Reason: Leaving City Wilson, Tracey Reason: Accepted Another Position Wilson, Vivian Reason: Contract Ended Wren,Beth Reason: Contract Ended Wroten, Murthene Reason: Retired Yeager, Judith Reason: Retired Brown, Lela Currin, Emmitt POSITION SCHOOL Elem I RIGHTSELL Elem IV ROMINE Music BRADY DeafEd. BALE Elem Tutor FAIR PARK Reading BOOKER START DATE END DATE 8-13-01 7-31-03 8-9-00 6-9-03 9-3-02 6-2-03 1-6-03 6-2-03 2-6-90 6-2-03 8-24-81 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 4-05 TCH925 2-05 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 SPE925 4-19 TCH925 6-21 TCH925 Additional Years Probationary Status Teacher ALC New Non-Certified Employees Custodian 3-31-03 1-01 HALL CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 33616.00 30936.00 27056.00 26546.00 48389.00 53213.00 4624.23 annual 1105.79 prorated Personnel Changes !XI Page 11 U) (\") June 26, 2003 :r 0 0 I'\"\" m I'\"\" m (\") ..... 5z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL CD C C NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C') m..... !\"' ~ Lynch, Christine Custodian 5-5-03 1-01 5164.50 U) m :I: BRADY CUS925 annual m z -:\u0026lt; 561.36 :r m z prorated 0 m\no U) 0z Perkins, J arnes Custodian 5-5-03 1-01 10329.00 WATSON CUS928 annual 1122.72 prorated !\"' Piggee, Johnnie Custodian 5-13-03 1-01 10329.00 ..., 8 FOREST HGTS. CUS928 annual .g....6... m!!:: 785.90 u,m m..... prorated z C') Resignationffermination Non-Certified Emplovees Ackers, Michale Custodian 8-22-02 1-01 10329.00 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 5-13-03 CUS928 \u0026gt;:- Z  - o ibjl:: Ashe, Palestine Child Nutrition 3-7-88 14-10 15586.00 ~m !:c~ Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE MID. 6-30-03 FSMGRS ~n\n:g rn I'\"\" Avery,Lakyesha Custodian 8-9-02 1-01 10329.00 n -\u0026lt; Reason: None Given HENDERSON 4-8-03 CUS928 Ball, Barbara Clerical 8-22-74 39-20 28764.00 Reason: Retired JEFFERSO 7-1-03 CLKlO s \u0026gt; :-\n., CD Bibbs, Cynthia 1-04 me Instr. Aide 9-13-82 12163.00 .. .,!!z. ! Reason: Personal ROMINE 6-5-03 1NA185 srn oUl CDC iS o_!!o.! UlZ U) C m Personnel Changes Page 12 June 26, 2003 NAME Bishop, Billy Reason: Abandonment Brumfield, Frank Reason: Retired Burch, Claire Reason: Retired Clark, Linda Reason: Personal Diemen, Sharon Reason: Abandonment Fells, Corinthis Reason: None Given Fentry, Kimberly Reason: Leaving City Gipson, Rickey Reason: None Given Givens, Gwendolyn Reason: Personal Halliburton, Willie Reason: Terminated Hines, Ann Reason: Abandonment POSITION SCHOOL Custodian FOREST PARK Security Officer IR.C Isntr. Aide CARVER Child Nutrition FORESTHGTS Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 8-9-02 4-25-03 9-16-91 6-30-03 8-22-94 6-2-03 9-10-01 5-21-03 2-3-00 CHILD NUTRITION 5-14-03 Security Officer 3-23-94 METROPOLITAN 5-28-03 Instr. Aide 8-30-94 FULBRIGHT 6-2-03 Custodian 12-9-02 TERRY 5-7-03 Instr. Aide 1-17-89 WILSON 6-2-03 Security Officer 11-16-87 FOREST HGTS. 5-24-03 Child Nutrition 10-14-02 MCCLELLAN 5-6-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 36-20 SOFR12 1-04 INA185 1-02 FSH5 1-04 FSH5 36-18 SOFR9 1-02 INA185 1-01 CUS12 1-04 INA185 36-17 SOFR9 1-01 FSHS ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 23763.00 12163.00 7340.00 7396.00 17431.00 11106.00 13399.00 12163.00 16831.00 7312.00 Personnel Changes !:D Page 13 u, (\") June 26, 2003 ::c 0 ,0- - ,m-- m .(.\".). 6 z POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL a, C: C NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C) .m... fl m \u0026gt; Hinnant, Gayla Child Nutrition 10-24-02 4-01 6042.00 u, m :I: Reason: Abandonment FAIR PARK 2-12-02 FSH425 m z 7' :m:c z Hope, Barbara Secretary 8-7-78 39-20 28764.00 C m\n,:, Reason: Retired HALL 6-10-03 CLKl0 u, 0 z Houston, Jacqueline Child Nutrition 8-30-02 3-01 5687.00 Reason: Abandonment MABELV ALE EL. 5-23-03 FSH4 Jackson, Bobby Custodian 9-9-02 1-01 10329.00 fl Reason: Health WATSON 1-21-03 CUS928 \"8' .~....~... m!I:: James, Geneva Child Nutrition 2-28-80 1-17 7760.00 u, m .m... Reason: Retired HALL 6-2-03 FSH5 z C) Johnson, Arthur ROTC 8-15-85 65-20 62496.00 Reason: Retired PARK.VIEW 6-30-03 AN12 Johnson, Gary Custodian 9-16-02 1-01 10329.00 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 6-6-03 CUS928 \"\u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt; :- z:,. --\u0026lt;c Marshall, Elnora Custodian 1-11-01 1-02 10737.00 i1ii 3C C: . Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 CUS928 ,-- u, ,--m \u0026lt;\n,:, zS C) (\") Maxwell, Azzie Child Nutrition 8-20-97 1-17 7760.00\ng rn ,-- Reason: Personal PARK.VIEW 6-2-03 FSH5 0 \u0026lt; McCLinton, Carlton Instr. Aide 10-14-02 1-10 14067.00 Reason: Personal KING 5-1-03 INA925 s :,.:- Moore, Emmogene HS Liaison 4-23-98 51-06 27096.00\n., a, me: Reason: Rif HIPPY 6-30-03 ADN12 ..,!!?  z gm c,U\u0026gt; a, C os Zu, ~o U\u0026gt; z u, C: m Personnel Changes Page 14 June 26, 2003 NAME Morgan, Verna Reason: Abandonment Nooner, Zora Reason: Retired Opitz, Sarah Reason: None Given Pickard, Jimmie Reason: Retired Piggee, Billy Reason: Health Porter, Ebony Reason: Abandonment Ragland, Calvin Reason: Termination POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition ALC Child Nutrition CENTRAL Secretary SECURITY Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK START DATE END DATE 1-24-03 5-8-03 9-12-90 6-2-03 7-14-00 6-4-03 1-29-96 5-30-03 Bus Driver 2-26-88 TRANSPORTATION 5-30-03 Child Nutrition ALC Custodian DODD 4-24-03 5-20-03 8-13-97 6-11-03 Redix, Stephen Reason: Terminated Clerical 11-6-00 39-12 Roper, Annette Reason: RIF Roy, Alan Reason: Terminated Shead, Marian Reason: Retired CLOVERDALE EL. 5-27-03 HS Liaison HIPPY Custodian WESTERN HILLS Hippy Supervision HIPPY 8-17-87 6-30-03 7-8-98 5-28-03 8-22-86 6-30-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-10 FSH5 38-20 CLKl0 2-05 FSMGRS 3-11 BUSDRV 3-01 FSH4 1-06 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 7564.00 27912.00 12195.00 14553.00 5687.00 16204.00 22656.00 CLKl0 51-16 ADN12 1-06 CUS925 54-20 ADN12 36516.00 12481.00 45000.00 Personnel Changes Page 15 June 26, 2003 POSITION START DATE NAME SCHOOL END DATE Smith, Jennifer Instr. Aide 10-7-02 Reason: Personal MEADOWCLJFF 6-3-03 Stephens, Ivan Instr. Aide 2-11-03 Reason: Accepted Another WAKEFIELD 4-17-03 Position Sutton,Anna Clerical 11-5-84 Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 6-6-03 Taylor, Lizzie Child Nutrition 2-18-97 Reason: Retired WESTERN HILLS 6-2-03 Thomas, Jimmie Child Nutrition 8-3-99 Reason: Personal DODD 6-2-03 Thompson, Darlene Child Nutrition 2-4-02 Reason: Abandonment FSH5 6-5-03 Wesson, Lynda Child Nutrition 1-13-03 Reason: Abandonment MCCLELLAN 4-28-03 Williams, Ardelia Instr. Aide 1-11-82 Reason: Retired ROMINE 6-2-03 Wofford, Patricia Bookkeeper 10-22-90 Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 6-30-03 SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-05 12481.00 INA925 1-07 13115.00 INA925 37-18 25524.00 CLKl0 1-06 7452.00 FSH5 1-09 12139.00 FSMGRS 1-01 7312.00 FSH5 1-01 7312.00 FSH5 1-04 12163.00 INA185 45-18 32412.00 AN12 !J:l \"C\"') :c 0 0 r-m r- m C..\".) 5z CD C: 0 C) .m.. f) m \u0026gt; \"m' :I: m z 7' :c m z 0 m\n,:, \"0 ' z f) ..., 8 .g...6.. m:I: cnm .m.. z C) \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... Z\u0026gt; \"\"'o ~~ C: \"' i::~ ~s C) C\") ~ rn r- n \u0026lt; \u0026gt;,.s.. ~CD me: -.,!!?  z srn c:,V\u0026gt; CDO 0\u0026lt; ~_2o? V\u0026gt;Z \"C': m TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 26, 2003 B d of Education Williams, Director, Human Resources THROUGH: onald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following salaries for Interim Administration Positions. Donald M. Stewart Interim Superintendent Dennis Glasgow Interim Assoc. Superintendent $145,054.00 $ 86,796.00 Date: To: From: Re: June 26, 2003 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 447-1005 Donald M. Stewart, Ed.0---------lnterim Superintendent Board Meeting Dates, 2003-04 School Year The proposed schedule of meeting dates for the 2003-2004 school year is presented for your review and approval. By Board policy, the second and fourth Thursday of each month are designated as regular meeting dates. The exceptions occur in November and December to avoid conflict with the holidays. Agenda meetings are scheduled at 5:00 p.m. and regular monthly meetings are held at 5:30 p.m. MONTH AGENDA MEETING REGULAR MEETING July 07-10-03 07-24-03 August 08-14-03 08-28-03 September 09-11-03 09-25-03 October 10-09-03 10-23-03 November 11-06-03 11-20-03 December 12-11-03 12-18-03 January 01-08-04 01-22-04 February 02-12-04 02-26-04 March 03-11-04 03-25-04 April 04-08-04 04-22-04 May 05-13-04 05-27-04 June 06-10-04 06-24-04 !11 ~ :c 8 r, m- ~ 0z a, C: 8 .m.. !\") ~ Cl) m 31: m z 7' :c m z C m\n,:, is z\n,,, \u0026gt; :\u0026lt;- z,.. -\u0026lt;c iii~ ?~ ~~ i!5n c3 ~ ,- 0 -\u0026lt; s \u0026gt;=- ~a, me: ..,!!!  z 8~ o\"' a, C os Zu, ~o u,z Cl) C: m 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda. watson@lrsd.org DATE: TO: June 26, 2003 Board of Education LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 FROM: Linda Austin, Director, Planning and Development Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent, Student Discipline SUBJECT: Anti-Bullying Policy Pursuant to Act 681 of 2003, school districts are required to adopt an Anti-Bullying Policy. The policy must include a definition of bullying, the consequences for the behavior, and provide programs to promote conflict resolution skills, the development of acceptable social skills, and improved understanding of student diversity. In addition, each district's policy must be filed with ADE. The Board approved the policy on first reading at the agenda meeting on June 12. Second reading approval of the attached Anti-Bullying Policy is recommended at this time. !:D fll :c 8 rrmm ~ i5 z a:, C C C') .m.. ~ \u0026lt;J) m :I: mz 7' :c m z ffl ~ z ~ g z ~ iz5 \u0026lt;J) !..\", z z\u0026gt; n ~ \u0026lt;J) s \u0026gt;=-\n.,11:1 me .. .,!!z? srn c,Ul a:,C os Zu, ~i5 U\u0026gt;Z \u0026lt;J) C m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JICD ANTI-BULL YING Bullying of any type has no place in a school setting. The Little Rock School District will endeavor to maintain a learning and working environment free of bullying. Definition Bullying is defined as a pattern of behavior of one or more individuals intimidating one or more persons through verbal, physical, or emotional abuse\nwritten or electronically transmitted abusive messages\nor attacks on the property of another. Examples of bullying include, but are not limited to, verbal taunts, name-calling and put downs, taking of money or possessions, and exclusion from peer groups within school. Bullying is prohibited while on school property, at school-sponsored activities, and on school buses. Procedures Any student who is a victim of bullying or who witnesses or has reliable information that a student has been a victim of bullying should report the incident to the building administrator. The student's identity will be kept anonymous if he/she feels in danger of retaliation. Any school employee who witnesses or has reliable information that a student has been a victim of bullying will report the incident to any administrator. Any school employee who reports violations of this policy will be immune from any tort liability that may arise from the failure to remedy the reported incident. The building administrator will act promptly to investigate all complaints of bullying. If it is determined that bullying has occurred, the administrator will discipline any student or group of students according to the consequences listed below. Consequences for Violation of This Policy By Students in Grades K-5 First Offense: The student or students who are the perpetrators of bullying must participate in Behavior Modification/Conflict Resolution Program or other programs as determined by District personnel. At lease one parent or guardian will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. The school will provide information on bullying to the parent or guardian. Second Offense: The building administrator will determine the appropriate disciplinary action as listed for category one offenses in the \"Student Handbook.\" The student or students who are the perpetrators of bullying will be required to again participate in LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JICD (continued) Behavior Modification/Conflict Resolution Program or other programs as determined by District personnel. The parents will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. Third Offense: If the third offense occurs within one school year, the student will receive a short-term out-of-school suspension. Additional behavior interventions will be required. Consequences for Violation of This Policy By Students in Grades 6-12 First Offense: The student or students who are the perpetrators of bullying must participate in Behavior Modification/Conflict Resolution Program or other programs, as determined by District personnel. At least one parent or guardian will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. Second Offense: The building administrator will determine the appropriate disciplinary action as listed for category one offenses in the \"Student Handbook.\" The student must complete a unit of study on bullying, empathy and anger management. The parents/guardians will be required to attend a conference with the principal or his/her designee concerning the student's bullying offense. Third Offense: If the third offense occurs within one school year, the student will receive a short-term out-of-school suspension. Additional behavior interventions will be required. Note: If a more serious offense occurs, it will be addressed at the most serious offense level, either category two or three, as prescribed in the Student Handbook. Adopted: Legal Reference: Cross Reference: Student Handbook 2 !J' ~ :c 8,.... m,.... ~ 0z 0:, C C C'l .m.. fl ~ V, m 3C m z 7' :c mz C m\n,:, ~z .!.\",' z \u0026gt;z n ~ V, ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: FROM: Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~d M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Refinancing of May 2000 Bond Issue Background Information: The District's Financial Advisor, Stephens Inc, represented by Executive Vice President, Mark McBryde, has determined that a significant savings can be realized by refinancing the existing May 2000 bond issue. This issue has a remaining principal balance of$5,800,000 and is scheduled to mature in 2020. It is estimated that a savings of approximately $372,000 can be realized over the life of the bond issue by refinancing at this time. The refunded issue would save the District approximately $22,000 per year in debt payments and would also mature in 2020. Fiscal Impact: The District will realize a savings of approximately $372,000 ($22,000 per year, over the life of this bond issue). Recommendations: It is recommended that the Board approve a motion authorizing the District to move forward with this refinancing. 810 W Markham  Llttle Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !\"' ~ :,: 8,.... m,.... ~ 0z r:r, C 8 _m, !..\", z  z n \u0026gt;,.... \"' ~ n 5 \"z' G')\na m !\n,,\n\"' APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO ISSUE BONDS TYPE OF BONDS Voted 2nd Lien X Refunding TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District No. LEA No. 60-01 of --Pu-lask-i - County, Arkansas, was held at Little Rock the 23rd day of June for the purpose of applying for approval to issue bonds in the amount of $6,440,000 for the purpose of: refunding the May 1, 2000 bond issue ($5,800,000) and funding costs of issuance and escrow contingencies ($640,000). The proposed bonds shall be amortized over a period not to exceed 17 years and callable on any ---- interest paying date after 5 years, with total annual principal and interest payments approximately of --- (see attached schedule) at an assumed interest rate of 3.85% (If total annual obligation not approximately even, explain). The District proposes to finance this bond issue as follows: Number of new debt service mills: Specify what will be done with existing millage (if applicable): Present Assessment: 2002 2,248,725,632 Present Millage: M\u0026amp;O 32.0 D.S. 12.4 DM\u0026amp;O 2.0 TOTAL 46.4 Name of Bond Counsel: Bob Beach, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Page 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS FINANCIAL STATEMENT (Taken from the LEA Annual Financial Report) (For the School Year 2001-2002) REVENUE RECEIPTS: Beginning Balance All Accounts Total Local Revenues Total County and other LEA's Total State Revenues Unrestricted Federal Revenue Non-Revenue, Transfers \u0026amp; Adult Education Total Available Funds EXPENDITURES: Total Expenditures, Salary Fund Total Expenditures, Operating Fund Total Debt Service Expenditures Total Expenditures of Above CLOSING CASH BALANCES: Total Receipts Total Expenditures Ending Balances Page2 $8,489,087 $95,971,593 $21,619 $71,611,375 $865,718 $3.218.142 $180,177,534 $92,295,468 $68.783,731 $10,526,076 $171,605,275 $180,177,534 $171,605.275 $8,572,259 !D ~ :,: 8,... ,m... !:l 0z CD C C C') .m.. f\u0026gt; ~ m :I: zm -\n-\u0026lt; :,: m z C m ~ 0 z OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS AS OF June 1, 2003 COMMERCIAL BONDS Issue Dates Maturi!_y Date Princi2al O/S Mills Pledged 5/1/00 2/1/20 $ 5,800,000 surplus 9/1/00 \"A\" 2/1/33 45,295,000 12.4 10/15/00 \"B\" 2/1/33 39,580,000 Sarne as Series A 6/1/01 \"C\" 2/1/33 89,890,000 Sarne as A \u0026amp; B Interest Rates 5.00-5.75% 5.125-5.50% 5.10-5.50% 5.00-5.25% TOTAL PRINCIPAL OUTSTANDING: $ 180,565,000 TOT AL MILLS: 12.4 Issue Dates Maturity Date Princi2al O/S Warrant No. Interest Rate PDW 7/1/99 10/15/05 $191,110.35 5.00% PDW 8/15/00 1/15/07 161,401.85 6.4450% PDW 9/1/00 1/5/07 191,527.14 6.14% LP 4/16/01 1/15/08 287,603.62 5.23% LP 9/12/01 9/12/11 1,242,244.97 -3.314% LP 3/8/02 3/8/12 611,718.43 -2.798% PDW 5/15/02 1/15/09 338,191.90 4.50% LP 5/25/01 5/25/11 2,534,068.15 -4.214% TOTAL PRINCIPAL OUTSTANDING: $5,557,866.41 SUMMARY Commercial Bonds $180,565,000.00 2002 A.V. 2,248,725,632 Revolving Loans Warrants \u0026amp; Contracts $5,557,866.41 Net Borrowing Power@27% 421,033,054 Total Indebtedness $186,122,866.41 Total Refunds $5,800,000.00 Net Borrowing Power@ 35% 600,931,105 The debt ratio of the district including this issue will be 8.305%. Page 3 REFUNDING OUTSTANDING REVOLVING LOANS AND/OR COMMERCIAL BONDS Issue Dates 5/1/00 No. of Bonds or Cert. No. Interest Rate 5.00-5.75% TOT AL REVOLVING LOANS TO BE REFUNDED Maturity Dates 2/1/20 $ Principal Amount Outstanding $5,800,000 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED $ 5,800,000 ---------------- What is the purpose of this refunding? To produce interest savings. ---'=---------~--------------- We, the undersigned, ----Ju-dy- M-agn-es-s --- and ______L_arr y Berkley ...:__ __ ....:\n_ _____ _ President and Secretary, respectively, of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District No. of Pulaski County, Arkansas, do each severally certify as follows: ---- --------- I. That it is our understanding that the within application will become a part of the transcript of proceeding upon which the State, the bond approving attomey(s), and the purchasers of the bonds will rely should the proposed bond issue be approved. 2. That all statements made herein by us are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. 3. That we will immediately notify the Department of Education should any change of plans, or other conditions, materially affect the amount of the funds required under this application for a permit to issue bonds. 4. That, should the proceeds of the loan exceed the actual requirements for the purpose for which the bonds are sold, the Board will apply such excess to the retirement of the first installment of the debt. 5. That we will furnish the State Board of Education with such further and additional information as may be required by it in relation to the proposed bond issue. DONE at --Li-ttle- R-oc-k - Arkansas, this day of June 2003. ---- BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF Little Rock School District No. of Pulaski County, Arkansas By: ______________ _ President of the Board By: ______________ _ Secretary of the Board Page4 !\" \"C'') ::c 0 0 rm ::\nC...'.) 0z a, C: C C'l !!l r\u0026gt; ~ \"m'\ni: mz -\n\u0026lt; ::c m z C m ~ z !=' C 0 z ~ 0 z \"' !\" \"T1 z  z C') \u0026gt; r- \"' ~ C') re \"z' C'l\n:o i\n:o\nII\n\"' Directors of Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sirs: We are advised that your District proposes to issue up to $6,440,000 in refunding bonds to mature over a period not to exceed 17 years. We can be of service to your District as financial advisor in helping prepare the authorization and sale of your bonds, and therefore, we submit the following proposal: I. As your financial advisor, we agree to prepare and have checked by a reputable bond approving attorney the following: (a) Necessary maturity schedules (b) All papers to the State Department of Education. (c) Notice of Sale and publication of same (d) and all other forms and papers necessary for the issuance of these bonds. We will prepare a preliminary and final official statement containing financial data and other infonnation of the nature and to the extent ordinarily required by municipal security dealers in bidding on bonds of the type contemplated\nall of which is to be supplied in sufficient numbers for mailing to lists of perspective bidders. We will also be responsible for coordinating all work with the rating agency. 2. The buyer shall have the right to convert the bonds to bonds bearing a lower rate of interest, conversion to be figured according to the Universal Bonds Values Table and subject to the approval of the State Board of Education and Stephens Inc. 3. The bonds will be callable in approximately five years, subject to market conditions, in inverse numerical order at par and accrued interest on any interest paying date from funds from any source. 4. In connection with the sale of this proposed issue, the District authorizes Stephens Inc. to prepare a preliminary and final official statement in order to assist with the placement of the securities. 5. In consideration of our rendering the above services, and acting as your financial advisor, we are to receive for our services a fee of 0.385% for bonds issued to refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. Out of our fee, we are to pay for the required publications of the Notice of Sale in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazettet and the bond counsel fee of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. The District shall pay the rating agency fee, if any, from bond proceeds. The purchaser may name the trustee and will be responsible for his fee. The District agrees to pay prepaid trustee fees and accountant verification fees from either bond proceeds or existing funds. 6. This agreement is subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Education. 7. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty-four months from its acceptance and shall cover this proposed financing or other subsequent financings. 8. Proceeds from this issue will be used to: refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. 9. If for any reason the District decides not to issue these bonds, you will not be obligated to Stephens Inc. for expenses we may have incurred. Respectfully submitted, STEPHENS INC. ACCEPTED THIS ___ DAY OF JUNE, 2003 -----------'L:ci\"'tt'-'-le\"-'-'R\"'-o\"\"'ck\"------------- School District PRESIDENT SECRETARY Directors of Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Sirs: We are advised that your District proposes to issue up to $6,440,000 in refunding bonds to mature over a period not to exceed 17 years. We can be of service to your District as financial advisor in helping prepare the authorization and sale of your bonds, and therefore, we submit the following proposal: 1. As your financial advisor, we agree to prepare and have checked by a reputable bond approving attorney the following: (a) Necessary maturity schedules (b) All papers to the State Department of Education. (c) Notice of Sale and publication of same (d) and all other forms and papers necessary for the issuance of these bonds. We will prepare a preliminary and final official statement containing financial data and other information of the nature and to the extent ordinarily required by municipal security dealers in bidding on bonds of the type contemplated\nall of which is to be supplied in sufficient numbers for mailing to lists of perspective bidders. We will also be responsible for coordinating all work with the rating agency. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The buyer shall have the right to convert the bonds to bonds bearing a lower rate of interest, conversion to be figured according to the Universal Bonds Values Table and subject to the approval of the State Board of Education and Stephens Inc. The bonds will be callable in approximately five years, subject to market conditions, in inverse numerical order at par and accrued interest on any interest paying date from funds from any source. In connection with the sale of this proposed issue, the District authorizes Stephens Inc. to prepare a preliminary and final official statement in order to assist with the placement of the securities. In consideration of our rendering the above services, and acting as your financial advisor, we are to receive for our services a fee of 0.385% for bonds issued to refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. Out of our fee, we are to pay for the required publications of the Notice of Sale in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazettet and the bond counsel fee of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. The District shall pay the rating agency fee, if any, from bond proceeds. The purchaser may name the trustee and will be responsible for his fee. The District agrees to pay prepaid trustee fees and accountant verification fees from either bond proceeds or existing funds. This agreement is subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Education. 7. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty-four months from its acceptance and shall cover this proposed financing or other subsequent financings. 8. Proceeds from this issue will be used to: refund the May I, 2000 bond issue. 9. If for any reason the District decides not to issue these bonds, you will not be obligated to Stephens Inc. for expenses we may have incurred. Respectfully submitted, STEPHENS INC. ACCEPTED THIS ___ DAY OF JUNE, 2003 --------=L~itt=l~e~R~o~c~k ____________ School District PRESIDENT SECRETARY !J:l ~ :J: 0 ,0.. . m In C\") -\u0026lt; 5z a, C: g !!l ~ ~ u, m\ni::: mz 7' :J: m z 0 m ~ z !..\"., z \u0026gt;z C\") ~ u, CERTIFICATE AS TO USE OF DEBT SERVICE SA VIN GS Pursuant to the laws of the State of Arkansas, a school district shall not lose additional state funding as a result of debt service savings produced by refunding outstanding bonds provided that (1) the yearly savings produced by the refunding is deposited into a Refunding Savings Building Fund and is used by the district for the building and equipping of school buildings, major adaptations to a school facility or purchasing sites therefore\nand (2) prior to the date the refunding bonds are sold at public sale, the district submits a certificate to the Director of the Department of Education, General Education Division, certifying that the yearly debt service savings will be used for the purposes described above. We, the undersigned, Judy Magness, President of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County Arkansas (the \"District\"), and Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of the District, do each severally certify as follows: I. The yearly debt service savings (the \"Savings\") produced by the refunding of the District's Construction Bonds, dated May 1, 2000, with proceeds from the District's Refunding Bonds, dated (to be determined) (the \"Refunding Bonds\") will be deposited into the Refunding Savings Building Fund created by the District\n2. The yearly Savings will be used by the District for the building and equipping of school buildings, major adaptations to school facilities or purchasing sites therefore\nand 3. The Refunding Bonds will not be offered for public sale prior to July 1, 2003. DATED: -------------- PRESIDENT SUPERINTENDENT (SEAL) I, ----------~ Director of the Department of Education, General Education Division, acknowledge receipt of this Certificate prior to the date the Refunding Bonds were offered for public sale. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: ol District Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Annual School Election In order to satisfy various legal requirements concerning school elections, budget publication, and school tax rates, the Board of Directors must approve a proposed budget for the 2004-2005 school year together with a rate of tax levy sufficient to provide such funds. The requirement for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time ... not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election. (Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-622) It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures and tax levy for 2004-2005 as attached for publication in accordance with State law. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ~ U) m :I:: m z 7' ::,: zm C m\no lS z !..\", z z\u0026gt; C') ~ ~ C') 5 U) z C) I ~ PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2005 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Amendments No. 40 and No. 74 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and of Arkansas Code Ann.  6- 13-622 (1993 Repl.) has prepared, approved, and hereby makes public the proposed budget of expenditures together with a supporting tax rate as follows: 1. Salary Fund Expenditures 2. Instructional Expense 3. Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense 4. Pupil Transportation Expense 5. Other Operating Expense 6. Non-bonded Debt Payment 7. Bonded Debt Payment 8. Building Fund Expense 9. Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation $ 87,515,167.00 $ 24,397,727.00 $ 14,044,500.00 $ 13,571,158.00 $ 34,866,334.00 $ 688,590.00 $ 12,063,141.00 $ 30,000,000.00 $ 4,300,000 .00 The total tax levy proposed includes 32.0 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools, 12.4 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness, and 2.0 mills for current expenditures/dedicated maintenance and operation expenditures. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. The total proposed rate includes the uniform rate of tax to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. The proposed rate includes no increases. Given this 26th day of June, 2003. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County Judy Magness, President Larry Berkley, Secretary H:\\Faculty\\Carol.Am1strong\\CFHUGHE\\Election\\E/ectionBudget2003.doc ~n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" June 26, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Request for Easement: Henderson Middle School CenterPoint Energy Arkla has requested that the Little Rock School District grant an easement to allow them to relocate gas lines alone Barrow Road immediately adjacent to Henderson Middle School. This easement is to meet the needs of the City to widen Barrow Road to facilitate new stoplights that are going to be placed in that location. Assessment of this easement indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Henderson Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !=' C 0 ~ 0z u, r..n, z \u0026gt; i!i 7E u, ~ (\") 5 \u0026lt;J) z G') I\nc\n._ u, ....... ...  Pr1:1pared By: Oan,1y Adams n, CenterPoint Energy Arkla - P.O. Box 751  Lillie Rock, Arkansas 72203 CenterPoint Energy Arkla a division of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp . FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF One Dollar and Other Good and Valuable Considerations TO US IN HAND PAID, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR (WHETHER ONE OR MORE) WHOSE ADDRESS IS 810 West Markham Street, LltUe Rock, Arkansas 72201 DOES HEREBY GRANT TO CENTERPOINT ENERGY ARKLA, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP .. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT OF WAY TO LAY, MAINTAIN, ALTER, REPAIR, OPERATE, REPLACE, CHANGE THE SIZE OF AND REMOVE PIPELINES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR GAS, OR PRODUCTS OF OIL OR GAS AND TO CONSTRUCT METER HOUSES AND OTHER APPURTENANCES, INCLUDING CATHODIC PROTECTION FACILITIES WITHIN SAID RIGHT OF WAY, IF THE SAME SHALL BE FOUND NECESSARY ON, OVER AND THROUGH CERTAIN LANDS SITUATED IN COUNTY OF lHATE OF ARKANSAS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AN EASEMENT FIFTEEN FEET (15') WIDE ALONG AND ADJACENT TO THE EAST LINE OF JOHN BARROW ALL ON A PART OF THE NE1/4 SW1/4 AND SE1/4 NW1/4, SECTION 2, T-1-N, R-13-W IN CONJUNCTION WITH HIGHWAY RELOCATION FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK. SEE EXHIBIT \"A\"  WITH INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM THE SAME. THE SAID GRANTOR _ HEIRS OR ASSIGNS, TO FULLY USE AND ENJOY THE SAID PREMISES EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES HEREINBEFORE GRANTED TO THE SAID GRANTEE, WHO HEREBY AGREES TO PAY ANY DAMAGES WHICH MAY ARISE TO TIMBER, CROPS AND FENCES FROM LAYING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING SAID LINES. SHOULD MORE THAN ONE PIPELINE BE LAID UNDER THIS GRANT AT ANYTIME THE SAME CONSIDERATION SHALL BE PAID FOR EACH LINE SO LAID AS WAS PAID FOR THE FIRST LINE LAID. GRANTOR REPRESENTS THAT SAID LANDS ARE RENTED OR LEASED TO _________________ WHOSE ADDRESS IS AND WE, AND HUSBAND AND WIFE, FOR THE CONSIDERATION AFORESAID, DO HEREBY RELEASE, RELINQUISH AND QUITCLAIM UNTO CENTERPOINT ENERGY ARKLA, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. ALL OUR RIGHTS OR POSSIBILITIES OF OF DOWER, CURTESY AND HOMESTEAD IN AND TO SAID RIGHT OF WAY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARl IES HERETO HAVE SET THEIR HANDS ANL\u0026gt; SEALS, THIS DAY OF _______ , A.O. 2003. SEAL LITTLE ROCK MAP #11560 SEAL Cl I Y Pl.AN I OR LINE NO. SEAL JOBACCOON1 NO. YES SEAL PLAI OR DRAWING A I I ACHED ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE STATE OF _______ _ COUNTY OF ________ _ BE IT REMEMBERED, THAT ON THIS DAY CAME BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY AND STATE AFORESAID, DULY COMMISSIONED AND ACTING TO ME WELL KNOW AS GRANTOR IN THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT AN=D-A--C'K'\"'N\"\"O_W_L_ E__ D_G_ E__ D_T_H_A_T-===-=--=--=--=---HA-D~ EXECUTED THE SAME FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED AND SET FORTH. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL AS SUCH NOTARY PUBLIC ON THIS ______ DAY OF ______ . 2002. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID _______ _ COUNTY, _________ _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: EXHIBIT \"A\"  u CJ 0 D I D u ----~ .!'.\",' z ~ C\") ~ en ~ C\") ,- 0 en z C)\n,o m ~\n,,: en LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: June 26, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~rral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Dodd Elementary School Fair Park Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Item An art kit, valued at approximately $50.00, for the Law Day Program held on 5/1/03 $50.00 cash for the Law Day Program held on 5/1 /03 Two (2) new projection screens valued at $75.00 each or a total value of $150.00 $1,000.00 cash to be used for achievement awards and technology enhancement Cash donations, totaling $8,565.00, to be used for down payment on the new Compass Learning software Donor Mrs. Bernice Whitfield Bank of Little Rock Mr. Charles Tanner The Wal-Mart Foundation Various donors as per the attached list !\" .., z \u0026gt;z (\") 7E u, Board of Directors June 26, 2003 Page 2 Schoo I/Department Geyer Springs Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School Wilson Elementary School $1,000.00 cash in honor of Baseline Wal-Mart Store Ms. Theresa Lane, \"Teacher of the Year\". The funds will be used to purchase materials, books and student incentives. $200.00 cash to the SECME KATY - Channel 7 club to help with their trip to Space Camp $400.00 cash to the SECME Mr. Dick Bona ofKraftco club to help with their trip to Hardware Space Camp $200.00 cash to the SECME Janet Jones Company club to help with their trip to Space Camp Top soil and materials, Jefferson PTA valued at approximately $500.00, for landscaping improvements to the front of the building Plants, valued at Mrs. Matt Barker approximately $150.00, for landscaping improvements to the front of the building Landscaping services and Mr. Danny Deislinger plants, valued at approximately $500.00, for landscaping improvements to the front of the building Packard-Bell Pentium PC Lance and Carolyn Livingston 180 rnhz, 73 meg ram, 2 hard drives, ethernet card and monitor. PC was purchased by donor in 1995 for $1,500.00 - estimated depreciated value is $300.00. Board of Directors June 26, 2003 Page 3 Schoo I/Department Woodruff Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Woodruff Elementary School Little Rock School District $600.00 cash to assist in purchasing tee-shirts for students to commemorate celebration of exceeding the record of \"445 Days Without A Fight\" $1,000.00 cash in recognition of Mr. Michael Norberg, \"Teacher of the Year\" Over 1,000 books, valued at $3,000.00, for classroom libraries Bedding plants, valued at approximately $35.00, for use by students enrolled in the spring intersession \"Gardening by the Yard\" class Six (6) single-wide classroom portable buildings, valued at approximately $500.00 each, or a total value of $3,000.00 Lander's Auto Group of Benton and Little Rock Sam's Club of Little Rock Ms. Sara Clements with the Girl Scouts of Ouachita Council Home Depot of Little Rock Missouri Equipment Leasing, Inc. It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. !..\", z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' ~ ,0- 0 \"z' C)\nc m f:\nc ~ 05/19/2003 10:54 5015704011 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE PAGE 01 CLOVERDALE MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Angelaaftns. Principal SUBJECT: Donations Please accept these donation.s given to Cloverda1e Magnet Middle School. The donations were used for the Law Day Program held on May 1, 2003. Mrs. Bernice Wbitfield, 7313 Redwood Drive, Little Rock, AR 72209 donated an art kit with an estimated cost of $50.00. A $50.00 cash donation was given from the Bank of Little Rock. The address is 8500 Geyer Springs Road, Little Rock, AR 72209. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent M~Y 2 o 2003 PIIOCURllllENT 6300 Hinkson Road  Phone (501) 447-2500  Fax {501) 447-2501  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6423 Stagecoach Road  Phone 455-7430  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Date: May 6, 2003 To: From: Subject: Mr. Darral Paradis, Procurement Manager Faith McLaughlin, principal ~ Donation of projection screens f'' '-\" Mr. Charles Tanner wishes to donate two new projection screens to David 0 . Dodd Elementary (1) Da-lite Flyer Screen size - 60\" x 60\" value $75.00 (2) K-Mart Focal Custom Screen - size 60\" x 60\" value - $ 75.00 I am recommending that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock District AY ~ 7 20u3 \"Together - building a better tomorrow, one child at a time\" !..\", z \u0026gt;z n ~ en ~ n,- 0 en z C)\nc m I en FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: From: Date: Re: Darral Paradis Director of Procur\n~ent Samuel Branch /}6 Principal May 28, 2003 Wal-Mart Donation The Wal-Mart Foundation, 702 S.W. E. Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716, donated $1 ,000.00 to Fair Park. The money will be used for achievement awards and technology enhancement. I recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVE 616 N. Harrison Street  Phone (501) 671-6260  Fax (501) 671-6205  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \" STRIVING FOR EXCELLENCE\" To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Deborah Mitchell, Principal Date: May 8, 2003 RE: Donations Attached to this document are copies of the donation cards for funds given to Fulbright Elementary for our new computer lab software. These funds, which have been approved for use by our Associate Superintendent, have been used as a down payment on the Compass Learning Software we have purchased. It is recommended that these donations be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District board of Directors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jf~~ Deborah Mitchell Principal DM:lam Ra:CEIVED MAY 15 2003 PROCUREMENT 300 Pleasant Valley Drive  Phone (501) 228-3080 or (501) 447-4700  Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 !..\", z \u0026gt;z n j!! \"' ~ n 5 \"z' C) ill ~\n,,: \"' SpottSofSluf\u0026gt; Levels -Plo.Utuun $500.00 G1\u0026gt;ui $250.00 Sillier $100.00 Bt'011Ze. $50.00 Fl'iends of Fl.llbtight Be.low $50.00 Donation Amount ----'=!\n'---_o_,D -\"--'n ~'------ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. _ ___________ In Memory or In Honor ( circle one)  1f.1fr.1t'.lt'OOOOOOON\u0026gt;OOOOOO~OOOOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOtlOOOOOO.OO=OOOOOOOOOO !!0~0000000000000000000000000000000000-00000000000000000 ij fwhttgh-t eletne.tito.t!1 C0\u0026gt;tnf\u0026gt;1.tUt Loh Softwo.te Do-tltltto-n. Cotd. ff Name~. e'1 + kuq Qvr0c:., 11,Cv.-f 1? Address _______ City/State/Zip ____ _ .,\n~~ - ---------------------- { f -Plolliw.rn. $500.00 SpottSMShif\u0026gt; Le.ve~1\u0026gt;'1! $250.00 i~ ') ~i Sillle.i $1 00.00 Bt01tZe. $50.00 F,i.e.ru.ls of Fl.llbti.ght 'Be.low $50.00 ',}, ,. /'_'\u0026gt; , ') 0 ,J!~? Donation Amount O U  C -=\"--=-------- 5i If you would like your donation lo be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of\nt SOIJ:leone, please list nam~ . I ~\n~ .)I((), 1 t\\ N]l-\\ ~ \\ Pt ()q.) /\\1 In Memory or In Honor H (circle one) :,(,{l{)Ot\u0026gt;ooooooooooooooo.'X)()()OOOO()oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, Fi.Jhttght E-1.e.m.wto.t~ Co,IY\\f't.tUt Loh Snftwo.te. 1)~ Cott.l Name ful) m ~..S Address _______ City/State/Zip ____ _ Spo-ttsotShif\u0026gt; Levels -Plo.tinwn. $500.00 G1\u0026gt;ui $250.00 \u0026gt; Sillier $1 00.00 'BN\u0026gt;Ne. $50.00 Fri.eluls of Fl.llbtight 'Be.low $50.00 Donation Amount .S O  0 Q If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) Name ()\\~- ~~ ~\\~ Address(\n\\:.~\nf-~\\J ='kCity/State/ZiP~\u0026amp; p\ng PtP::: ,~\\'.)  S~ot\\SotShlf\u0026gt; Lewis  \"Pf.otinwn. $500.00 Si.hiet $ l 00.00 F~ of F..U.riglit Go(d. $!250.00 'BtONe $50.00 'Below $50.00 Donation Amount __(l \"-11'._.\\..,.~..___ __%_ __ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT Sp,o--nsotship Lewls Plflimuirt. $500.00 GoY. $250.00 ~,l,~t $100.00 BtoNe. $50.00 Fti.en.ds of Fulbttght Be.fMv $50.00 I 1nnation Amount ,..-# k \u0026gt;O, 0_0 11 vru ,,vould like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of \"\"lnenne, please list name. ___________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) ' '\\'' r~000000000000000000000000\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;0000\u0026lt;)()(1~00\u0026lt;)()(1!000\u0026lt;)(\u0026gt;0000\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;0\u0026lt;~ , ,  .: m: 'KlOO\u0026lt;XX\u0026gt;OOOOOOOO.-')t){\u0026gt;O()(WO-OOOOvOCWV~vvVvvvVvvVlAAN\\.\"-'] :'~\ngl,t ei... ... ,\u0026lt;trug c,,,\"~td\nr Loh S.ft,,,im D....iu, Crud I llarrie :)\\\\did\\( _l\\t ,,\\l ff,_\n. . I !lfldress \\~l '-.- c.- ~ ! l t'Lt'.\n.v  rt fo1 ,:\n~~1ty/State/Z1p -..'.L d. .) I L- :t 1) r ) gpo t1Sotshif1 l~ve.ls I Plo:limun. $500.00 GoU $!250.00 Stb:el' $100.00 Rrot12e $50.00 \u0026gt; Ftimul.\n~r Fultght Rel.ow $50.00 , I~ Donation Amount --!)' l- '-'- - ------- 1f you would like your donation to be \"In Memoiy\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ~ ____________ In Memory or In Honor ~ (circle one) \u0026lt;\u0026gt; \\,.,10:1()(}t\u0026gt;0000000000(J.000(}(}000j0(\u0026gt;000~00000000000{){){}~{\n00{.l('j E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Name ( =... to,- f  kt,, vv , , (Kc.. n o Address \u0026gt;i.i 1$ l\\Ao,,+r,,,,. be,/\nI City/State/Zip ____ _ I \\-M\\r? llccd:, (\\r2 7 2 2 11 Sp\u0026gt;MlS()t$hip l.eM\u0026gt;Js 1'ioti.nwn. $500.00 SLb'et $ I 00.00 Fri.end\u0026amp; of Fi.J.btight GoY. $250.00 'Bronze. $50.00 Be.fMv $50.00 Donation Amount _l...,('\"'-i,n._\"',(. )..=. 0'------- lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. - Ib ,, 1:-... \\ lo , ~ j\"'\"l \\,:ec,c h.fr.5 In Memory or  H~~~ (circle one) - ... .... .  .:. . ,......-          ... ,   ~  Fwhti.ght e~ Cotnf\u0026gt;utet Loh Softwcue. DOtlOtiotl Crud. Name Nofa,~ g Rob,n BrouJn Address ?.k~'f de Ca UA.r City/State/Zip LI Hie:. l?ock,_ Ag '7, /\n)_ {fhe1t\u0026amp;z2.1-1193) ./ Sf'ottsot$h.q\u0026gt; UM.ls 'Pfo.tuuun. $500,00 csilw.r $100.0(U Fti.entk of Fi.J.bright Go{d. $250.00 Bronze. $50.00 Relow$50.00 Donation Amoun#_ I._ Q.~{,J,_ _S_ .S.-______ ... . . ... SpMlSMS~ Leve.ls St1011Sorsh-tp Levels -pfotinwn, $500.00 Si.Wer $ I 00.00 Gold, $250.00 Bt'MlZe $50.00 \"Plt.ttl.tULm. $500.00 giflle!\" $} 00.00 Fti.ends of F1tlliti.ght Donation Amount\nSO~ G~M $250.00 Brottze $50.00 Bid.ow $50.00 ) Fri.ends of Fulbright Bel.ow $50.00 Donation Amount _.i.()J:..UD!..:.~0-V-=------ ---------- If you would like your donation to be \"I n Me mo ry\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of In Memory or In Honor someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor ------------ (circle one) (circle one) Ful.bttght l.e,mefd:o.t~ C\u0026lt;\u0026gt;tnJ\u0026gt;UW Loh Softwo.te. l)OflOtio,tt. Co.ti! Name c\nl ~bs ::\\ Ro~~ rt Covc_k_ Address loo 7 1-el k,,-.J LA City/State/Zip 3lo83 o Av\\pv-1'--l I AL SpMtSMSfup Levels -Plot.uwm. $500.00 Si.Wer $ I 00.00 Fri.end.s of Ft.tlbti.ght Gold, $250.00 Bronze $50.00 Bel.ow $50.00 Donation Amount__,_/ D--'-0_, -'--0...,.O'------- lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. I ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) _ 00(~)00000,00000000000000000~00000000000\u0026lt;\u0026gt;8 ' . Fld.brigM ~ CoJ,,\u0026amp;teiLoh Softwote DOtlOtiotL Cotd-i +c_, -e_.,. ,. e.Gity/State/Zip-==~~-,\\+-- Sf\u0026gt;MlSotS~ Lew.ls l'fotwun_ $500.00 Gofa. $250.00 Si.hie, fl 00.00 'B,ona $50.00 ftieNk ol FulLrigJi\nt Reio.., $50.00 Donation Amoul c\n/5D t O 0 If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of s  In Memory or S ( circle one) !..\", z z\u0026gt; C') ~ (/) ~ C') 5 (/) z Cl ~ ~ ~ (/) Name SALly \"'Ruh~ /Jy1l-/l Address 5 !1 tJb \u0026amp;um trfit.. City/State/Zip ___ _ .l, rrLe \u0026amp;t!c,k ArR /2J\n2.3 - J Sr,ottSotS\"-q, Lewis \"Plo.tinwn. $500.00 Si.lw.t $ I 00.00 Friends: of FllDirigM ~ $!250.00 BN\u0026gt;Ne $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount --5= /J-, D--0~ ----- If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. _ ___________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) ''l!l{lfl (.l(}OOOOOOOOOf1CCOOOOtx\u0026gt;OOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOCOOO!\u0026gt;OOC\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;OOOOO'\u0026gt; } Fulhiigh.t el.e.tvie,t1.tot~f Cow1tJ1Aie.l Ln.h Softwote- \"DMloti.\u0026amp;t'\\. Cru\"tl ! lJame S+e p he1J ~ob c ~ Y\\J ~ J !\\ddress ::L,vJe ko..e. ( .. pC1ty/State/Z1p 7,\n,..a..{.J-St, 011sotSh.i.f\u0026gt; Levels -Plr1:liJ,1,01t $500.00 GoM. $250.00 g iJ11e1 $ I 00.00 Br\u0026amp;1t2e $50.00 Fri.ends of F1tlhrtght Below $50.00 Donation Amount~) .,_Q'------ lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ in Memory or In Honor (circle one) \u0026gt; rwbng~ e~ ~utu \\.ob SM\\won. U~ Cwc). Name 13r e., vt\nl ~ 'Sa. VV\\. \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; Coo/Lie... S . Address 30 Col liflS 1hd. pl. City/State/Zip iJ. Wf100d:1 M 1JII 3 Sr,ottSOfS\"-q, Lewis ~ $500.00 Sihiet $100.00 . Frwuk of FllDirigM Donation Amount J--51 0 . 00 ~ $!250.00 BtoNe $50.00 Below $50.00 If you would llke your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) OOCOOOOOOOOoooooeooooooooo000000000000oooooo.ooooooooooooooo F1.tlht19ht .~t!f Cnntii.tte.t Lo.b Softwote- D011Mi.\u0026amp;tt Crut.l. \u0026gt; Name tR\\..S~ Pa.410-sro Address (6 S W/c1~J,--1..~\u0026lt;:e ~\u0026lt;~~..\n:C~ity~/S~t:-a-:-te-\n:/Z:::i-p-1,-=...)-::--::,-,-\u0026lt;:}--} o-t.J2,J..,'I SpMtSo,s\nh.q, Levels 1'1o.t.i1Uurt. $500.00 Si.b.,e, $ I 00.00 Fti.ends of Ful.bti.ght GoM $250.00 Rto1tZe. $50.00 Be.low $50.00 Donation Amount ct,0 . O\"O -=-\"--.:...... ___ _ _ If you would lil\u0026lt;e y~ur donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please hst name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor 16t1~lMf.i-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OO.~OO:OOOO{) ~ ( circle one) _ ~ooo.~0000:\u0026gt;oooo~ IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT r ,-llrti9ht 1.em.etd:.ru~ Cotnpt.det Loh Softw0te- OOf\\Otio.tl Cord. rc__ e,to~ SfJ01lSOtSh.q\u0026gt; Levels I , .. , ,~1.in. $500.00 Go{d. $250.00 ...:\nl,-21 $ l 00.00 Bronze $50.00 Fri!Mult. of full,right Bel\u0026amp;w $50.00 ') ,.- (-, C'U 1 tr\u0026gt;11alion Amount - ''-'-'-\"~)\"'\"')~ ------ If vou would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of r-1~eone, please list nam(\\. s \\ {, ~ \\f 1\\--..l \\ J. ',\\'\\ \\ -\\-(.:::.._ In Memory or In Honor (circle one rr,-t-e,CQOOOOOOOOOCOC1~l)O(!~OOC\u0026gt;O\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOC\u0026gt;OOOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOOOC:\u0026gt;OCOOC:\u0026gt;OCIO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;l\u0026gt;OC~ r 1,lhti ht 1.em.etdty Computet Loh SoftwOJ\"e Do~ Cott! Spo.tlSOtshlf\u0026gt; ~ ! 1~um~m. $500.00 ) Iver $100.00:) GoY. $250.00 Bronze $50.00 _- - _~ _'-F_,ier_uk o_f F_i.dl_ui.g ht Bel\u0026amp;w $50.00 _\n:: ___________ 1 1rn1::ition Amount ___ J}.--'-/..::::l...!:: 1{.::J_ _tl::.....=O_ ___ 11 yo11 would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of omeone, please list name. In Memory or In Honor ---------- ( circle one) E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Name 11 ltd c- --\\ h , , ~ 1-I-L\\..-~~c H ,c -- i L Address -1 ,1 / 11Li...!L,c( C't City/State/Zip 'l2,c_~ S~MLSMShlp Levels l'lo.tuuun $500.00 Sillier $ I 00.00 Gahl $250.00 'Bro1ue. $50.00 Friends of Fuiliti.ght Rel.o-w $50.00 t.' .' Donation Amount :) ( - C ' l  If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. In Memory or In Honor I \u0026gt; (circle one) \u0026amp;oc,\u0026gt;0ooowooooooooocoooooooooo~ooooo~ooooo ~ Fulbright e.lem.wto,y Cotnf,uw Loh S\u0026gt;ftwc.ue. D01\\0tlotl Cord. Name te. ~\u0026gt; \u0026amp;U1t /\\.lic. u lCt:S Address-'\\ C:Si' \\).)(ll(1 ~11 '::) (Ci{City/State/Zip._..:\n.\nL\n:..:rtt..:..:~:.:at..=~.,.!:...\\! 7z:z:23 Sf\u0026gt;01\\So-tSNf\u0026gt; u,.,e1s - l'fotiNun. $soo.oo c\u0026lt;M! $2so.oo ... ..\u0026gt; Si.lJ..er $ I 00.00 Bfflf\\Ze $50.00 F~ of Fi.Jbright Rel\u0026amp;w $50,00 Donation Amountj\\, 250. 00 If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. (' h rt '.)tcphl r 1\u0026gt; EV\\ c.a N1col~S In Memory or~ (circle one) r ,,  --  ----- -.,.-.,~ .... ~ , Spo,r1s01-sh.if\u0026gt; Leve.ls Y l~d~~~-.!,.09,00 : ~~ifoei- $ I 00.00 Frieruk of Fulbttght Gohl $250.00 Bmttze. $50.00 Relow $50.00 -~:\n:\n:~~-n_A_m_rn_m_t~~:-~-~ i.:-1.::-_.-f--~_(:- ==========-------- , II you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of ~ __ In Memory or tn Honor ~ (Circle one) 8 someone, please list name.\n, : \u0026gt;ti(itJ {}{X)-OOOOOO'JOOO'.\u0026gt;OOtl {i:\".l-001J01.)0.{KJ{}0G0000ct00:XXOOOO-\"\u0026gt;OO{lOOC:8 . ,. H}f}{,~OOOOOOOOO\u0026lt;XX:IOOOOC:XX)OOOOOOC:,OCOOOOOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;OOIQOO :: r,~Un1-9ht lw1.e,titot~ Cotflf\u0026gt;td:et Loh Softwo,e. Dof\\O.ti.o,n. Crut! ,,\nN~me_ limit/if::  -,\n_ J'- \u0026gt;1/ cc ,,b At J\n!ressJZjfu\njZl.r.--- ity/State/Zip--'--,-,,...~ ........ ~- \" Sf\u0026gt;o-Motsh.ip l . .e,vek \"Fl.,.~1.tnM.m. $500.00 Go,ld, $250.00 ~\nb~r $ I 00.00 Bt\u0026amp;nte $50.00 Frie1uk of Ftdlnight Below $50.00 ii ji') r,\\ L' 0 ''Pnation Amount -~11_-'----'-~'- ------ If vou would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of semeone, please list name. ~ .u:.s :t.t\\..1'_1....,~ 1,-,.,_,1,_J_5_, _____ In Memory or ~ (circle one) ''',iW!{tO'fJ000000000000000\u0026lt;}00~00:x)(K\u0026gt;0~00(\u0026gt;0C00004:x\u0026gt;C)OOl()(\u0026gt;OO\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;Cli.)()~  UAJ\u0026lt;,H~~'- C-U,,lU\u0026lt;-\\'-\\.lil~ '-.,\\)'\\'\"-\\\u0026gt;~ \\.-U,I.) :::,\\)'\\\\,\\NU.\\\\\u0026lt;, \\,l\\)\\,O,:l,U,\\L I,_':.\\).)\\),, ) ' . ' , ) Name 'c \u0026lt;\\ L : '\" , I\u0026lt; -, ,1f k , t.'L:-, -=1,\n. 1 . .Address l \u0026gt;, 1..:t'- r 1 \u0026gt; 11:C I Lr c \"'\"' City/State/Zip '7 ._).. ) I ::).._ s,,cmscshif\u0026gt; Levels Platinu.m $500.00 Gohl $~250.00 Silver $1 00.00 Bronze. $50.00 Ftiettd.s of Fulbri.glLt Relo11v $50.00 ----------- 0 on a ti on Amount -. -~- S- , -l. -L ------ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name \u0026gt;:\n. ~ 8 In Memory or In Honor  ,\n, (circle one) iooooooooooooo0-0000~000000000-000000000000000()0000.{}{}()o-.~ Name /7 l'f.. .I-M1e .s _ J (J'/i tJ 6 a cJ.l) w\nAJ Address J 7007 f/1Af.S()Al City/State/Zip l/ rrt.. ~ MG/(\n( A\nfi'. ZZ2d 2- ' \"Pfo:tuUAJn. $500.00 Si.hiet $1 00.00 Friends cl Ftdl,right Goo! $250.oq 'Btome $50.00 'Belo-.v $50.00 Donation Amount LS,, o O ---_.c_-..:...~=--- 1f you would like your donation to be \"In Memoiy\" or \"In Ho r'' f someone, please list name. no 0 _____________ In Memory or In Honor ( circle one) l i IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT gp01isMsh.\n:p Levels l 'lntiNmt(!~~ ~ ..\nJiie: $1 00.00 f1tettd.\u0026amp; of Ful.btrgld I.lunation Amount .5 {) 0  {Y l) Guhl $250.00 BN\u0026gt;flZe $50.00 Refo.w $50.00 II vou would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of \"mmmne, please list name. i)bllZ f-:. i ( re F\u0026amp;,~, -___ In Memory or In Honor r  .. ,\n.,li+t.}(~1X\u0026gt;IOOOOOOCOOO~~OOOO\u0026lt;:~OO\u0026lt;XXl0000\u0026lt;)()()~:\u0026gt;0C~OOC\u0026gt;O\u0026lt;:IO E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Fl.tlbti.ght f.~t~ Cotrlf'IAtet Lob Sottwote. UoMtiot\\. UotdName 'rJ,,J7 ff / }:'-ncu Ch~/ cJ.'f S ~ AddressJCz tj -,,xL, ,!\u0026gt;tr1-r ~ City/State/ZipU: 7L:t-L-.3c-- 1 'Pl.otinwn. $500.00 Si.Mt $ I 00.00 Frielltk of Fulbright RN\u0026gt;t1Ze $50.00 Re!ow $50.00 If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In.Honor\" of--.... someone, please list n~me. ( ) {=0/1 8 lr~\\1-r ( l/Ji )c/re.S:\u0026gt; In Memory or le:_~./ (circle one) Spo-nsMShlf\u0026gt; LevBls l'l.o.ti1uun. $500.00 GoM $250.00 Si.Iver $ I 00.00 Rtf\u0026gt;flZe $50.00 Fri.en.els o-f Fulbrrght Bel.ow $50.00 Donation Amount \u0026lt;/_\nI ( LL' . rr: If you would like your donatiM to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of 1. someone, please list name. _____________ In Memory . or In Honor ( circle one) 000000000000000000-0-0~00000-0000..\"}(}0000000000000000000000000\u0026amp; (l::'ln\\8 ,_J //VI \u0026amp;11J\u0026amp;Ol. ~ VA v l5 {\n, Or.JU/ 1\\dd1ess L!Ltf 2-- ve:-ez.. fMllL City/State/Zip U!. M2. 12-223 Spo,oso-tsh.if, uwe.fs E'.'l .. 1:~u.t1!\\. $500.00 Goftl $250.00 \u0026lt;t\nt,1\n,,- $ I 00.00 BN\u0026gt;nZe $50.00 Ft'iP.,mk of Fu!Ltight 'Belo-w $50.00 ---- 1 ' mation Amount If 11nu would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of -:nnieone, please list name. __________ In Memory or In Honor ( circle one) . . . s,,onsotskq, uwe.fs tt,.,.,Hm,m. $500.00-  Gob! $250.00 t.~it,,.\n~ $ I 00.00 BN\u0026gt;Ne $50.00 F,-ieruk of Fulb,ight Refuw $50.00 Narne-=~.i..\n....\n.J.:........_-,-,-\"' ....... \u0026amp;:J-ll'-'-\"~-===..:..::=....\n._ _ __,...---..__,--,.. _ Address_4,\u0026lt;...L...._~-==LLL.....,.....=..- Srons01Skq, Lewis 'Plo.ti.ruwt $500.00 Sih-et $ l 00.00 Fri.e.ruk of FtJb,ight Qo{,J, $250.00 'Btonze  $50.00 R~$50.00 Donation Amount _'$~5D~~D~()()------ lf you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of someone, please list name. ____________ In Memory or In Honor (circle one) Fulbtight el.eM.e.ritoty C\u0026amp;tnpl.de.t Loh Softwote- 'D -Plo.tuUUtt $500.00 Si.Lier $ I 00.00 Fri.eMs of FtJbright Brottze $50.00 R~$50.00 Donation Amount __ 1_6_o_o_. o_o ___ _ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. r:~-~ --'-H-'().._/b _r_i0 -k\n_f-__T_ ! _C_A.__~_ _ In Memory or~~ .,.... Sh ff' (circle one) IX. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS X. ADJOURNMENT Spo-ru\notshlp Leve.ls p~t:U11.u.m $500.00 S i.foe\" $1 00.00 F1ienc.ls of Fu.l.bti.ght Go,{d, $250.00 Btot\\Ze $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount -\"c\"--::J--,\")--\"-~--- _Q ._ _______ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of someone, please list name. )\u0026gt; '' , . ... ~ .. ., ....... .,,. ...... T .. _ .... .,. ......... -v~v- ...... ..,.~ ...~ ..., ..,....,'9\" .... ,..V..,UVY'lti-VV~~,-\nrv~v..,,~ra.. . ~v .\u0026gt; j~ Ftdbright 1.e,tnl!-t'ltw!f Co,tnpu:tet Lo.b So.ftwote '00fl0i:U\u0026gt;11- Cord. ~   :~ - ------- -r--------- f~ NameJ_t,\\O f\\ (k (\\) ,J /s~+f 12f Fu-\u0026lt;!6(..:t-lt Address_J_ _ _____ City/State/Zip g ------ g :} '\u0026gt; ii :\u0026gt; :l:\nl .) } .), ) t'. r Spo,ru\notsh,q-, Levels 1'1otinu.m. $500.00 S Uve-r $1 00.00 Ftiellck of Ful.bri.gh.t GrM $250.00 Btot1Ze $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount :.26 . 0 0 ---'-''--\n:c_ _ ___ _ _ i If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of i sorn~one, pleas(\n} __ list name.\n!=\u0026gt;1.:..\\ '. e 1\u0026lt; N f:. S + 1 t I n\u0026lt;?ft- In Memory or In Honor ~ , (circle one) ~ \\(l~/()()()O()OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~oooooooooooo\u0026amp; E. FINANCIALS VIII. CLOSING REMARKS Fulbright ~!f-Co,tnpu:tet Lo.b So.ftwote Do-notto,n Cotd. Name \"\"l\" \" i.,\\ r~ ~A-u LS Address I 1c1 sh.\ncc.=1?:,::-City/State/Zip Lg_ 7.l.d- / \")_ SpMtSMShlp Levels l'lo:tinwn $500.00 Goul $250.00 Sillier $1 00.00 BtotlZe $50.00 Fri.ends of Fu.l.bri.gh.t Below $50.00 Donation Amount __._/...,.0~.~ L\"T--\"O\"....._ ____ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory\" or \"In Honor'' of someone, please list name. ______ _ _____ In Memory or In Honor Fldhtighf e~ ~!AW Loh softwote-1)~ ConJ, '' Name R ie-h t ~ni{u--1\u0026lt;Dbt-n.S  Address '-1300 Va.lie)' Vlp,{ l)y. City/State/Zip ~ IZ.2-11--  ' '' ' ---------------------, ' ' 'Ploti,uun. $500.00 Slh.er $ I 00.00 f ri.eNk of F.J.brlght 'BN!ftZe $50.00 Below $50.00 Donation Amount _:f.::...=5~0...:Q::\n___ ___ _ If you would like your donation to be \"In Memory'' or \"In Honor\" of someone, please list name. In Memory or In Honor ------------ (circle one) ,. ALL TEL Corporate Services One Allied Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Jessica Brogdon Supervisor - Corporate Communications 501-905-5898 phone 501-905-6018 tax jessica.gbrogdon@alltel.com April 23, 2003 Kelly Shuffield Fulbright Elementary 300 Pleasant Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Kelly: .AlltEL Enclosed is a $1,000 check for ALL TEL's donation to Fulbright Elementary's new computer lab. On behalf of ALL TEL, we are pleased to support your organization. As you know, corporations are required to maintain detailed records regarding charitable contributions. Please complete the enclosed fonn and return it to the address indicated. Sincerely, ~=~ Enclosures JB/rb GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Fro~onna Hall, Principal Date: May 61\\ 2003 Re: Donation Our school received $1,000 from the Wal-Mart store on Baseline Road in honor of our ''Teacher of the Year\" Theresa Lane. The funds will be used to purchase materials and class sets of books and incentives for the students at Geyer Springs Elementary. We are grateful to Wal-Mart for such a generous donation for our school. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Wal- Mart- Store 8801 Baseline Road Little Rock, Ar. 72209 stE\\1JEn ~'( 'Z 2003 ,soc:ii9\"'J1~lT 5240 Mabelvale Pike Phone (501) 447-4800 Little Rock , Arkansas 72209 .r.n, z \u0026gt;z C') ~ en ~ C') 5 en z Cl\nc m ~\nc\nII\nen JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL May 15, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: Roberta Mannon, Principal t-111- J efferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following donations have been made to the SECME club at Jefferson to help with their trip to Space Camp: KATV - Channel 7 - 401 Main St., Little Rock, AR 72201 - $200.00. Mr. Dick Bona, Kraftco Hardware, 6711 Cantrell Rd., Little Rock, AR 72207 - $400.00. Janet Jones Company, 7915 Cantrell Rd., 72227 - $200.00. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N . McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL May 13, 2003 To: From: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal /lJt Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following donations have been made to Jefferson School for landscaping improvements to the front of the building: Jefferson PTA- approximately $500.00 for top soil and materials. Mrs. Matt Barker, 7215 Kingwood Rd., Little Rock, AR 72207 - Plants valued at approximately $150.00. Mr. Danny Deislinger, 8 Sunset Cr., Little Rock, AR 72207 - Landscaping services and plants valued at approximately $500.00. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N. McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 !.,\", z \u0026gt;z C') ~ \"' WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: From: Date : Re: 1\"Ex:,ceffence and 'Equity in 'Education\" Darrai Paradis, Director of Procurement Beveriy Jones, Principal, Wilson Elementary~ May 15, 2003 u Donation Our school, Wilson Elementary, received a Pentium Packard Bell PC with monitor plus 73 Meg Ram and two hard drives, 800 Meg and 1.2 Gig and Ethernet card, for educational purposes by Lance and Carolyn Livingston. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Lance and Carolyn Livingston 5 Northwest Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 RECEiiJBl -~y 1 6 2003 PROCUmffi'JT 4015 Stannus Road  Phone (501) 447-7200  Fax (501) 447-7201  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1Yl.n T?(_tenaea :fear Taucation Scfwo[11 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Lander's Auto Group of Benton and Little Rock has donated $600.00 to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which was rewarded to us to assist in purchasing tee- shirts to commemorate Woodruff's celebration of going beyond the record of 445 Days Without A Fight! Thanks to Lander's donation, every student was able to have a tee shirt and participate in a whole school group photo. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Mr. Steve Landers Landers Auto Group 7800 Alcoa Road Benton, AR 72015 MAY 2 7 2003 PROCUEtB/IENT 301 0 West 7th Street  Phone 671-6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 !.,\"., z  z C') ~ U\u0026gt; ~ C') 5 U\u0026gt; z C'l ,0 m ~ :\u0026gt;\u0026lt;: U\u0026gt; WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL rytn rr_-ztenaea r_\n~r taucation ScfwoF' To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Sam's Club of Little Rock has donated $1,000.00 to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation, which was rewarded to us in recognition of Mr. Michael Norberg, Woodruff's Teacher of the Year. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Sam's Club Ms. Lyncola Moore 900 South Bowman Little Rock, AR 72211 AY Z 7 2003 PROCUrB~IB\\!T 301 o West 7th Street  Phone 671-6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (Yl.n 'E?(tenaea :Year 'Eaucation Scfwoe' To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Ms. Sara Clements with the Girl Scouts of Oucahita Council has donated over 1,000 books, with a value of $3,000.00, to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation of books. Teachers grades PK - 5 selected books to add to their classroom libraries, each student was able to select a book to take home, and the remaining books were displayed for parent selection. We asked parents to read to their child at home, and add their selected books to their home library. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Ms. Sara Clements Girls Scouts of Ouachita Council 615 West 29th Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 3010 West 7th Street  Phone 671 -6270  Li ttle Rock, Arkansas 72205 !..\", z \u0026gt;z (\") ~ u, ~ ,(.\"..). 0 u, z C) I u\"', WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL rr.5ln 'Eztenaea ')ear 'Eau.cation Schoo[\" To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: May 23, 2003 Re: Donations Home Depot of Little Rock has donated bedding plants estimated at $35.00 to Woodruff Elementary. We sincerely appreciate this donation of plants, which were used by the students enrolled in the \"Gardening by the Yard\" class during our spring intersession. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Ms. Tracy Davidson HOME DEPOT 12610 Chenal Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 ..., . ....... 301 0 West 7th Street  Phone 671-6270  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE, 3601 S. B RYANT ST., LITTLE R OCK, AR 72204 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: Doug Eaton, Director SUBJECT: Donation: Portables DATE: 19 May 2003 Little Rock School District has recently had donated to it 6 single wide classroom portable buildings from .Missouri Equipment Leasing, INC., Springfield, MO. These portable classrooms have been leased to LRSD for over 10 years from Missouri Leasing. Their value is estimated at $500 each or a total of $3,000. It is recommended that these be accepted. r. REC6\"Jfii \"~y Z O 2003 PROCUF:EME'JT !..\",' z \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt; I\"'\" Cl) ~ n 5 Cl) z C)\nJO m ~\nJO :\u0026gt;: Cl) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: ~d M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. ~ n re V, z G') i!ll ~\n,:: V, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001/02 05/31/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 05/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 8,261 ,086 118.86% 8,000,000 9,875,297 123.44% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 15,331,854 53.89% 29,400,000 17,610,502 59.90% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 209,598 112.08% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61.42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 159,792 26.63% 340,000 313,397 92.18% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 186,072 31 .01% 275,000 190,439 69.25% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 155,055 100.04% 160,000 193,394 120.87% TOTAL 95,495,000 81,845,800 85.71% 97,432,000 86,052,153 88.32% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 21,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% TOTAL 25,000 21,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 47,752,601 87.51% 54,867,630 48,781 ,766 88.91% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 6,724,661 90.19% 7,590,000 7,265,757 95.73% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 1,285,354 97.01% 1,340,000 1,272,587 94.97% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 811,969 42.74% 1,700,000 1,250,666 73.57% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 233,992 100.00% 273,358 273,358 100.00% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 2,317,542 66.82% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 2,286,063 59.15% 3,265,000 3,436,977 105.27% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 746,710 75.59% 1,006,014 620,758 61 .70% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91.81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 124,150 496.60% 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 497,645 82.26% 650,000 283,224 43.57% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 63,877,761 83.80% 75,441,106 66,582,056 88.26% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 44,032 6.29% 1,126,233 226,443 20.11% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 1,109,625 66.67% TOTAL 2,939,927 590,675 20.09% 3,410,671 1,336,068 39.17% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 146,335,855 83.77% 176,307,777 153,991,115 87.34% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 12,621 ,474 79.54% 22,230,023 17,121 ,861 77.02% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 3,049,505 77.76% 3,980,000 3,183,037 79.98% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 16,397,320 66.11% 25,065,942 19,472,465 77.68% TOTAL 44,592,636 32,068,299 71 .91% 51,275,965 39,777,363 77.58% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 178,404,155 81.36% 227,583,742 193,768,477 85.14% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 05/31/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 05/31/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 91,290,576 92.45% 100,865,586 87,129,343 BENEFITS 25,603,621 22,970,584 89.72% 24,838,361 22,050,704 PURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 16,548,016 81.78% 19,795,774 17,012,549 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 7,019,398 75.86% 8,347,098 6,545,663 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 1,046,033 58.35% 1,616,991 1,037,938 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 5,490,169 65.34% 8,508,680 5,662,958 DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 155,018,629 88.81% 176,189,538 151,652,727 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 12,068,175 73.05% 22,995,210 15,093,286 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921,766 2,935,572 74.85% 3,980,000 3,284,313 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 19,985,227 80.58% 25,065,942 20,018,609 TOTAL 45,243,962 34,988,973 77.33% 52,041,152 38,396,208 TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 190,007,603 86.45% 228,230,690 190,048,935 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) (11,603,448) (646,948) 3,719,541 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (983,376) 880,253 3,026,595 OPERATING 8,621,115 (193,687) 8,675,891 10,896,039 TOTAL 9,907,087 (1,177,063) 9,556,144 13,922,634 % EXPENDED 86.38% 88.78% 85.94% 78.42% 64.19% 66.56% 99.97% 86.07% 65.64% 82.52% 79.86% 73.78% 83.27% ~ (,.\".). 0 \u0026lt;J) z Q i::l i \u0026lt;J) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 05-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 136,112.30 5,955.01 40,332.69 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,295,936.00 10,542,767.38 6,949,827.49 12,831,612.00 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 650,222.23 3,046,257.17 218,038.17 3,135,730.15 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 887,767.00 15,079,383.39 11,488,096.91 22,267,402.15 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881 .05 2,090,512.80 4,398,417.84 12,273.85 2,424,702.16 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 12,137,463.93 33,582,272.78 18,674,191 .43 40,742,053.12 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801 .90 45,713.11 5,896.70 179,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31 ,569,505.02 (12,137,463.93) 19,432,041 .09 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 2,245,555.00 7,268,199.80 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,341,268.11 (12,137,463.93) 5,896.70 0.00 28,698,009.91 GRAND TOTAL l ill :ii:i lll llll im ilill ll J2.lll! ~~ :illll lllill~ll lllliZ~ Jal ~\ni Zll lill\nl illl lll PROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 05-31-03 ADMINISTRATION 586,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,357,280.16 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,853,208.89 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 11,409,705.52 RENOVATION PROJECTS 53,351,543.00 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611 .78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,725,862.06 TOTAL 138,285,872.13 S)fil\\fW3H DNISOl:l 'IIIA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 05-31-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 136,112.30 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 10,542,767.38 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,046,257.17 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,079,383.39 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,398,417.84 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 33,582,272.78 ENCUMBERED THRU 05-31-03 ---- SUBTOTAL 5,955.01 546,513.86 6,949,827.49 22,525,668.16 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 218,038.17 8,273,975.37 11,488,096.91 31,084,140.85 12,273.85 9,310,909.62 --- 18,674,191.43 76,817,956.95 ENDING ALLOCATION 05-31-03 40,332.69 12,831,612.00 42,273.97 -- 0.00 3,135,730.15 22,267,402.15 2,424,702.16 20,725,862.06 61,467,915.18 lN3WNHnorav x SDNIH\\f3H 33AOldW3 'XI Fund Operating Operating 'operating Operating Operating Operating (Payroll) Operating (Payroll) Total Food Service Total Activity Fu~ Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund CapJtal Prolects Fund Capital Pro~cts Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Profects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital ProTects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total _Qeseg Plan Scholarship Deseg Plan Scholarship - Total Rockefeller Scholarship - Total - Purchase Date 12-09-02 01-19-03 04-08-03 05-30-03 05-15-03 05-01-03 05-19-03 - - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND ---------------\u0026lt; _ FOR THE PEf3.LOD END_!=.D MAY_3_1, 2-0-0_3- _____- _ -~-_-_- _- _- _- --------~:~~~~~~~~~--- Maturity_ Date 06-09-03 - 07-19-03 12-05-03 TFN 06-15-03 07-01-03 07-15-03 Institution Interest Rate Type Principal - ------t---~ ---t----~-----l !3_egions B_egions Pulaski Bank of America - -+------t-------1 1.190% Money Market 20,000.00 - - ----+--~~---+---~--, Money Market 20,000.00 ---- -t--~-----,-- 1.290% Money Market --,~-10~,0~00.00 1.200% Repo 17,340,000.00 1.190% +---c-=~c- - --~- - Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 7,007,826.83 - ---+------ -+--~~--- Bank of America 1.040% Tresury Bills 2,260,010.33 Bank of America 1.030% Treasury Bills 2,260,307.79 28,918,144.95 05-16-03 _ TFN Bank_ot Am_ er_ic_a_-+-_1.070% __+ -__R_ e_p_o_ _+ -__78 0_,oo_o_.oo_, 04-03-03 03-10-03 01-17-03 01-17-03 02-14-03 01-29-03 01-17-03 02-14-03 05-15-03 02-14-03 01-22-03 03-14-03 05-15-03 04-15-03 09-17-02 05-27-03 01-10-03 09-27-02 01-30-03 f---- 780,000.00 --+--------- -------+--------+---------i 08-14-03 Bank of America +-_1_.0_2_0_%_-+-_T_re_asury Bills 801,966.49 801,966.49 09-08-03 01-16-04 01-16-04 Regions - -~ 1.190% - - CD 400,000.00 - - - Metropolitan 7 .-9-30_/co-+---C-D---+--1,-0-00~.~9-34_ __3 ,1 -Bank oflhe Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 1----- - 70-15-03 01-29=54 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 --Bancorp South 2.000% - CD 2,058,896.90 01-16-04 ~ - _yperiQ!_- _ 1.250~---i-----=--=c_D __ -t-_2_,50_0_,o_o_o_.o_o 11-14-03 _ _ Superior_ _ _1_.~00%_\u0026gt;- ~C~D__ 11,000,000.00 00 8 7 :1 1 ~ 5 :Q. 0 4 3 __ _ usBANK __ 1.420% -+-__c_ D_ _- +-_11~.oo_o-'.-o_o_o_.o_o_, USBANK 1.360% CD 10,000,000.00 - 01-16-04 Bai!!\u0026lt; of Am_e_ric\u0026lt;l_- f--- _1.=24=0=-/~c -+-T- r-e-asu_ry B-ill-s--+--5-.~2-99~.-6-46- .-4-,3 06-16-03 Bank of the Ozarks - 0-5-1-4-0-4 ~-Ba-nk -of the Ozarks 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks -- - 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks TFN Bank of America 06-11-03 06-10-03 06-24-03 Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 1.360_1/o_-+-__ C_D __ -+-_9~,0_0_0~,0_00._0_,0 1.370% CD 3,035,911.61 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 -----+-------+--~~---\u0026lt; Repo 3,500,000.00 -----+---~---+--~---, 1.100% f--- _1__.050% Treasury Bills _ 1.430% _ Treasury Bills 88,911,9~.34 124,445.83 534,508.80 658,954.63 - -- - - --+------+------ ___ 1. --0_900-1/o'_-+-_T-re--a'--s'-u'--r-y'--'B-_il -ls--+_ ___2c ...4.:.9,.:\n,8..c.9.:.8.-'0--4__. 249,898.04\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_1037","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":["2003-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1037"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED MAY 2 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting ao1t1rat148atio1es 2003 (iradl4at as! May2003 n -o \u0026gt;::1m0 ~ C: .... 1:: Oz o\u0026gt;\na::10 om--\u0026lt;., ,CC:: -z ,on o--\u0026lt; F\nnm \u0026gt; F\n:: :,0 -om 55\ng r-:,o c\"i--\u0026lt; nl!! 0::10\ni::m l::n m8 Zz cil :3 0 0 z \"' ~ f. 0 C\" ~- c::)) \u0026gt; I. 11. 111. IV. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING May 22, 2003 PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests 5:30 p.m. B. Presentation - Mabe/vale Middle School EAST Lab Students Kathy Farley, Instructor REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association D. Joshua lntervenors REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Status Report: Construction Projects E. Internal Auditors Report (\")~ \u0026gt; r= :\":0' C: cil o\u0026gt; :c:o:~:o \"'.., ::0 C: -z ::o\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; ,o--~\u0026lt; ,- z \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; en \u0026gt; F C ~ r: Occn - ::C:i, !i\nRegular Board Meeting May 22, 2003 Page 2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A Minutes Regular Meeting - 04-24-03 Special Meeting - 04-28-03 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Extension of EDS Contract B. Update on Progress to Complete Remaining Program Evaluations C. Grant Proposal - Enhancing Education Through Technology D. Art, Music and Drama Textbooks Adoption, Grades 6-12 VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Recommendations for Revision of the 2003-04 Student Handbook VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Audit Report for June 30, 2002 and Extension of Audit Services B. Resolution: Fulbright Elementary School Property Approval of Offer and Acceptance C. Donations of Property D. Financial Report IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: 1. Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PT AS) 2. Evaluation of Athletic Coaches X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PRESENTATION 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. 1.IIAIIUN~ \\\n. I.IA B. CITIZENS COMMENTS D. JOSHUA ~a\n::.,7, i\\\\ 1 ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: May 22, 2003 Board of Directors Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Bill Goodma~ May 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects Total cost of projects that are under construction and financed through bonds is approximately $50,000,000. By comparison, last year at this time bond projects under construction totaled approximately $25,000,000. The present construction activity has reached a peak in terms of cost. In the future, this activity will slowly diminish as the construction projects in the District's schools are completed, particularly the larger schools. The trend is indicated by the number of completed projects that are shown in the May report. Bids on the addition and renovation of Dunbar Middle School were taken on May 9. The bids are being analyzed and the results will be known soon. The plan is to start construction in June and complete the project during the summer of 2004. Bids were taken on May 15 for the addition to McClellan High School. I am pleased to report that the low bid met our budget, and the letter of Notification of Award has been sent to the contractor. Construction will start within thirty (30) days. The following projects have been bid, contracts awarded, and construction has started: 1. New roof and an addition to J.A. Fair High School 2. Addition to Williams Elementary School and parking lot improvements 3. Computer Technology Center Phase II and miscellaneous upgrades to Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Center The classroom addition and new gymnasium for Hall High School is nearly complete. I hope you have an opportunity to tour these facilities. I think you will be pleased. Please call me at 447-1146 if you need additional information. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us C'. ()1 \".2'\u0026gt;A '){)()()  C., . . C:()1 \".2') ,1 ')()'.\\') rn z -m\u0026lt;\nc z )\u0026gt; r)\u0026gt; C: 52 C\n:c Facility Name Administration Administration Carver Central Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Facility Services Forest Park Hall J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Mabelvale MS Mann McClellan McClellan Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Pulaski Hgts. MS Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Williams Williams Wilson Wilson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Project Description Cost Fresh air system $55,000 Fire alarm $32,350 Parking lot $111 ,742 Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 ' Irrigation System $14,500 Fire alarm $12,000 Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Roof repairs $391,871 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,000 Renovation $6,851,621 Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Irrigation System $14,750 Fire alarm $25,000 Renovation $1 ,193,259 1 Renovation $3,755,041 Drainage/ street widening $250,000 New roof $690,000 'Fire alarm $9,000 Renovation $2,106,492 Parking expansions $183,717 Parking Expansion $110,000 I Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Est. completion Date Jun-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Dec-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 May-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING/ SUMMER 2003 t:.st. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Dec-03 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Dec-04 Central Parking Student parking $50,000 Aug-03 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Aug-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Feb-04 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Aug-03 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-04 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Jun-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Jun-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:.st. vomp1et1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff ParkinQ addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC I $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS . Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall I Security cameras $10,600 est. compIetIon Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 2 !%\u0026gt; \"D m\n:c ~ zz m r- !\"' z m-\u0026lt;\n:c z 'f!. ]\u0026gt; C g 0 X Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann 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 Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 'Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 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 I $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. 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 1 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 HV AC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:.st. 1.,\nompletlon Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 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 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 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MAY 22, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 . Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $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 $182,241 Watson  Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff I Renovation $246,419 t:.st. c.\nompletIon Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 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-02 4 !TI .z... m :,c z ~ )\u0026gt; C: !2 C\n:c MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: May 22, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Dr. Don Stewart and Dr. Kenneth James FROM: ,~aton, Director of Facility Services SUBJ: Special Board Report: LRSD Construction Projects In response to questions raised by Board members during the April, 2003, Board meeting of the Little Rock School District Directors, the following report is submitted. This report is intended to bring you up-to-date on the overall status of the bond and major maintenance programs within the District. The general plan that the Administration is following is outlined in two documents. The first, dated June 22, 2000, is a Board-submitted and approved document that covers the phase-in of capital projects. The project list indicates two general categories: additions and renovations, which are then divided into general construction phases. The intent of this phased delineation was to provide general parameters as to how schools could expect their projects to be addressed during the administration of the bond program. Project phases were determined by a committee consisting of administrative and support members as outlined in the June 22 document. Capital consideration was given to present and future academic needs, the need for addressing overcrowding at schools, and the need for beginning major capital projects because of the length of time required and their complexity. In addition to these parameters, the committee also discussed ways to administer the bond program in order for all schools to immediately see the results of the support of their school and parents for the millage program. An update based solely on these phases is included in the report. The second document is a \"talking-paper\" that was presented to the committee in July of the same year outlining the general parameters of how the bond program should be administered. It goes on to explain, in addition to addressing the projects and the phases as outlined in the June 2000 letter, that we would attempt to phase the common-in-nature projects into multiple schools. These, although addressed separately by specific design and engineering firms, would be ongoing in conjunction with the general, major renovations listed in our phased report to the Board. To date we have adhered to the general parameters of the June 22 letter and the \"talking-paper\" of July 14. This has allowed us, as of the writing of this report, to have completed, have under construction, or have in design 313 of the 551 projects that were identified on the capital-bond list presented to the public in 2000. The most significant of the projects that have been completed or are planned for the immediate future can be found in the monthly bond report under Bond Construction Reports. The execution of the dedicated millage-program is slightly more complicated as the project-list is ever changing. As the Little Rock School District's projected projects surface based on their urgency, we are constantly adjusting the list and programming each year for what we feel can be accomplished. Our in-house workforce, while continuing to maintain the daily maintenance requirements as reported by our schools, is completing most of the minor dedicated-millage projects. The larger dedicated-millage projects, those requinng extensive design and accomplishment by contractors, are programmed under urgency-basis. We are continuing to expend some monies accomplishing minor landscaping projects and miscellaneous emergency asbestos abatements as necessary. We are also extending our dedicated millage-program-list into roofing, asbestos removal, and environmental design projects. Lastly, we are attempting to do dedicated millage projects in conjunction with bond projects at schools that will be under construction during the 2003 and 2004 school year. Included in this report is the planned program of major contracts in 2003 and 2004 that will be funded by dedicated millage. Our total expenditures for dedicated millage are expected to reach approximately $2,000,000 each year. The projects planned or scheduled for 2003 and 2004 that do not begin on time or extend beyond this timeframe will be rolled into the following year. It is possible for higher priority projects to supplant those on this list should emergencies develop with regard to heating and mechanical failures, roofing or structural failures, or as the opportunity to perform dedicated millage work presents itself as the bond program continues. DE:cg specialreport !XI \"D m\n,:, ~z z mr !\"' z -m\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;r \u0026gt; C: 2 C\n:,: t Little Rock School Distr1ct Associate Superintendent - Operations 810 West Markham Sueet Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501 )324-2009 Fax: (501)324-2023 June 22, 2000 To: Board of Directors FROM: ~~ictor Anderson, Associate Superintendent, Operations THROUGH: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT:- Phasing of Capital Projects A committee consisting of Victor Anderson, Wayne Adams, Junious Babbs, Doug Eaton, Brady Gadberry, Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, Lucy Neal, John Ruffins, and Don Stewart met to develop the phasing of the capital projects. A second committee consisting of Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton, Wayne Adams, Darral Paradis, and Don Stewart met to make the initial assignments of architects and engineering firms to projects. The phasing of the projects was done by category of projects. It was determined that_ design work would be grouped into several categories to include: building additions, asbestos removal, renovation projects with additions, renovation projects without additions, f,DA contracts, mechanical contracts, electrical contracts, security/ alarm upgrades, roofing contracts, paving contracts, athletic field renovations, and new school consrruction. Architectural firms will be selected to complete design work on the individual projects within the categories. The phasing of the projects follows: Maior Additions -Phase one Hall McClellan Mann MS Cloverdale MS Terry Otter Creek So:n:I -phasing of C\u0026lt;\npitd j:r:)JC:U I Board of Direct01_ June 22, 2000 Page2 Major Renovations - Phase One Central Mabelvale MS Bale Franklin Garland Jefferson Watson Major Additions -Phase Two Parkview J. A. Fair Dunbar MS Pulaski Heights MS Southwest MS Major Renovations - Phase Two Pulaski Heights Elementary Williams Woodruff New Construction - Phase Two West Elementary School Major Additions - Phase Three Metropolitan Romine Mai or Renovations -Phase Three Forest Heights Henderson Baseline Booker Brady Fair Park Fulbright Wakefield Western Hills Wilson BcMd -1=:\"1aSin, 0f capiu! prvjccu 2 !l' ~ m XI is zz ,m... !\" .z.... m XI z \u0026gt;,... \u0026gt; C: 52 C ::c Board of Directo1~ June 22, 2000 Page 3 Additions - Renovations -Phase Four Badgett Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Forest Park Geyer Springs Gibbs King Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Meadow cliff Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Washington The following architectural / engineering firms that have been selected for the contracts are listed below. This list is not final, as all of the assignments to specific sites have not yet been made.  Central High School - Witsell/Evans/Rasco  Hall High School - Wittenburg/Delany/Davidson  McClellan High School - Stuck Associates  Mann Middle School - Simms/Grisham/Blair  Asbestos Removal - Morris and Jones Associates Approval is recommended. C: Don Stewart Mark Milhollen Sadie Mitchell Doug Eaton Darral Paradis 3 CAPTIAL PROJECTS TALKING PAPER July 14 2000 This report will comprise of general notes regarding Facility Services ideas on the implementation of the capital projects program. We propose to begin by awarding approximately 30-35 architectural/engineer contracts, both by subject matter and by individual projects so as to ensure a steady flow of contracts for construction. Architectural/engineer subject matters will be: ADA, asbestos, fire alarms, additions, civil, mechanical, recreational, structural, pavement, interior, and landscaping projects. All of the architectural/engineer contracts would cross the line between capital projects and dedicated millage. Funding for these architectural/engineer projects would primarily be capital monies\nyet, some would be funded with dedicated millage funds. The purpose of this report is to get a head start on the scope of work and designs, which is our major initiative during the first year of the bond issue. During this period of time, we will clarify the scope of work and begin preliminary designs once Architect/Engineer firms have been selected. As the projects progress and we are able to more clearly define the construction estimates, we will have a better idea of the remaining funds needed to carry out the projects and the time frame necessary. Architect/Engineer's will be detailed to look at projects covering a two to three year time span. FUNDING This will necessitate that funding be compiled for a three to four year period with the majority of the funds spent during the late half of the second, third and fourth years. This will be necessary because of the long lead-time that is needed to develop scopes of work and planning. It is perceived that 4.5 to 4.8 percent of the entire project list will be dedicated to Architectural/Engineer spending. If we identify forty million dollars in projects, we can expect to spend about 4.5 to 4.8 percent of that amount during the first year with the remaining expenditures arising from short term projects, which can be developed at a quicker pace. Many of the projects in the lower spectrum of the list above will be projects that can be more readily adapted because they can go to specialized Architect/Engineer firms. These projects have shorter design and construction times and would show a positive image to the public that we are implementing projects as quickly as possible. Initially, funding for these projects may have to be funded from the sale of bonds and later reimbursed through dedicated millage retrievals. ?' \"C m Al ~ z z m r- !T' .z.... m Al z \u0026gt; r- \u0026gt; C: 0 ::\nC\n\u0026lt;: Page Two, Continued Capital Projects GENERAL COMMENTS The basis for lumping contracts together is to offset the need to hire more people than necessary. It is anticipated that approximately 34 employees must be hired for the projects to support spending of the money derived from the dedicated millage\nthese employees will be at Facility Services, Procurement and Athletics. By lumping projects together, and writing contracts in such a manner that Architect/Engineer firms will provide some limited construction management experience, we can possibly derive complete control of the project for the anticipated six percent (6%) (plus reimbursable expense) of the overall project. This will give greater latitude in the authority of the Architect/Engineer's management of the projects in that one decision could be used across the board at numerous locations. Once the Little Rock School District derives a general scope that will apply to all schools, only minor decisions will need to be made to \"tweek\" the system. Contracts could be let crossing the number of schools and work could begin as soon as the first schools are under design. This will also allow us to spread the workload over small, medium and larger contractors. The same is true for such projects as fire alarms and other minor additions as they come aboard. Administrative Requirements Attached is an updated list of personnel that we feel is necessary to implement this program. There is a small deviation from the original list compiled. We are beginning to look at administrative requirements and we are in the process of reviewing computerized construction management software. The purpose of these programs will be to have multiple input in contract folders and more quickly document projects so as to allow the most current information available for reports and other information required. CONSTRUCTION VARIABLES The greatest construction variable will be the availability of contractors as the projects are developed. Certain projects are obviously going to attract large contractors where other projects may attract smaller firms. If we are smart in our packaging of these contracts, by pulling them together with similar items across individual school boundaries, we will have the flexibility of tailoring the projects Page Three, Continued Capital Projects based on the availability of contractors in the market. At the present time, the general outlook for large construction firms reveal that we are going into a moderate to heavy construction period. We are coming out of a rather heavy construction period and, hopefully, will catch these firms at a low point in their scheduling. Small construction companies will continue to be a problem, but it is hopeful that through specific solicitations, with an emphasis on minority and small business owners, we can attract new contractors to assist us in constructing our projects. SUMMARY The intent of this document is to present general possible areas for discussion. Definitive plans with regard to priorities, influx of funds and time schedule, and exact responsibilities have not been delineated. However, great thought has gone behind the general schemes listed here as to possible project implementation. DCE/apl/capproj !'\" z -m-\u0026lt;\no z \u0026gt;r \u0026gt; C: 0 =i 0\n:t: Construction Status: Special Board Report 5 May 2003 Major Additions -Phase one 1 Hall 2 McClellan 3 MannMS 4 Cloverdale MS 5 Terry 6 Otter Creek Major Renovations - Phase One 7 Central 8 Mabelvale MS 9 Bale 10 Franklin 11 Garland 12 Jefferson 13 Watson Major Additions -Phase Two 14 Parkview 15 J. A. Fair 16 Dunbar MS 17 Pulaski Heights MS 18 Southwest MS Major Renovations - Phase Two 19 Pulaski Heights Elementary 20 Williams 21 Woodruff New Construction - Phase Two 22 West Elementary School Major Additions - Phase Three Under Construction through 2003 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Under construction through 2004 Complete Complete Complete Under Construction through 2005 Under Construction through 2003 Completed Completed Deferred Completed Completed Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2005 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Construction to begin 2003 through 2005 Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 Completed Not Scheduled 23 Metropolitan Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 !l1 24 Romine Complete .., m\n:c !S z Major Renovations -Phase Three z m r- 25 Forest Heights Not Scheduled 26 Henderson Not Scheduled 27 Baseline Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 28 Booker Not Scheduled 29 Brady Construction to begin 2003 through 2004\ns \u0026gt;. z- 30 Fair Park Not Scheduled m\"' o\"\"' \"'~ 31 Fulbright Complete no 0--\u0026lt; 32 Wakefield Construction to begin 2003 through 2004 z i5 --\u0026lt;z ~\u0026gt; 33 Wes tern Hills Not Scheduled n r- .... ~ n 34 Wilson Under construction through 2004 !I' Additions - Renovations -Phase Four 35 Badgett Deferred !l1 36 Carver Not scheduled C: m\ng 37 Chicot Not scheduled ~\u0026gt; ~~ 38 Cloverdale Elementary Not scheduled \u0026gt;-., --\u0026lt;\n:c 39 Dodd Not scheduled ~8 \"'~ 40 Forest Park Not scheduled i: 41 Geyer Springs Not scheduled 42 Gibbs Not scheduled 43 King Not scheduled 44 Mabelvale Elementary Not scheduled 45 McDermott Not scheduled !T1 .z... 46 Meadowcliff Not scheduled m\n:c z 47 Mitchell In design \u0026gt;r- \u0026gt; 48 Rightsell In design c:: E 49 Rockefeller Not scheduled C ::t: 50 Washington Not scheduled 2003/2004 Dedicated Millage Proposed Projects Projects Facility 1 Landscape To Be Determined 2 Misc Floors To Be determined 3 Envir. Design Mitchell 4 Envir. Design Rightsell 5 Asbestos Removal Meadowcliff 6 Asbestos Removal Franklin 7 Asbestos Removal Watson 8 Asbestos Removal Forest Park 9 Rest room Plumbing Repairs McClellan HS 10 Painting/Flooring J A Fair HS 11 Flooring Wilson 12 RoofRepl Fair Park 13 Park Lot Otter Creek 14 Gym Refinish Central HS 15 HVAC Cafe Wilson 16 HVAC Print Shop Metro HS 17 Bleacher Repl Booker 18 Park Lot Resurface Parkview 19 Park Lot Resurface Hall HS 20 Roof Repl. Design Booker 21 Roof Repl. Design Williams 22 Roof Repl. Design Forest hts 23 Roof Repl. Design Hall HS 24 Roof Repl. Design McClellan HS 25 Park Lot Resurface Admin 26 Park Lot Resurface Baseline 27 Park Lot Resurface Cloverdale el Date: May 22, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From: sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - May This is the forty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one 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. !\" \"C m\no ~ z z m,... Audit Report - May 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) 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. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving 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 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM: r Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes 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 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 May 22, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsff erminations Certified Employees Kellye, Darlene Reason: Terminated Kathy Burris Elem II ROCKEFELLER 8-9-00 4-24-03 New Certified Employees NONE 1-11 TCH925 Additional Years of Probationary Status Teacher FAIR Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Chacon, Nancy Reason: Accepted Another Position Eason, Mary Reason: None Given Henson, James Reason: None Given Occupational Ther. SPECIAL ED. 8-12-99 5-16-03 Pupil Personnel 11-15-02 CLOVERDALE MID. 4-25-03 Security Officer FAIR 8-29-88 5-4-03 60-17 AN925 1-01 FSH5 36-20 SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 35735.00 49224.00 7312.00 18404.00 Personnel Changes Page 3 May 22, 2003 NAME Hoover, Sin-Chun Reason: Personal Johnson, Lisa Reason: None Given Lancaster, Jason Reason: None Given Lee, Michael Reason: Abandonment Lloyd, Terri Reason: Accepted Another Position Sterley, Pamela Reason: Personal Enlow, Robert Kemp, Anita POSITION SCHOOL Interprete SPECIAL ED. Care Worker CARE Care Worker CARE Child Nutrition ROCKEFELLER Care Worker CARE Child Nutrition FORESTHGTS START DATE END DATE 1-22-01 3-14-03 10-14-02 3-31-03 10-1-02 4-11-03 9-9-02 4-24-03 9-23-02 4-17-03 4-4-03 4-17-03 SALARY CLASS 40-19 AN925 1-03 CARE 3-17 CARE 1-01 FSH5 4-01 CARE 1-01 FSH5 New Non-Certified Employees Child Nutrition 4-11-03 1-01 CENTRAL FSH5 Child Nutrition 4-14-03 1-01 ROCKEFELLER FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 28764.00 6.431hr 9.151hr 7312.00 6.251hr 7312.00 7312.00 annual 1242.27 prorated 7312.00 annual 1333.13 prorated ~ \u0026gt;-  Z m\"' o--\u0026lt; \"'~ (\")(\") 0--\u0026lt; ~o ~s!'\n(\") r- --\u0026lt;~ (\") ~ ii:, C: m \"D \u0026lt;o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;-,, --\u0026lt;\n:o ~8 \"'~\ni: r, C) ~ z --\u0026lt; \"D\n:o 0 c3 ,~.. !\" --\u0026lt;:,, m:,: ~- a, - 8E ::,,:~ \u0026gt;~ c- oc 5::!l\ns z:i Personnel Changes Page 4 May 22, 2003 NAME Porter, Ebony Rucker, Elnora Seawood, Ruthie Shelton, Annie Smith, John Walls, Angela Young, Vickie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition ALC Custodian FRANKLIN Child Nutrition WESTERN HILLS Care Workers CARE Custodian FULBRIGHT Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Custodian WASHINGTON START DATE END DATE 4-24-03 4-21-03 4-7-03 4-7-03 4-21-03 4-15-03 4-21-03 SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH4 1-02 CUS928 3-01 FSH4 1-04 CARE 1-01 CUS925 1-01 FSH5 1-01 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 5687.00 annual 807.81 prorated 10737.00 annual 1750.00 prorated 5687.00 annual 1195.56 prorated 6.55/hr 5164.50 annual 842.04 prorated 7312.00 annual 1292.73 prorated 5164.50 annual 842.04 prorated TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services DATE: May 22, 2003 RE: Extension of EDS Contract Background Information: After the successful millage campaign in May 2000, LRSD entered into a contract with EDS for consulting services related to the development of a new technology plan and with A TS\u0026amp;R for services related to improving the technology infrastructure. The development and approval of the LRSD Technology Plan 2001-2004 was a direct result of those consultant services. In the spring of 2001 the District again entered into a contract with EDS for a wide range of services that included project management (WAN, phone system, cabling, magnet media retrieval systems, E-rate assistance) and engineering services (e-mail conversion, network systems integration, help desk configuration and network training). That contract expires June 30, 2003. Projects completed under the EDS contract are WAN, phone system, cabling, magnet media retrieval systems, annual E-rate applications, e-mail conversion and help desk configuration. Network training materials will be on the web by May 15 and all sites will be cut over to the new network by June 15. At this time it is clear that District staff will continue to need a reduced level of support from EDS. The new network is complex and requires a high degree of technical skill to maintain and support. Because of the speed and intensity of technology projects over the last two years, District staff is not yet prepared to step in and assume total responsibility for the network. A gradual weaning from the expertise of the EDS engineers will take place over the next year as the LRSD technical staff grows in skill level. Other projects that continue to require assistance are E-rate applications, media retrieval system installations, and the technical specifications for the new technology center. EDS has been instrumental in our getting E-rate funding of $2.2 million in 2001-2002 with applications pending for 2002-2003 ($2.4 million) and 2003-2004 ($3.1 million). We are now in Program Review with our E-rate applications, requiring extensive documentation efforts. Having the expertise of . EDS as we go through the next year will be critical for successful implementation of these projects. Fiscal Impact: The amount of the EDS contract for a one year extension will be $252,000. Dedicated millage technology funds of approximately $2,000,000 are available each year for continuing technology support. The expense of the EDS contract extension would come from that fund. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve an extension of the technology support contract with EDS until June 30, 2004. Scope of Work-Project Management and Server Infrastructure Management July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 EDS will work with LRSD personnel to support the LRSD network systems and to assist in the implementation of the Little Rock School District Technology Plan, 2003-2006 and integrate this plan into the District's Strategic Plan. Implementation of the District's Technology Plan will include the following tasks.  Project management for all components of the District's Technology Plan Implementation  Network systems maintenance support  Help Desk hardware and software maintenance support  Help Desk policies and procedures development  Remote management support In addition, EDS team members will continue to:  Participate in Technology Committee meetings  Assist in developing an evaluation process that will enable the District to monitor progress toward technology goals  Research specific District recommended software applications suitable for instructional applications delivered in a variety of ways  Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources  Assist LRSD in developing other corporate partnerships  Prepare public relations materials in order to communicate status to stakeholders EDS will establish objectives, standards, and procedures for the project team to help the District meet their goals. An integrated plan will define the activities to be performed, resources required for accomplishing the tasks, and assignment of responsibility and accountability. Scope of work provided by EDS for Little Rock School District will include the following components. Little Rock School District Server Infrastructure Management Software  Research specific District recommended software applications suitable for instructional applications delivered in a variety of ways EDS Tasks/Deliverables   Review software applications currently in use  Research software applications/alternatives (cost, functionality, etc.)  EDS will provide a summary analysis of instructional applications researched for installation on the District's Enterprise Network Server Infrastructure Management EDS Tasks/Deliverables  Provide Active Directory (AD) Maintenance and Support  Provide 2\"d level desktop support to the District's support personnel  Perform on-site routine maintenance of servers at the Technology Center  Monitor Technology Center network servers' performance  Update as needed the Site Administration Manual (SAM) for the Technology Center servers  Document network performance and develop a benchmark  Instruct District technology support staff on the LRSD network and maintenance procedures  EDS will continue to assemble and load the operating system for new servers.  EDS will install virus detection software on all new servers.  EDS will update and maintain DHCP servers.  EDS will maintain the network based home directories.  EDS will maintain Windows 2000 Terminal Services in remote administration mode on all Windows 2000 or above servers at the Technology Center.  EDS will maintain the backup solution for the Technology Center servers.  EDS will install and configure server-based instructional applications at the Technology Center as provided by the District.  EDS will perform periodic on-site testing to determine overall functionality and performance of the network.  EDS will develop SAM for new local servers up to the release of those servers.  EDS will assist LRSD in the development of network policies, processes and procedures. 2 Little Rock School District Server Infrastructure Management Server Infrastructure Instruction EDS Tasks/Deliverables  EDS will develop a structured training plan for LRSD personnel on the server infrastructure at the Technology Center.  EDS will provide instructional sessions on the following topics as they relate to the Technology Center server infrastructure. --Server Infrastructure Layout --Active Directory Design --Organizational Unit Design --User Import/Creation Process --Exchange Design --Trust Configuration --DNS Configuration --DHCP Scope Configuration --HEAT System Configuration --Backup Schedule --Anti-Virus Configuration Project Management EDS Tasks/Deliverables  Plan and facilitate regular meetings with project personnel including both LRSD staff and vendor team  Work with LRSD personnel to ensure execution of District's Technology Plan by coordinating all efforts of Project Team  Responsible for managing the following project components --Scope --Quality --Resources --Schedule --Communication --Contracts --Budget Other EDS Tasks/Deliverables  Participate in District Technology Committee meetings  Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources  Assist LRSD in developing other corporate partnerships  Prepare public relations materials in order to communicate status to stakeholders  Conduct research on appropriate evaluation process  Assist the District in future E-rate filings and applications 3 r, Cl ~ z -\u0026lt; \"t\u0026gt; ::c 0 6 ~ r- Little Rock School District Server Infrastructure Management  Coordinate the solicitation and aid the District in the evaluation of proposals received for additional RFPs  Consult in the technical specifications of the Technology Center  Coordinate ongoing construction activities as they relate to technology initiatives  Coordinate the integration of all site technologies into the District's technology initiatives Business Assumptions  EDS assumes LRSD will identify appropriate staff for the team with one individual appointed decision-maker. Contact information will be made available to the EDS team.  EDS assumes LRSD will provide temporary space for two offices (cubes) with networked PCs and phones.  EDS assumes LRSD will make facilities available when on-site visits are requested.  EDS assumes project team personnel will be available as needed.  EDS assumes all existing technology related information and data will be made available upon request.  EDS assumes LRSD will provide EDS personnel a safe and secure work environment free of harassment or hostilities. Technical Assumptions  LRSD will provide their technical staff appropriate training to ensure a fundamental understanding of Windows 2000 and Active Directory. EDS will not provide Microsoft Certified Training on any Microsoft product.  LRSD will provide technical staff to work along side EDS personnel on a daily basis so EDS can mentor staff on daily network operations and maintenance. issues.  LRSD technical staff will be required to attend the Instructional Sessions presented by EDS. EDS assumes LRSD technical staff will have the background and training to understand materials presented in these sessions and will be able to put it to use on the network infrastructure. 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE: May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Education From: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Re: Update on Progress to Complete the Remaining Program Evaluations Background Information: As you know, we have contracted with Dr. Steve Ross to complete the Literacy Program Evaluations. Dr. Ross and members of his University of Memphis team met with members of our elementary and secondary Literacy Team, Math and Science Team members, Dr. Ed Williams of PRE, and Dr. James on Wednesday, April 30th to discuss the scope of the project. The purpose of the study will be to evaluate the Literacy programs across the District. The research questions that will guide the study are: 1. What are the long-term impacts of the Literacy programs on student achievement in the Little Rock School District? a. Are there different impacts between alternative literacy approaches, such as ELLA with enhancements and SFA? b. What are the impacts of the overall program and the alternative specialized program on raising the achievement of African American students? c. What are the relationships between student and school variables as they affect alternative programs? d. What are the characteristics of effective schools or programs? 2. What are the reactions of teachers and District Literacy leaders toward the Literacy Programs with regard to implementation, professional development, resources, and effectiveness on teaching and learning improvement? The research study will have both quantitative and qualitative components. The focus group interviews started on May 1st . Recommendation: ~ It is recommended that the Board of Directors receive the report as presented. DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 22, 2003 Board of Education Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Lucy Neal, Director of Instructional Technology/Library Media Grant Proposal - Enhancing Education Through Technology Grant The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) released the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant competition for proposals. The EETT competitive grants are made available through the U.S. Department of Education's No Child Left Behind legislation for the purpose of improving student academic achievement through the effective integration of technology. The goals of EETT are to: 1) improve student achievement through the use of technology\n2) assist every student to become technologically literate by the end of the eighth grade\nand 3) encourage the effective integration of technology. The District partnered with the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District to prepare and submit the Tri-District Technology Training for Teachers (T4) proposal. The three districts will collaborate on an innovative professional development project that will assist teachers in developing skills of integrating technology into the curriculum. The T4 Project includes a three-pronged approach to professional development: 1) facilitator-led technology seminars, 2) webbased technology training opportunities, and 3) the UALR Cyber Teacher program. Emphasis of all training sessions will be on integration of technology into the curriculum, not on learning to merely operate the software. All activities extend and enrich the technology plans of the three districts. If funded, Lucy Neal will serve as the T4 project director. The grant was submitted on May 5, 2003 in order to meet the May 5, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total one-year award request was $506,552.65. The LRSD will serve as the lead agency for grant management and fiscal responsibilities. The requested funds will be used to provide the following: 1) tri-district professional development activities\n2) purchased professional development and technical services to support professional development activities\n3) provide UALR tuition and laptops for 25 Cyber teachers to be selected from all three districts\nand 4) a computer lab for both Woodruff and Dodd Elementary schools. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. ~~ r-\n:a CD m ~ [S ::c r.-,\u0026lt;, -c\u0026lt;::\n:a c5 ~oz- ~~ p 0 0z ~ 5z en FINE ARTS DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 South Pulaski  Little Rock, A R 72206  Phone (501) 447-3343  Fax (501) 447-7612 May 22, 2003 TO: ~ ~ Board of Directors FR~anny Fletcher, Director, Arts Department THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent SUBJECT: 6-12 Art, Music and Drama Textbook Adoption Recommendation In accordance with the District's PN Agreement, the LRSD Art, Music and Drama Textbook Committee has completed the selection process for the 2003-2009 adoption cycle. Committee members voted unanimously to recommend the attached list of textbooks for adoption. DJF/rcm f) C 0 z :!:\n5z u, Music (6-8) ART, MUSIC AND DRAMA TEXTBOOK ADOPTION LIST 2003-2009 Share The Music, Compact Disc MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Silver Burdett Making Music, Compact Disc Pearson Educational Music (6-12) Music, Its Role \u0026amp; Importance in Our Lives Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Art (6-8) Introducing Art Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Exploring Art Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Understanding Art Glencoe/McGraw-Hill A Community Connection Davis Publications A Global Pursuit Davis Publications A Personal Journey Davis Publications Portfolios Pupil's Barrett-Kendall/Pearson Ed. Art (9-12} .,.. Discovering Art History ~~ Davis Publications, Inc. 0\u0026gt; mo ~!\n%:Z \u0026gt; rn Discovering Drawing z\u0026lt; ~ Davis Publications, Inc.\no\nill :c: Exploring Visual Design Davis Publications, Inc. ?\"'~ Art Talk \u0026gt;ID Glencoe/McGraw-Hill c\u0026lt;= 0~ =IZ ill~ Art in Focus c3: .\n.,.: ,n\u0026lt; !\" Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Creating \u0026amp; Understanding Drawings Glencoe/McGraw-Hill ~~ The Jeweler's Art ,....\n,:, ID m Davis Publications, Inc. ~ is %r- ... c ~ ...\n,:, 15 o~z- The Photographic Eye ~~ ~ fn Davis Publications, Inc. Art (AP} Gardner's Art through the Ages Harcourt !\"' 0 0 z Stokstad's Art History ~ 0 Prentice-Hall (Pearson Ed.) z rn History of Art Prentice-Hall (Pearson Ed.) Art Synetics Davis Publication .!=.. z :,, :z c- Design Synetics :,.\n.\n. u Davis Publication A Short Guide to Writing About Art Addison Wesley (Pearson Ed.) The Annotated Mona Lisa University Press Centennial Drama (9-12) The Stage and the School Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Basic Drama Projects Perfection Learning 2002-2003 MUSIC, ART AND DRAMA TEXTBOOK SELECTION COMMITTEE  ~~ 0  me =:i !\nSCHOOL SUBJECT AREA NAME :c\nz!  cn z\u0026lt; Co ~!\" Kayen Baker Gibbs K-5 Music 0\no\nRita Bledsoe Booker K-5 Music A:c:l Sharon Boyd-Struthers Rockefeller K-5 Art Robert Brack Central 9-12 Music Cynthia Buehling Western Hills/Dodd K-5 Music Susan Crosby Southwest 6-8 Music s Edward Duncan Forest Heights 6-8 Music ~  DI Carole Dyson Williams K-5 Art C: C: c!!? Don Enderson Central 9-12 Art =iz Al~ Kathy Goodwin Meadowcliff K-5 Music c3::: ,:,\u0026lt; Jeaneau Julian Parkview 9-12 Music -,n !\" Susan King Hall 9-12 Art Karen Lawson Franklin K-5 Music Olen McCoy McClellan 9-12 Art Kelly Mcintire Booker K-5 Art Boyce Pearson Fair Park K-5 Music Susan Purvis Gibbs K-5 Art ~~ ..... ,,, Barbara Strickland Williams K-5 Music a,m ~ is Becky Webb Dunbar 6-8 Music :c,.... .....,. C...:. Lucy Willis-Washington J. A. Fair 9-12 Art \"o'cz5 Mary Zies King K-5 Art ~- :!!l~ Robin Miller-Bookhout Mann 6-8 Art -\u0026lt; fn Edgar Porchia Henderson 6-8 Art Susan Chambers Mann 6-8 Art Legail Biggs Parkview 9-12 Drama Roxie Hannah Mann 6-8 Drama !\"'I C Ex-Officio Members 0 z .... 5 Judy Magness School Board z Tyrone Harris Principal (/) Felicia Hobbs Principal Danny J. Fletcher Arts Director TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 Board of Directors Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Kenneth James, Superintendent 2003-2004 Recommendations for the Revision of the Student Handbook The District-wide Student Handbook Committee is recommending the attached revisions to the Student Handbook. The old information is presented in regular print, the revised information is present with a strike through, and the new information is presented in bold print. .\u0026gt;,, .x ~~ en :c ~,....,8.... c: en \u0026gt;~\n3!\" z !\"' C 0 z ?. 5z en DRAFT STUDENT CONDUCT CODE 2003-2004 ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND SENIOR IDGB SCHOOL STUDENTS Rule 1: Dishonesty Cheating on tests, (plagiarism) or copying the work of another student/person will not be tolerated. For all offenses involving academic assessments, the student will receive a grade of zero on the assessment or test. Forgery of parent's/guardian's signature(s) or falsifying information will not be tolerated. Rule 6: Failure to Serve Detention A student who fails or refuses to serve detention when directed to do so by a school administrator or other authorized school personnel will be disciplined according to the Student Handbook. Rule 7: Using Verbally Abusive Language, Obscene Gestures, or Fighting Words The use of profanity, inflammatory or verbally abusive language, obscene gestures, intimidation and/or the instigation of a fight or altercation are prohibited in the school environment. Peer Mediation/Conflict Resolution is required. Rule 8: Smoking or Use of Smokeless Tobacco Smoking or possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or tobacco products of any kind on school district property, at a school-related activity or on the school bus is prohibited. (Arkansas Code 5-78-101-102) First Offense: Enrollment in, and completion of, a smoking H88808B education program. Enrollment documentation required. Three days in-school suspension. Three days out of school suspension for failure to complete the program. Second Offense: Enrollment in, and completion of, a smoking cessation program. ..-\n11rolleui11t IIHHHU!ntation is HlfHind. Three to five day in Hhool sHspension out of school suspension and probation. Failure to complete cessation program will result in long-term suspension recommendation. Third Offense: Enrollment in and completion of a smoking cessation program. Enrollment documentation required. Long-term suspension recommendation. Note: A student found in possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or flammable products on school buses will be required to attend a student/ parent/ administrator conference within twenty-four hours of the incident. 2 Rule 14: Gambling Playing a game of chance for something of value will not be tolerated. First Offense: Suspension: 3-5 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 4-6 days and probation (block schedule schools) Second Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 18: False Alarm The act of pulling or attempting to pull or calling in an alarm of a fire, bomb threat or other emergency without a lawful purpose is prohibited. The act of communicating a false alarm to or about a school, a school bus, at a school-sponsored or related activity or any public facility is a Class D Felony. Fire Marshall and/or Police notification is required. (Arkansas Codes 5-71-210, 6- 18-502, and 6-17-113) First Offense: Second Offense: Long-term suspension recommendation Expulsion recommendation Rule 21: Repeated Violation of Category 1 Offenses Rule 21A. Habitual or repeated violation (3 or more times) of school rules and regulations will not be tolerated. First Offense: Suspension: 3 days (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 4 days (block schedule schools) Second Offense: Suspension: 5-10 days and probation (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 6-10 days and probation (block schedule schools) Third Offense: Suspension: Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 21B. Repeated Violation of Category 2 Offenses A student who repeatedly violates Category 2 Offenses will be disciplined. l. The violation of a single rule two (2) or more times, or 2. The violation ofa combination of rules two (2) or more times. First Offense: Second Offense: Suspension: 10 days and probation Long-term suspension recommendation 3 .\u0026gt;.. x,.  !!l (J)::c ~,....,8.... C: (J) \u0026gt;\n!i =oi .(J ) z Rule 24: Harassing Communications Harassing communication on school property is prohibited. The use of the voice, telephone, telegraph, mail, E-mail, Facsimile (Fax), or any other form of written, verbal, or electronic communication that intimidates, bullys, annoys, causes alarm, or threatens harm to another person, is deemed in violation of this rule. To knowingly allow another person to use a telephone or other electronic device under your control for such a purpose is a crime. To violate another person by using sexually explicit language or gestures is also prohibited (see the Anti-Harassment Policy, p. '54). (Arkansas Code 5-71-208) First Offense: Second Offense: Suspension: 10 days and probation Long-term suspension recommendation Rule 25: Forgery or Falsification of Information The act of falsifying teacher/administrator or school staff signatures or information on official school records, hall passes, documents, and any items requiring staff signatures will not be tolerated. First Offense: Second Offense: Third Offense: Suspension: 5 days (regular schedule schools) Suspension: 6 days (block schedule schools) Suspension: 10 days Long-term suspension recommendation 4 A committee, composed of elementary principals developed the Elementary Tardy And Early Check-out Policy. The policy was then presented to all of the elementary principals, during a principals' meeting, for their review and input. A needs assessment is provided so that the Board can understand why a policy is needed. (The needs assessment will not be printed in the Student Handbook). NEEDS ASSESSMENT The elementary principals are concerned about the excessive amount of student tardies and early check-outs that most of them are experiencing in their schools. They explained that some parents are bringing students to school late, in excess of 20 times in one nineweeks and some as late as 12:00 noon. In addition, some parents are checking students out prior to the end of the school day because they do not want to be in line with the cars and buses at the end of the school day. The principals expressed that students are missing an extreme amount of instructional time\nbut they (the principals) are held accountable for students' academic achievement. Elementary schools have a 5 and 1/2 hour instructional day with a 2 and 1/2 hour uninterrupted literacy block which generally occurs during the morning school hours. Most tardies occur in the morning\ntherefore, students are missing the entire literacy block. Since the federal government has mandated NCLB legislation, it is imperative that students are at school and participate in the literacy block ELEMENT ARY TARDY AND EARLY CHECK-OUT POLICY DEFINITION A student receives a tardy when he/she fails to be in the classroom or other assigned location by the time the tardy bell stops ringing. A student receives an early checkout when he/she exits school prior to the end of the school day (when the last bell has rung). CONDITIONS 1. There are generally no excused tardies or early student check-outs. However, an exception will be made if the student is delayed or checked out early due to official school business, illnesses or medical appointments (documentation is required on the day the child returns to school) or for other reasons approved by the building administrator, such as an accident or other emergency. 2. Generally, school/class tardiness or early check-outs will not affect a student's citizenship grade. In those cases, however, when the persistent efforts of school personnel fail to eliminate tardiness or early check-out, or if 5 ~~ r-:,, Cllm ~~ :,:,...,.,. C...:.\n,, i5 .o,,z_ !..:.:.l ~,... -\u0026lt; rn f\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ 0z en the student refuses to accept an assigned sanction, the citizenship grade may be lowered by a building administrator. 3. The Tardy and Early Check-out Policy becomes effective one week after the opening of the school year to allow students time to learn the school. 4. Tardies and early check-outs will accumulate on a semester basis. PROCEDURE 1. On the first unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the teacher/administrator will record the tardy or early check-out, document the amount of time missed and warn the student. Parent/guardian notification is required. 2. On the second unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the teacher will record the tardy, document the amount of time missed and warn the student. Parent/guardian notification is required. 3. On the third unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the teacher will document the amount of time missed and the student will be sent home for a required parent conference. NOTE: The conference may be held via telephone. 4. On the forth and fifth unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the building administrator will contact the parent and may elect one of the following procedures, based on the conditions existing in his/her school. A disciplinary sanction will be assigned from the following alternatives: a. Early morning, after school, lunch, or recess detention hall b. In-school time out, or in-school suspension 5. On the sixth and seventh unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the student will receive a two-day short-term suspension. 6. On the eighth and ninth unexcused tardy or unexcused early check-out, the student will receive a five-day, short-term suspension, which may be served in an elementary ALE, if space is available. The parent must provide transportation to the ALE. If the student is tardy while he/she is assigned to an Elementary ALE, another day is added to the ALE assignment. No student will remain in an Elementary ALE for tardies or excused early check-outs more than ten days. 7. If the student continues to be unexcused tardy and/or is checked out early from school unexcused, whether in an elementary ALE or his/her regular school, the student will be recommended to be long-term suspended and assigned to an ALE for a minimum of 20 days. 8. A student who continues to accumulate excessive (10 or more times) tardies and/or early check-outs will be reported to the appropriate agency. 6 The following information is being recommended for review and adoption by the Director of Pupil Services, Coordinator of Health Services, Drug Free Schools Coordinator, school nurses, and a parent. ADMINISTERING MEDICATIONS TO STUDENTS Schools are responsible for providing students the opportunity to take prescription and non..:prescription medications that have been provided by the parent/guardian. Written permission from the parent/guardian must be received before the medication may be administered by school personnel. Narcotic pain medication will not be administered at school. Students who have recently had surgery or a medical procedure and need prescribed pain medication should not attend school. The LRSD Health Services Department is responsible for providing procedures for the safe administration of medications and will provide training for non-nursing personnel on appropriate methods of administering medications. In case of an anaphylactic reaction, or the risk of such a reaction, or severe asthma attack, a school nurse or trained designated staff may administer emergency oral, injectable or inhalation medication to any student in need thereof on the school grounds, in the school building, or at a school function according to the Standing Orders of the school physician or the student's primary care physician. Medication Containers All medication brought to school must be in the original container. Prescription drugs will be in the original bottle with proper label indicating student's name, administration time and dosage. Non-prescription drugs will be in the original container with the original label which will indicate reason for use. Medication is not to be sent in any other container or wrapper (e.g. Saran Wrap, aluminum foil, lunch box, etc.). Parents will be notified if medication has been sent in an inappropriate container. Pharmacists can be encouraged to provide the medication in two appropriately labeled bottles so one can be left at school. Medication Transit Between Home and School Parents of students in elementary and middle school who take prescription medication are responsible for bringing the medication to school. Elementary and Middle school students are not to transport their own prescription medication. Parents are responsible for picking up any unused medication. (The only exception to this is asthma inhalers, Epi-Pens, and antibiotics, which may be carried to and from school by the student.) Permission and Accountability of Medication Parents will provide a written permission slip for any medication that is to be administered by school personnel. When the parent brings the medication to school, the number of pills will be counted, ( or the amount of liquid measured). This counting will be done by the 7 p C 0 z ~ 5z u, parent and a school district employee. The name of the medication, dosage, and amount will be recorded on the BSS (Medication Permission Slip). This information will be dated and signed by the parent and school employee. The amount of medication brought by the parent should not exceed the amount needed for one month. Middle School Students Middle school students may carry their own non-prescription medications and certain prescription medications that have been approved by the school nurse. These medications will be limited to one (1) full day's supply and must be in the original container. All other prescription medications must be kept in the health room or office under lock. Middle school students may carry their inhalers. They are encouraged to report any use of inhalers to the school nurse. Nurses will verify any medication at the request of the school administrators. Senior High Students Senior high students may carry their prescription and non-prescription medication, limited to one (1) full days supply. Routine verification by the school nurse is not required but nurses will verify any medication at the request of school administrators. Student Responsibility It is expected that Senior High and Middle School students will be responsible and report to the school nurse's office to take their medication at the appropriate time. STUDENTS ARE NEVER TO GIVE OR RECEIVE MEDICATION FROM OTHER STUDENTS. 8 Pursuant to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation the following information is to be provided to parents: TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS At the beginning of each school year, the District will notify parents/guardians that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of students' classroom teachers. Parents/guardians may be given timely notice that the students have been assigned,.or have been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by teachers who are not fully certified. SAFE AND UNSAFE SCHOOLS Safe Schools Safe schools are those where students, staff members and visitors feel safe and welcome and have the opportunity to learn, teach, work, and engage in activities without being threatened, intimidated, bullied, harassed, or made the victim of crime. Such schools provide an environment in which students are challenged academically, respected and supported socially and emotionally by peers and staff, held accountable for their actions, and able to work without fear. Perhaps, most importantly, a safe school is one where students are connected and feel a part of the school. This broad definition of a safe school extends the concept of safety beyond the realm of physical well-being to include the related areas of social climate and order. Unsafe Schools For the purpose of NCLB, the definition of a persistently dangerous public school implies a pattern of unsafe behaviors as demonstrated over time, not just a single event. The committee recommended a period of two consecutive years, during which the following are evidenced, establishes the condition of \"persistently unsafe.\" A school would be considered persistently dangerous if the following conditions are observed: 1. For each year during the past two consecutive years, the school has had a federal or state gun-free school violation as allowed by the USC and/or Arkansas Criminal Code Annotated, or at least one violent criminal offense has been committed on school property (Violent criminal offense means homicide, rape, robbery and/or aggravated assault), and 2. For each year during the past two consecutive years, the school has experienced expulsions for drugs, alcohol, weapons or violence that exceeds 3% of the total school population as reported on October 1st of each year. A parent/guardian of a student, who is attending an unsafe school, may transfer to another school that has been determined to be safe, under the above guidelines. All such request should be directed to the LRSD Student Registration Office (447-2950). 9 ~~ r- :,0 a,m ~ lS :J: r.... C: -0 .... :,0 c5 Oz -o- ~~ ~~ f) 0 0 z ~ 6z u, != T 2 )\u0026gt; .z.. '.j\n,- \" SEMESTER EXAM EXEMPTION FOR SENIOR STUDENTS SECOND SEMESTER ONLY Students in the second semester of their 12th grade year may be exempt from semester exams in a maximum of four (4) classes if they meet the following requirements. 1. The student shall not accumulate more than three (3) excused absences, and shall have no unexcused absences, in the class. 2. The student shall not accumulate more than one (1) tardy in the class. 3. The student shall not receive a citizenship mark of two (2) or higher in the class. 4. The student shall earn a grade of eighty percent (80%) or higher in the class for each of the nine weeks' grading periods. The student's semester grade shall then be calculated by taking the average of the two nine weeks' grades. S. The student shall receive no out-of-school suspensions or expulsions in the said semester. 6. The student shall obtain consent from a parent or legal guardian for the particular class. 7. If the student qualifies for an exemption but chooses to take a semester exam in order to raise his or her grade, the resulting semester grade cannot be lower than the average of the two nine weeks' grades. Authorized Use of Computer Networks Regulations I. Purpose To establish regulations for the appropriate use of the District computer network by students. II. Definitions Chat room: A variation of the interactive messaging board, a chat room is a web site for live, online conversation in which any number of computer users can type messages to each other and communicate IRT (In Real Time). These messages usually appear on an area of the screen next to the user's nickname or handle. Most chat rooms have a particular topic (which you are expected to discuss), but some chat rooms are purely for meeting other people. Other chat rooms are designed as elaborate 3-D environments, where you select an avatar that represents you in this virtual meeting place. Instant Messaging: (IM) - A technology that gives users the ability to identify people online and to exchange messages with them in real time. Referred to by many as the \"coolest way to communicate online since e-mail,\" it typically works like this: The instant messaging system alerts you whenever somebody on your \"buddy list\" is online and trying to contact you via your computer. That person can then initiate a chat session with you and both parties can type text messages back and forth. Hate site: A hate site is defined as, \"an organization or individual that advocates violence against or unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. A hate site also includes organizations or individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to these persons or organizations for the purpose of vilification.\" E-mail: The process by which messages are sent electronically across computer networks. Flaming: To send an e-mail message that is abusive or that offends. Typing in all capital letters is considered shouting and may be offensive. Internet: A network of computer networks. Networks in the Internet are connected so that they can communicate with others regardless of their manufacture. Spamming: To send an annoying or unnecessary message to a large number of people. An example might be a chain letter asking a user to forward the message to x number or people. 11 ~~ r-\n:c ID m ~ [S :::c r... C: \"II ...\n:c i5 Oz \"II- ~~ ... r-\u0026lt; !TI r\u0026gt; C 0 z ~ 5z u, Virus: A computer program that uses various techniques to duplicate itself and travel between computers. Viruses can cause serious damage to computers such as erasing important data or crashing a system. III. Regulations General 1. Computer systems and networks are provided for conducting school business and for the educational benefit of students. They are not intended for private or personal use. 2. Users of the network are responsible for following local, state, federal and international laws. This includes copyright laws. 3. Users are responsible for the use of their own account, including security and proper use. Users are not to allow others to use their password. 4. Users are responsible for respecting the policies of other networks which they access and adhering to those policies. 5. Users may not deliberately damage or disrupt a network or computer system. System components such as hardware, software, property or facilities shall not be destroyed, modified or abused. Examples of activities that are prohibited are altering security codes or passwords and introducing computer viruses. 6. No LRSD network, phone, or computer system will be used to intimidate, threaten or harass. 7. Users will not use the LRSD network for financial or commercial gain or to advertise, promote or endorse products or personal services. 8. The District will not be responsible for financial obligations or legal infractions arising from unauthorized use of the system. 9. Network resources, information and electronic mail are not guaranteed to be private. Routine maintenance and monitoring of the system may lead to the discovery that a violation of a law or regulation has occurred. If there is reasonable suspicion that a law or regulation has been violated, an investigation will be conducted. Hardware 10. Only authorized individuals will install, service or maintain District-owned hardware. Software 11 . Only software authorized by the District may be installed on computer hardware. 12. Only authorized individuals will install software on District equipment. 12 Internet 13. The purpose of providing Internet access to students is for educational benefit only. 14. Before a student is allowed to access the Internet, a Student Use Agreement must be signed by the student and the parent/guardian each school year. 15. E-mail accounts will be issued to secondary students in grades 6-12. Elementary students will not be issued individual e-mail accounts but may be provided access to e-mail through a classroom account. 16. Users will not post personal contact information about themselves or other people. 17. All users should observe network etiquette. Users are expected to be polite and use appropriate language. Using vulgar or profane language is not appropriate. 18. Engaging in flaming or spamming is not appropriate. Students are prohibited from using chat rooms and instant messenger services. 19. Use of the system to access, store or distribute obscene, pornographic or inappropriately suggestive material is prohibited. 20. Use of the LRSD networks and computers to access, store, or distribute materials or sites that are considered racially derogatory or \"hate sites\" is strictly prohibited. 21. Students are to report any inappropriate material they access to a teacher or other staff person. Students are not to share inappropriate materials or their sources with other students. Supervision of the Computer Network 22. Coordination of the District computer network is under the supervision of the Superintendent or designee. At the building level, the principal or designee will be responsible for coordination of activities related to the network. 23. The principal or designee will establish a system that ensures that all students receive instruction on District policies that address computer systems and networks. The principal or designee will also establish a process for supervision of students using the system and will maintain user and account agreements. 24. Any user who violates this policy and accompanying regulations is subject to Joss of computer, phone, and network privilege as well as other District disciplinary actions. 13 \u0026gt;s :. -.,. \u0026gt;!!l Cl) :c i,..8...- c: Cl) \u0026gt;~ o=I .C l) z f) C 0 z ~ 5z en School Little Rock School District Authorized Use of Computer Networks Student Use Agreement Student Section ----------------------------- Student Name _______________ Grade ______ _ I have read the District Authorized Use of Computer Networks Policy. I agree to follow the rules contained in this policy. I understand that if I violate the rules my computer privileges can be terminated and I may face other disciplinary measures. Student Signature ______________ Grade ______ _ Parent or Guardian Section I have read the District Authorized Use of Computer Networks Policy. I hereby release the District, its Board of Directors, staff, employees, and any institutions with which it is affiliated, from any and all claims and damages or any nature arising from my child's use of, or inability to use, the District computer network. This includes but is not limited to claims that may arise from the unauthorized use of the system to purchase products or services. I will instruct my child regarding any additional restrictions I wish to be followed in addition to those outlined in these regulations. I will emphasize to my child the importance of following the rules for personal safety. I give permission for my child to use the District computer system and network, and certify that the information contained in this form is correct. Parent Signature ______________ Date _______ _ Parent Name ---------------Phone- ------ Home Address _________________________ _ Parent's e-mail address _____________________ _ 14 '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Audit Report for June 30, 2002 and Extension of Audit Services Background Information: The District's Annual Financial Audit for the fiscal year 2001-2002 has been provided to you under separate cover for your review. The audit was prepared by Thomas and Thomas, Certified Public Accountants and has been reviewed internally by the Financial Services Department. In June of 1999 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements-and Management's Discussion and Analysis-for State and Local Governments. The purpose of this new financial reporting model is to provide more understandable and useful financial reports to a wider range of users than the previous model\nhowever, the GASB34 format created a whole new and different way ofreporting than has been used in the past. Because of the new method of preparing financial statements and the complications involved with the reporting transition, it is our desire to extend the auditing services of Thomas and Thomas for another auditing cycle. A more detailed description of the audit can be found in the Management's Discussion and Analysis on pages 3-10 of the audit report. Mr. Don Smith, the managing partner of the Little Rock office of Thomas and Thomas, will make a presentation and answer questions at the Board Agenda meeting. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us c\nn1-~?4_ ?nnn  fax: 'i01-124-2032 !JI m ~ 0 -n (\") ~ f) 0 0 z ::c emn ~ 6z en ------------- Fiscal Impact: The fee for the annual audit will not exceed $53,000 which includes a 3% increase over the previous year. Recommendation: We recommend that the audit be approved as submitted and that the contract with Thomas and Thomas to provide audit services be extended through June 30, 2004. At the end of the 2003-2004 cycle, the Board will send out an RFP for audit services. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH:~ T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ~ ur. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Resolution: Sale of Fulbright Elementary School Property The Little Rock School District has recently received an offer of $250,000 for portions of the property of Fulbright Elementary School. In order for this sale to be considered by the Board, a resolution must be made to excess this property in order to dispose of it according to operating procedures. It is requested that the Little Rock School District approve the attached resolution for the excessing of the property at Fulbright Elementary School. The Offer and Acceptance for this property is also attached at this time. Once the Board has approved the Resolution to excess the property, we recommend acceptance of the offer. DE:cg Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. Offer and Acceptance .\u0026gt;.. x,. \u0026gt;!!l V,::,: ,~....8.- c: V, \u0026gt;c5 o~ .V , z p 8 z ~ 6z V, !J:l m ~ 0.. , (\") ~ (\") ::,: m V, ,.:.: 2 )\u0026gt; 2 (\" .'..D. (I FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY 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: Land lying in the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas, to wit: Part of Section 28, T-2-N, R-13-W and\nWHEREAS, 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\nand, WHEREAS, in order to convey merchantable title to said lands, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, it is necessary to secure releases of said lands from the liens of several mortgages or deeds-of-trust securing bonds issued by the District\nand it will be necessary in order to secure such releases that the District place the proceeds of the sale in the Building Fund of the District to be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings and other facilities for school purposes of the District. NOW, 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 abovedescribed surplus lands that are no longer needed for school purposes. 2. That no offer be accepted except by resolution of this Board convened 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 and other facilities for school purposes. 4. That a certified copy of this Resolution be delivered to the several trustees of the mortgages and deeds-of-trust presently encumbering the above-described property with this Board requesting that, upon receipt of such certified Resolution, said corporate trustees forthwith release, in recordable form, the above-described lands from each of the separate mortgages and deeds-of-trust aforesaid, as same are applicable to each corporate trustee. ADOPTED: STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss COUNTY OF PULASKI ) President, Board of Directors Secretary, Board of Directors Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ________ , 2003 . Notary Public My Commission Expires: ___________ _ \u0026gt; x \"ti  \u0026gt;~ \"':c i8 ,- re: (/) \u0026gt;c5i o=I(./ ) z ~ i 0.. , 0 ~ :c m (/) fl 8 z ~ 5z (/) ?\u0026lt; n 5 (/) z G') ~ ~ ~ (/) != T 2 ), z (\"' ,).\u0026gt;. r, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE St. James United Methodist Church{hereinafter referred to as the \"Buyer\") hereby offers this the 16th day of May , 2003, to purchase the Property {as hereinafter defined) from Little Rock School District known henceforth as {\"SELLER\"), pursuant to the following terms and conditions {which are referred to herein as the  Agreemenr): 1. PURCHASE AND SALE: Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, for the consideration set forth herein and subject to the terms, conditions, and provisions hereinafter stated, certain real property {the \"Property\") located in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, being approximately described as follows: That real property described on Exhibit \"A\" attached hereto, being an undeveloped parcel of land on the north side of Pleasant Valley Drive immediately to the east side of Fulbright Elementary School, the precise boundaries of such undeveloped parcel of land to be more particularly described on a survey of the area to be prepared as set forth in Paragraph 5 below (being approximately 4.04 acres), which precise boundaries must be mutually agreed upon by Buyer and Seller. 2. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price which Buyer agrees to pay and which Seller agrees to accept for the Property is the sum of $250,000.00. 3. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price shall be payable in cash at Closing. 4. TITLE INSURANCE: {a) Within twenty-one (21) days from acceptance hereof, Buyer shall obtain, at Buyer's sole expense, a commitment for an American Land Title Association {AL TA) owner's title insurance policy, with Buyer as the Named Insured, committing to insure the Buyer's fee simple interest in the Property to Buyer in the amount of the purchase price issued by a company authorized to insure title to real property in the state of Arkansas, {the \"Title Commitment\"). If the Title Commitment shows special exceptions to title other than those standard exceptions contained in the AL TA commitment form, and where such special exceptions relate to restrictions, conditions, defects or other matters which would interfere with Buyer's use or adversely affect the title of the property, then within ten days of delivery of the Title Commitment, Buyer shall deliver written notice thereof to _Seller which notice shall state specifically those exceptions to which Buyer objects. All objections not specifically enumerated in such notice shall be deemed to be waived by Buyer. {b) Upon Buyer's delivery of notice of objections to Seller, Seller shall have twenty-one (21) days within which to cure such objections to Seller's satisfaction. If, within such twenty-one day period, Seller fails to cure and/or have waived such objections and exceptions to Buyer's satisfaction then this Agreement shall terminate in which event all Earnest Money paid or deposited by Buyer shall be returned to Buyer within seven (7) days. At Closing, or as soon thereafter as practical, a policy of title insurance issued pursuant to the Commitment shall be issued to Buyer, which Policy shall have the so-called standard exceptions removed therefrom. 5. SURVEY: Buyer shall, prior to Closing, contract for, at its sole cost and expense, a certified topographical land survey of the Property to be made by an Arkansas-licensed engineer or surveyor showing the following: Adjacent roads, building lines, a metes and bounds description showing the beginning point, the distance and bearing from a readily ascertainable point {such as a street intersection), and the course, bearing and measured distances of all boundary lines\nmonuments or stakes found and set\nany building setback lines\nlocation, dimensions, area, and street address of all buildings and the distance from each side of the building to the property line, location, size, and physical evidence of any building, fence or hedge near any property line\nphysical evidence of any possible easement, power line, pipeline, manhole or drain outlets\nand encroachment or overlapping of improvements\nlocation of all utilities contiguous or adjacent to the Property\nFlood Plain designation\nelevations/distance to the property lines from the center line and roadway pavement edge for Pleasant Valley Drive and the location and recording references of all easements or other locatable encumbrances or restrictions affecting the Property which are established by any recorded instrument. Such Survey shall be dated and all particulars shall be signed and sealed by the aforesaid surveyor or engineer. 6. CONVEYANCE: Conveyance shall be made to Buyer, or as directed by Buyer, by general warranty deed. At the time of Closing, the Property shall be free of any liens and mortgages of any kind. 7. TAXES: Seller warrants that all taxes and other assessments on the Property are paid {or will be paid at the Closing) down to and including the immediate past real estate tax year. General taxes for the current real estate tax year shall be prorated between Buyer and Seller as of the Closing Date, based on the most current statements. Oastjames2rev4 I 403 Seller shall provide to Buyer a copy of the most recent Real Estate Property Tax Bill for the Property. Seller warrants that there are no special tax assessments levied against the Property and none are anticipated and the Property does not lie within the boundaries of any existing improvement districts. Seller has no knowledge of any improvement districts that are in the process of being formed within whose boundaries the property lies. Buyer hereby recognizes, acknowledges, and agrees that during Seller's ownership of the Property, it has been exempt from such taxes. s. CLOSING: The Closing (hereinafter referred to as the \"Closing\") shall take place at the offices of Standard Abstract and Title Company, 3420 Old Cantrell Road, Little Rock, AR 72202 on or before June 30, 2003, (said date is herein referred to as the \"Closing Date\") or at such other time and place mutually acceptable to both parties. 9. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer upon the Closing Date. 10. EARNEST MONEY: Buyer shall tender a check for Five Thousand Dollars and no/100's ($5,000.00), to be deposited with Standard Abstract and Title Company, 3420 Old Cantrell Road, Little Rock, AR, 72202 upon acceptance, which shall apply to the Purchase Price or Buyer's closing costs at Closing. If title requirements are not fulfilled, or other conditions in the Agreement are not satisfied, and as otherwise provided in the Agreement, all of the Earnest Money shall be promptly returned to the Buyer. If Buyer fails to fulfill its obligations, the Earnest Money may be retained by Seller as liquidated damages or Seller may refund such Earnest Money and bring legal action against Buyer. 11. CLOSING COSTS: Unless otherwise agreed by Buyer and Seller, the party indicated below will pay transaction costs: Buyer: Premium for owner's title insurance policy, Premium for mortgagee's title insurance policy, IRS notification form, Recording fees, Preparation of loan documents, Preparation of conveyance documents, Escrow fees, Documentary stamps, Other charges customarily paid by Buyer, Title examination or search fees. 12. CONDEMNATION: In the event that during the period of time after the date of this \"Agreemenr and prior to the Closing Date, any portions of the Subject Property taken in condemnation or under rights of eminent domain (or conveyed in lieu thereof), Seller shall notify Buyer in writing of such condemnation or conveyance in lieu thereof, and Buyer may, at its option, either: (1) terminate this \"Agreement\" in such case neither party shall have any further liability under this \"Agreement\"\nor (2) receive a pro-rata reduction in such Purchase Price, based on a revised survey, and proceed to consummate this \"Agreemenr as to the remaining portion of the Property in accordance with the terms and provisions of this \"Agreement\". 13. ZONING: Buyer's obligations pursuant to the Agreement are conditioned upon Buyer receiving, prior to Closing, such authority, consent or action that affirms the Property is so zoned by any governmental body, code, law, regulation or ordinance to permit the use of the Property by the Buyer for its intended development, and Buyer has obtained the necessary building, construction, sign, operating, driveway and regulatory permits. Seller agrees to cooperate with Buyer by providing assistance as might be necessary in any way to accommodate the completion of this specific zoning and permitting process to construct and operate the property for its intended use provided, however, Seller shall not be required to incur any costs associated with such assistance. If both parties make the best efforts to accomplish the zoning and it is not accomplished prior to the Closing Date, Seller may extend this Agreement in thirty day increments until the zoning process is completed and permits are issued. 14. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD SURVEY AND SELLER'S WARRANTY: Seller will provide any Environmental Hazard Survey, or other environmental information of any kind that may have any bearing on Buyer's purchase of the Property, that Seller has in its possession to the Buyer within ten (10) days after acceptance of this Agreement. Seller states that to its knowledge, without independent inspection or investigation, there are no environmental problems that exist and no Hazardous Materials are present on the Property. oastjames 2 \u0026gt; x ~ - ~~ en :c ,~...,8... c: en \u0026gt;c51 =oi e. n z !\"'I 0 0 z ~ 6z en !:D m ~ .0... , C') ~ C') :c m en Seller hereby warrants that to its knowledge: (1) The Property is free from any use or occupancy restrictions\nexcept those imposed by applicable ordinances and regulations of the State of Arkansas and except restrictions of record. (2) Seller has received no notice of alleging or claiming any violations of zoning, health, environmental, or other laws, rules or regulations affecting the Property and Seller has no knowledge of any such violations and will promptly notify Buyer if, prior to closing, Seller receives any such notices. (3) To Seller's knowledge, without independent inspection or investigation: a. The Property has never previously been used as Landfill or as a dump for garbage, refuse, or hazardous materials. b. There are no areas on the Property where Hazardous Materials have been disposed of, released or found and Seller knows of no storage or disposal of any Hazardous Materials on the Property. Neither are there any storage tanks, either above or below ground and there are no underground pipes or lines on the Property except for facilities of public utility companies. c. There has been no leaking or intentional disposal of material of any type onto the Property and no permits for Hazardous Materials of any nature have been granted on the Property. (4) For purposes of the agreement, \"Hazardous Material\" means and includes (i) any asbestos or insulation or other material composed of or containing asbestos, or (ii) any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material defined or designated as such in any Federal, State or local statute, law, ordinance, code, rule, regulation, order or decree regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning, any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material, including radioactive materials, or concerning air, land or water pollution, as now or at any time hereafter be in effect. Buyer shall have the right to conduct a Phase 1 environmental survey of the Property, and should the results of that survey indicate the presence of Hazardous Materials, then Buyer shall have the right to conduct further testing. Buyer shall have 30 days from the date this Agreement is signed to complete the Phase 1 audit, and shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event the audit reveals the presence of hazardous materials. Buyer agrees to return the Property to its original condition and protect and hold seller harmless for any personal injury or property damage that might occur as a result of this testing and audit. 15. REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Buyer is not responsible for any real estate commission as a result of this transaction. 16. ASSIGNMENT. Buyer shall have the right to assign all rights pursuant to this Agreement to one or more parties who will be entitled to receive the conveyances and all rights pursuant hereto at Closing. 17. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence with this Agreement. 18. PARTIES BOUND: The terms and provisions of this \"Agreement\" shall inure to, extend to and be for the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto. 19. NOTICES: Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be give in connection herewith shall be in writing and deemed given when directed to the Seller and Buyer by U.S. mail, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, at the respective addresses of Buyer and Seller. In the event such notice or other communication is effected by personal delivery, the date and hour of actual delivery shall fix the time of notice. Notices shall be as follows: TO BUYER: TO SELLER: oastjames St. James United Methodist Church Attn: Dr. Guy Whitney 321 Pleasant Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock School District Attn: Dr. Kenneth James 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 3 20. ENTIRE AGREE~ENT: This Agreeme~t shall ~epresent the entire agreement by and between the parties hereto, except as o_therw1se provided for herein and It may not be changed except by written agreement duly executed by the parties hereto. 21 . FURTHER ACTS: In the event any supplemental agreement or writing contemplated hereunder is not executed at or prior to the Closing through oversight or otherwise, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless survive the Closing of the sale and purchase and shall continue in full force and effect until all such obligations are fully performed and satisfied. 22. AUTHORITY: Each of the parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that it has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement in the names, titles and capacities herein stated and on behalf of any entities, person, estate, or firms represented by such party, and that all Federal laws in order for Seller to enter into this Agreement have been complied with fully. 23. SEVERABILITY: If any provisions of this \"Agreement\" shall, for any reason whatsoever, be held to be a violation of any applicable law, and so much of said \"Agreement\" is held to be unenforceable, then the invalidity of such specific provisions herein shall not be held to invalidate any other provisions herein which shall remain in full force and effect. 24. CONFIDENTIALITY: Seller agrees that this Agreement, its concept, and all terms and negotiations relating to its development are strictly confidential and not to be discussed with any other parties other than those directly involved in the development of this \"Agreement\" except to the extent required by Arkansas law. 25. DEFAULT: If Seller shall fail to consummate this Offer and Acceptance for any reason other than Buyer's default or the termination of this Offer and Acceptance pursuant to a right to terminate given herein, Buyer may enforce specific performance of this Offer and Acceptance or may bring suit for damages against Seller. If Buyer shall fail to consummate this Offer and Acceptance for any reason other than Seller's default or the termination of this Offer and Acceptance pursuant to a right to terminate given herein, Seller shall have the right to have the earnest money paid to Seller as liquidated damages for the breach of the Offer and Acceptance or return such Earnest Money and bring legal action. 26. EXPIRATION OF OFFER: This offer shall expire, if not accepted, by 3:00 PM on the 30th day of -~M=a=...y __ , 2003. 27. GOVERNING LAW: This Offer and Acceptance shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Arkansas. 28. oastjames RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: A) Church. If at any time after Closing, Buyer elects not to utilize the Property for church related purposes and elects to sell the Property to a third party, Buyer hereby grants to Seller a right of first refusal to purchase the Property. If Buyer receives a bona fide offer which it intends .to accept (an \"Offer\") to purchase all or any part of the Property (the \"Offer Property\"), the terms and conditions of the Offer (the \"Offer Terms\") will be conveyed to Seller in writing within five (5) days following Buyer's determination that it will accept the Offer. Seller will have ten (10) business days following its receipt of the Offer Terms within which to notify Buyer in writing of its acceptance of the Offer Terms (the \"Acceptance Period\"). If Seller accepts the Offer Terms, Buyer will sell the Offer Property to Seller pursuant to the Offer Terms and Seller will purchase the Offer Property, provided Buyer's title is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except easements and restriction of record at such time which do not materially adversely affect the value or use of the Offer Property. Should Seller fail to give timely notice of its acceptance of the Offer Terms as provided above, Buyer may proceed to accept the Offer. If Buyer does not consummate a sale of the Offer Property consistent with the Offer Terms within one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration of the Acceptance Period, any other bona fide offer shall be subject to the provisions of this Paragraph. B) School. If at any time after Closing, Seller elects to sell all or any part of the existing property now owned by Seller comprising the Fulbright Elementary School site and immediately surrounding property (the \"School Property\"), Seller hereby grants to Buyer a right of first refusal to purchase the School Property. If Seller receives a bona fide offer which it intends to accept (a \"School Offer\") to 4 .\u0026gt;,, .x \u0026gt;!!l en::,: ~8 ,- r-e en \u0026gt;c5 o=i .e n z p g z ~ 6z en !D m ~ .0. , n ~ ::,: m en ?\u0026lt; n 5 en z C\u0026gt; i::l ~ 91 en purchase all or any part of the School Property (the \"School Offer Property\"), the terms and conditions of the School Offer (the \"School Offer Terms\") will be conveyed to Buyer in writing within five (5) days following Seller's determination that it will accept the School Offer. Buyer will have ten (10) business days following its receipt of the School Offer Terms within which to notify Seller in writing of its acceptance of the School Offer Terms (the \"School Acceptance Period\"). If Buyer accepts the School Offer Terms, Seller will sell the School Offer Property to Buyer pursuant to the School Offer Terms and Buyer will purchase the School Offer Property, provided Seller's title is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except easements and restriction of record at such time which do not materially adversely affect the value or use of the School Offer Property. Should Buyer fail to give timely notice of its acceptance of the School Offer Terms as provided above, Seller may proceed to accept the School Offer. If Seller does not consummate a sale of the School Offer Property consistent with the School Offer Terms within one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration of the School Acceptance Period, any other bona fide offer shall be subject to the provisions of this Paragraph. The parties hereto hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that at the time of Closing a memorandum or \"short form\" of the rights of first refusal set forth in this Paragraph 28 will be prepared, executed by both parties, and recorded in the real property records of Pulaski County, Arkansas. 29. USE AGREEMENT: Buyer and Seller hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that in the event Buyer ultimately purchases the Property, Buyer intends to construct thereon certain facilities for use by Buyer and its members and guests, and that Seller, its employees, visitors, and students shall have certain rights of use to said facilities once constructed. Buyer and Seller agree to enter into a separate written use agreement prior to the date of Closing outlining, among other things, the times, use rights, indemnities, etc ... for use of said facilities, and, in the event the parties are unable to agree upon the terms of and enter into such agreement prior to the date of Closing, either party hereto may cancel this Offer and Acceptance upon written notice to the other, and the Earnest Money shall be immediately returned to Buyer and the parties shall have no further rights or responsibilities hereunder. The parties hereto hereby expressly acknowledge and agree that said Use Agreement shall not run with the land, but rather shall be personal to the Buyer and Seller as set forth in this Agreement, and, in the event , either all of the property comprising the current St. James United Methodist Church property, or all of the property comprising the current Fulbright Elementary School property is sold to a third party, the Use Agreement referenced in this Paragraph 29 shall automatically terminate. Buyer makes this offer at i:tJO .f!_M. on this /,~ay of~r 2003. BUYER: St. James United Methodist Church By: Seller accepts this Offer at ____ M. on this __ day of __ , 2003. SELLER: Little Rock School District By: Dr. Ken James, Superintendent oastjames 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: May 22, 2003 TO: Board of Education FROM, ~al Pacadis, Di,ecto,, Procurement and Materials Mgmt THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/DeQartment Item Donor Cloverdale Magnet $1,000.00 cash to be used for Baseline Wal-Mart Store Middle School achievement awards and a school marquee Cloverdale Magnet $1,000.00 cash to be used for Baseline Wal-Mart Store Middle School achievement awards and a school marquee Jefferson Elementary Various food items, valued at Finkbeiner Food Service School $75.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements Jefferson Elementary Various food items, valued at Kroger, 1900 N. Polk School $60.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements Jefferson Elementary Various food items, valued at Kroger, 14000 Hwy. 10 School $25.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements \u0026gt;.., .x ~ !!l en ::c ,~..,8.. c: en \u0026gt;\u0026lt;5i =oi e. n z ~ !Jl i 0., , C') ~ ::c m en ?\u0026lt; ,C.'.) 0 en z C) ~ ~\n,:, ::\u0026gt;\u0026lt; en :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :- 0::,: 5:! C:\n,:,\nz,:z,- :ICC) men .z.. .!=.=. 2 ~ 2 (\" ~ r- (J Board of Education May 22, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Jefferson Elementary School McClellan Magnet High School Williams Magnet Elementary School Various food items, valued at $5.00, for use in pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements $1,000.00 cash for Boys Baseball $250.00 cash for Football Program $1,000.00 bonus grant to be used to benefit the student body $15,484.00 cash to be used for various projects and events Donor Harvest Foods Wal-Mart Foundation Williams Traditional Magnet School PT A It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. Cloverdale Middle Memo To: From: Date: Re: Darral Paradis Angela Munns, Principal at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School 04/08/03 Wal-Mart Donation Please accept the donation from Wal-Mart for the amount of$i000.00 to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The money will be used for Achievement Awards and a Marquee for the school. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  :C ::c 5~ C:\nc\nzcZ - :I: C') m rn .z.. . CLOVERDALE MIDDLE Memo To: Darral Paradis From: Angela Munns, Principal at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Date: 04/25/03 Re: Wal-Mart Donation Please accept the donation from Wal-Mart for the amount of$1000.00 to Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. The money will be used for Achievement Awards and a Marquee for the school. APR 2 8 2uG3 PftOCURtMENT JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL April 8, 2003 To: Darral Paradis, Director From: Procurement and Materials Management Roberta Mannon, Principal j /II Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donations The following merchants donated various food items to Jefferson School for use in a pancake breakfast fundraiser for playground improvements: value. Finkbeiner Food Service, 3115 Madison St., Little Rock, AR 72204 - $75.00 Kroger, 1900 N. Polk, Little Rock, AR 72207 - $60.00 value. Kroger, 14000 Hwy 10, Little Rock, AR 72212 - $25.00 value. Harvest Foods, Tanglewood Center, Little Rock, AR 72207 - $5.00 value. It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. 2600 N. McKinley Street Phone 671-6281 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; !XI i .0.. . n ~ ::c m \"'\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :C ::c :Sg\n: !52!:! zZ !I: Cl zm \"' - McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA DATE: April 16, 2003 TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Lany Buck, Princ!p@, SUBJECT: Donations Please accept these generous donations given to McClellan High School. WalMart Foundation, 702 S.W. Eth St., Bentonville, AR 72716 has give McClellan 3 donations: $1000.00 to be used by our Boys Baseball, $250.00 to be used by our football program, $1000.00 Bonus Grant that will be used to benefit our student body. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent 9417 Geyer Springs Road  Phone 447-2100 J\\?R 1 7 t~il3 ~t ~::~n1Sr\\J~ '!~'1~,~'.l .?,\nl,i\n.A.,. '~l Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL TO: FROM: A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE April 18, 2003 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement ~ry Menking, Principal SUBJECT: Donations The Williams Traditional Magnet School PTA has graciously donated $15,584.00 to our school for the following: Appreciation Luncheon Teacher Supply Reimbursement Honor Roll Good Citizen Party Audio System for Cafeteria Student Directory Thanksgiving Gift Cards School Carnival Fundraiser prizes for students Staff Appreciation Gifts Fifth grade end of year activities 290.00 2,465.00 1,263.00 176.00 7,525.00 349.00 50.00 253.00 239.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 It is recommended that these donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Ph::irie 1501\\ 4~7-' 00  Fax 1501 l 447-710- !JI i g (\") 0 \u0026gt; (\") :,: m Cl) ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 Cl) z G) Rl f\n~ Cl) TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 22, 2003 Board Of Directors ~ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\n= \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;=C:: c 5~ C:\n,:\n,\n,:\n,zZ :IC Cl mU\u0026gt; ::i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001 /02 04/30/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 04/30/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 7,783,841 112.00% 8,000,000 9,402,287 117.53% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 1,739,021 6.11% 29,400,000 4,531 ,954 15.41% EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 209,598 112.08% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61.42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 135,016 22.50% 340,000 294,574 86.64% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 171 ,343 28.56% 275,000 171 ,061 62.20% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 152,196 98.19% 160,000 191,433 119.65% TOTAL 95,495,000 67,733,358 70.93% 97,432,000 72,460,434 74.37% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 21 ,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% TOTAL 25,000 21,619 86.48% 24,000 20,836 86.82% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 43,432,048 79.59% 54,867,630 44,725,180 81 .51% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 6,724,661 90.19% 7,590,000 6,590,993 86.84% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 1,117,152 84.31% 1,340,000 1,090,106 81.35% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 707,441 37.23% 1,700,000 1,106,019 65.06% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 233,992 100.00% 273,358 273,358 100.00% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 2,317,542 66.82% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 2,286,063 59.15% 3,265,000 3,028,812 92.77% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 619,969 62.76% 1,006,014 583,296 57.98% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 124,150 496.60% 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 497,645 82.26% 650,000 84,923 13.07% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 59,157,737 77.61% 75,441,106 60,879,650 80.70% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 200,754 17.83% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 1,109,625 66.67% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 1,310,380 38.42% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 127,474,897 72.97% 176,307,777 134,671,301 76.38% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 11,009,806 69.38% 22,230,023 14,781 ,578 66.49% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,200,027 56.10% 3,980,000 2,365,699 59.44% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 16,396,998 66.11% 25,065,942 18,279,481 72.93% TOTAL 44,592,636 29,606,831 66.39% 51,275,965 35,426,758 69.09% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 157,081,729 71.63% 227,583,742 170,098,057 74.74% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2002 AND 2003 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 04/30/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 04/30/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 72,494,647 73.42% 100,865,586 72,416,252 \"BENEFITS 25,603,621 18,324,055 71.57% 24,838,361 18,445,774 pURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 14,355,086 70.94% 19,795,774 14,678,603 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 6,334,392 68.46% 8,347,098 6,075,240 '\"cAf\u0026gt;IT AL OUTLAY 1,792,554 922,484 51.46% 1,616,991 975,085 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 5,478,621 65.20% 8,508,680 5,652,723 DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101 .21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 128,563, 140 73.65% 176,189,538 130,457,249 - EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 9,738,065 58.95% 22,995,210 12,765,479 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,521,593 64.30% 3,980,000 2,729,596 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 15,906,902 64.13% 25,065,942 16,680,685 - TOTAL 45,243,962 28,166,560 62.25% 52,041,152 32,175,760 - TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 156,729,700 71.31% 228,230,690 162,633,009 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 352,029 (646,948) 7,465,048 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 3,377,569 880,253 4,896,438 OPERATING 8,621,115 7,400,844 8,675,891 12,771 ,703 TOTAL 9,907,087 10,778,413 9,556,144 17,668,141 % EXPENDED 71 .79% 74.26% 74.15% 72.78% 60.30% 66.43% 99.97% 74.04% 55.51% 68.58% 66.55% 61.83% 71.26% ~ !JI i 0 ~ (\") ~ ::c m rn ?\u0026lt; ,(.\".). 0 rn z C) Rl f\n~ rn :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:- 0 ::c 5~ C:\n:o :z:oz~ C) m rn .z. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 04-30-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 109,945.29 72,454.71 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,295,936.00 9,344,378.80 8,064,131.13 12,915,696.94 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 650,222.23 2,984,262.24 236,383.35 3,179,379.90 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 887,767.00 13,662,647.02 11,783,251.02 23,388,984.41 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881.05 2,090,512.80 4,288,982.83 116,031 .25 2,430,379.77 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 12,137,463.93 30,769,550.88 20,199,796.75 42,029,169.70 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,713.11 5,896.70 179,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 (12,137,463.93) 19,432,041 .09 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 2,098,539.30 7,121,184.10 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,194,252.41 {12,137,463.93) 5,896.70 0.00 28,550,994.21 GRAND TOTAL l ~!! :i~:i lll l!!! ~ ll!~ ~:i~ ~l l2.J2.!2 J!! ZZ ~~z ~II ~g ll!l! Zl! Z~ Zl H\n!\n!ll! l! PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTSTECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 04-30-03 586,846.55 35,357,280.16 265,814.17 4,853,208.89 11,409,705.52 53,351,543.00 11,735,611.78 20,725,862.06 138,285,872.13 lN3WN'!lnorov 'IIX S!\u0026gt;Nl'!IV3H 'IX - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED 2000-01 EXPENSE 2001-02 THRU 04-30-03 THRU 04-30-03 SUBTOTAL 889,772.32 443,467.00 113,930.47 2,641,482.13 791,385.63 397,615.34 575,016.53 (485,325.77) 4,589,606.29 109,609.73 1,832,392.06 4,218,294.40 4,119,045.21 4,325,201.40 109,945.29 9,344,378.80 379,334.70 2,984,262.24 13,662,647.02 4,288,982.83 8,064,131.13 236,383.35 11,783,251.02 116,031.25 514,391.84 22,441,583.22 223,540.20 4,853,208.89 8,230,325.62 29,962,558.59 9,305,232.01 ENDING ALLOCATION 04-30-03 72,454.71 12,915,696.94 42,273.97 0.00 3,179,379.90 23,388,984.41 2,430,379.77 20,725,862.06 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 30,769,550.88 20,199,796.75 75,530,840.37 62,755,031.76 S\u0026gt;t'!IVW3'!1 !\u0026gt;NISOl:\u0026gt; 'X S3H:\u0026gt;VO:\u0026gt; ~O lVl\\3 'B NOllVnlVl\\3 SV!d v 'S:\u0026gt;AS lOOH:\u0026gt;S 'XI LITTLE ROC!f: SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2003 1 Fund Purchase Maturity Institution 1In terest Rate Type Principal Date Date Operating 12-09-02 06-09-03 Regions 1.190% Money Market 20,000.00 Operating 01-19-03 07-19-03 Regions 1.190% Money Market 20,000.00 Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 Pulaski 1.290% Money Market 10,000.00 Operating 04-24-03 TFN Bank of America 1.070% Repo 7,665,000.00 Operating 04-15-03 05-01 -03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD 7,000,000.00 Total 14,715,000.00 Food Service 04-23-03 TFN Bank of America 0.980% Repo 800,000.00 Total 800,000.00 Activity Fund 04-03-03 08-14-03 Bank of America 1.020% Treasury Bills 801,966.49 Total 801 ,966.49 Bond Account 03-10-03 09-08-03 Regions 1.190% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,058,896.90 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 I Superior I 1.900% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 05-15-03 USBANK 1.380% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 07-15-03 USBANK 1.360% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 Capital Projects Fund 03-14-03 06-16-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 11-15-02 05-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% CD 9,000,000.00 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 04-28-03 - TFN Bank of America 1.130% Repo 6,100,000.00 Total 91 ,511,987.34 Deseg Plan Scholarship 01-10-03 06-11 -03 I Bank of America 1.050% Treasury Bills 124,445.83 Deseg Plan Scholarship 09-27-02 06-10-03 I Bank of America 1.430% Treasury Bills 534,508.80 Total 658,954.63 Rockefeller Scholarship 01-30-03 06-24-03 I Bank of America 1.090% Treasury Bills 249,898.04 Total 1 249,898.04 TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501} 447-1000 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Sadie Mitchell~ciate Superintendent for School Services Lloyd Sain, Jr., Co-Chairperson, PTAS PTAS Committee Members Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) April 9, 2003 Background Information On behalf of the Professional Teacher Appraisal System's committee, I submit the Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) for your review and adoption. Since your first reading of Track I in April 2002, the committee has developed two additional phases of this appraisal system. In April, you were introduced to Track I, which outlined the evaluation expectations and requirements for all probationary teachers. This document now includes Track II, which describes the evaluation experience for all tenured teachers of the district. In addition, this document outlines a new phase called Track III, which will offer support to any teacher who has difficulty meeting the expectations and teaching standards of this district. During this entire process, the PTAS Committee involved\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_28","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":["2003-04","2003-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/28"],"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.\nRECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Mr.M. SamuelJones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mcl\u0026lt;\"inley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 April 24, 2003 Direct dial: (501 ) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.us Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 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 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. U.S. Dist. Ct. No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find a copy of Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, Notice of Filing and ADE's Project Management Tool sent for filing in the above-referenced matter. MAH/jle Very truly yours, ~:){ . MARK A. HAG~ R Assistant Attorn~:ral 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Cc: Mr. Ray Simon D. Scott Smith Mr. Louis Ferren Ms. Charity Smith CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 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. SamuelJones,ill 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 Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 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 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hage~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 !!titi~l!~~-l~fW!1i~:,tt~lfi~!~iii~~Ji~'-cui.il~tj:m~ 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 April 30, 2003 ~!hii::::::':c~-:,:,,~,--::Hli,\\l~\\lii\\WiEGfi::~f::zito~.Jili{Atie.'fa!941~1~g}qi\n'.EX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 ~~1ax1r1t~QQjdj~p,9.fJ9ni:'gf\n~t~ E\nqualizij~pn -~ij-nding\"lor:t.)' OZZQ3.~ii.fi The aitotmenis\"\"cit ~i1tEguaiizationpundfng calculated tor FY 02103 at March 3 t, 4Q0~ .,,$ 1.Jbj~Gttcfp~_riof!l ~dj.$tm~nts\nw.er~.-~s foH9ws: LR~D.t ~5, 1~2.~3i:... .., NLRSD'l :$29877 8.21\n=.-:.- t:- .\n__ r .:-:.:=:=-:!: PCSSO\n- $55, 116,~] D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 Based oil th~ intorm.~tion ~yhllabre: the ADE cattiatecf~ March it, 2003 tor FY o.v:~\n.,~le.Gtlo pe.q9qi~.JwJuS1file~-  E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 Bif' -, eca1'tofat~li(af Maf.cfl)l:3l{m2qOg'tdf:Jt \u0026amp;2-X It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 .1,:-----'-:,:i~iil~r- 6'~1!1111!~,:,1 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 ltiilfi,~l~lf.fl~i.ili\u0026amp;tliilBlill'Ji\nllir!~\\ll1tfmiinl H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 0\n19J.1i1.~a fg.r-Jr60?~Zs1g~ iif P~oq4iattJGiimto1ijJ 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 April 30, 2003 misltllifiJ1b1\nisitttiE1:,Pltotirat'.M~c~#fa=ao\u0026amp;a::W-re.1 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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 April 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 April 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of April 30, 2003 (Continued) Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 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. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 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. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 August2001 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. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 (Continued) Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 Ele.mentary 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 April 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 April 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. ~ne ~~.rt~rly 'meiimii:!!c3tion P,9-ii~ ::!:Y9.r!\u0026lt;in!\n] Gf9YP.Teting jas resc~e\u0026lt;1,~J~d frofn fprjl 1-0. !tw11!J!:!R~ pla~~_ofi:Al?tiL?:4, 2003 ln:room 201::t\\ at 1~3Q p.mt .at theAD~'. 17 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2003 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 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 April 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 April 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. 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 April 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. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 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 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 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 April 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 PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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 April 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 ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the 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 April 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 Joshuc\n1 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the 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 April 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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 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 April 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. 3 4 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 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 April 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. 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 April 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. 8. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 50 l VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was present_ed 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 56 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 59 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1754","title":"Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 \"evaluations\", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-04/2003-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","School districts","School integration","African Americans--Education","Charter schools","Educational planning","Students","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 \"evaluations\", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1754"],"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":["44 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, the Joshua intervenors' comments on the submission of page 148 ''evaluations''; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; Court of Appeals, brief of appellee; 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.     . ,:;-:- - b.BD ED -=-  u.f sM'rn1c;co,1,mr =-- !;/\\'fERN tHTRIQT ARN:\\1\\l~S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANSAS APR 1 4 :og, WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-:C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . APR 1 ~ 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 14s \"Evaluations\" INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the \"[LRSD] Notice of Fil i ng Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph c of the Court's Compliance Remedy\" and the accompanying \"evaluations.\" This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing \"Program Assessment/Program Evaluation [at 150).\" [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students~ for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced ~1th new programs. [At 150) The court's \"Compliance Remedy\" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 addressed in part \"program evaluations on each of the programs identified in page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" [At 170, 171) The court discussed the completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, 2003, after their approval by the LRSD school board. [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of \"each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [ At 170] These materials are to be submitted on or before March 15, 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to govern the LRSD's exiting court supervision. Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in Sec. 2.7.1, .it. must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: Cal demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under sec. 2.1 in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; ... \" [At 110) The LRSD \"Notice of Filing\" describes the LRSD' s plan to prepare \"comprehensive program evaluation[s]\" as follows: The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. [Exhibit A at SJ Joshua Intervenors have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 \"evaluations\" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2 show that if LRSD is to \"[demonstrate} that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\" -- it will have to be by a future submission. In general, the documents submitted were either not evaluations, or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 \"evaluations.\" Early Literacy (Vol. 1-2] 1 Dr. Ross described the report as \"one of the best written reports from LRSD I've read.\" [At 2] He also discussed \"a number of weaknesses .... \" [l.s;l.] Dr. Ross' critique includes the following content: \"Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious.\" (At 3] \"Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (PI) index.\" [At 3 J \"Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between Band NB students .. The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures.\" [At 4J \"Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do .Il.Q.t. have low ceilings -- Writing Vocabulary and ORA -- the Growth Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction (e.g., seep. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places. 11 [At 5) \"The present data are 1 This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled \"Review of Year 2 Evaluations.\" It was submitted to counsel _ang Mrs , Marsha 11 of ODM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 2 s , 2 o o 2 . 3 I I I I I I I I I I II suggestive of definite early progress made by LRSD in improving - All students' literacy performance. There are also indicators of some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very low ceiling levels, the overall evidence is weaker than this report conveys. There is no reason to reduce the credibility of the findings by presenting them with such an obvious positive bias.\" [At 7] \"Conduct more studies that examine implementation quality and impacts on the school and the classroom.\" [At 8] charter school [Vol. 1-2] \"Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American.\" [Vol. 1-2 at l; Dr. Lesley) Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program [Vol. 1-2) - The \"evaluation\" documents produced by the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain neither a detailed description of the program implemented at Southwest Middle School, nor student achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] Collaborative Action Plan [Vol. 1-2] \"Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD' s short-term ( one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance.\" [Vol. 1-2 at 528; Dr. Lesley) 4 ..... Extended Year schools [Vol. vol. 4J \"Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc.\" (Exh. Bat S: Dr. Ross] \"The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of_ the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'\" [Vol. 4 at 1732; Dr. Lesley: see also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Implementation [Vol. 4] \"The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline', and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" [Vol. 4 at 1870; Dr. Lesley] \"The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified.\" [Vol. 4 at 1911; Youth Policy Research 5 I \\ . Group, Inc. ) ~lementary _summer school [Vol. 3] There is a lack of II implementation data to describe the  program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers.\" There is not \"an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared.\" (Eh.Bat 3; Dr. Ross] \"Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered, how and when it was del i vered, and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives.\" [Vol. control group or norms \" [Vol. Education and Management Associates, Inc.] HIPPY [Vol. 3 J at--] \"No adequate at -- ] [ By Quality \"A limitation of the study, wh i ch unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used.\" [Eh . Bat 4; Dr. Ross] \"Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study.\" [Vol. 3. at 1554; Dr. Lesley] \"A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed .... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions.\" [Vol. J at 1567; Dr. Ross] 6 campus Leadership Teams [Vol. 3] \" However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representatives of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools.\" [Eh. Bat 5; Dr. Ross) \"These surveys were not intended to be a program evaluation., although they were mistakenly characterized as such in the District's compliance report to the court. No student performance data were collected, and, therefore, no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the Campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in improved academic achievement for any students, nor specifically for African American students.\" [Vol. 3 at 1256; Dr. Lesley] \"There was no formal evaluation of CLT by the LRSD.\" [Vol. 3 at 1259; Dr.. RossJ Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 4) \"Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program ( 8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students.\" [Vol.4 at 1607; Dr. Lesley; see also at 1635 (inadequate description of treatment provided students in program; 7 Dr. Ross)] onward to Excellence (Vol. 3) The program \"was never fornally achievement data reports sent by the evaluated, except for principal to ADE.\" As \"implementation data are lacking,\" \"if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause.\" [Eh.Bat 4; Dr. Ross) \"In view of these factors, there is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed.\" [Vol. 3 at 1217; Dr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] \"Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived.\" [Eh.Bat Jr Dr. Ross] There is \"(i]nsufficient description of the program and its implementation.\" There is a \"[l)ack of pre-program (pretest) data for judging change following program completion.\" \"No examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity) . 11 [Vol.3 at 1542: Dr. Ross) 8 conclusion The need for high quality evaluations, if the LRSD is to exit court supervision, is clear. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 Attorney at Law J n John P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501.-663-9900 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadilf.: been mailed, postage pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this .-~ (i._ day of ,t, , fJ , ?oc:S,  ~ ~ ?fa ~~~ ohnw.Wall\u0026lt;er .1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Assistant Attorney General Colette D. Honorable left state employment effective April 10, 2003. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents Defendants and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record . .l By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 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 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 Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 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 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier 2 --- ..... . .)_ RECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Mr. M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.inley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 April 24, 2003 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.us Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 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 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. U.S. Dist. Ct. No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find a copy of Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, Notice of Filing and ADE's Project Management Tool sent for filing in the above-referenced matter. MAH/jle Very truly yours, ~.){ . MARK A. HAG~R Assistant Attom~::ral 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Cc: Mr. Ray Simon D. Scott Smith Mr. Louis Ferren Ms. Charity Smith .l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR Z 5 1003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG\"i\\OM MOMliORlMG 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2003. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education #94127 .l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 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, ID 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 Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 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 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagerne'e 2 .l 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 KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2003 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. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of -Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Uttfe Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Marianna - ane Rebick Uttfe Rock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capilol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 May 30, 2003 MAY 3 1 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 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 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 April 2003. Respectfully Submitted, j~1t~~ Scott Smith, 251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 30, 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. SamuelJones,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. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 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 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2003 !ii!ii~h.tii\\ii~,i~miiii%~iliti!!1f.1,a11gy1~t;~r'i\u0026amp;~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOS. 02-3867 AND 03-1147 RECEIVED - '/ /rJ d - (} It 'v?:h d, JUN0 1 8 2003 - ., tJZ l l'VI OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. !JNIUO!INOW N0l!V93H93S3a :10 3~1:1:10 Appellants EOOZ 8 1 Nnr v. 03Al3~3H LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., District Judge BRlEF OF APPELLEE CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellee SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises out of the interdistrict desegregation case filed in 1982 by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas. Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., (\"Joshua\") intervened during the remedy phase after a liability finding in favor of the LRSD against all of the defendants. In 1998, the LRSD and Joshua agreed to anew desegregation plan for the LRSD, lmown as the \"Revised Plan.\" The Revised Plan entitled the LRSD to a declaration of unitary status if it substantially complied with the plan and no party objected. The - Revised Plan provided that any party objecting would bear the burden of proof. Joshua objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. Hearings were held on Joshua's objections. The district court found that the LRSD had substantially complied with all but one section of the Revised Plan and granted the LRSD partial unitary status. Joshua then moved to disqualify the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. based on 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). That motion was denied. Joshua appeals the district court's grant of partial unitary status and denial of the motion to disqualify. The LRSD respectfully requests at least thirty minutes of oral argument due to length and complexity of the proceedings below and the substantial public interest in this case. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Little Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Mananna  eRebick ock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 http:/ larkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED June 30, 2003 JUL 1- 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller OFFICE OF Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, (} r} lJL~ ~~L Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2003. Respectfully Submitted, 9-\u0026gt;~vtc LtiA b f v,) Scott Smith, #92251 7 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 June 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depo~iting a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, ad~~~ ;VED each of the followmg: tiC\\., Cl 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. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 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 JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 - 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 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 June 30, 2003 l!i.iii~ll~1111.~ili!lliil~lf~ili!iii!lrs.itiwct:.lli~ 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_1092","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":["2003-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1092"],"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 APR 2 ~ 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School Distri, Board of Directors' Mee ti April 2003 F.Y.I. Date: r /.J -\u0026lt; l  Ann ~ Gene / Horace ~argie El M ltssa ~ Polly  Linda Return to: ~ ,... (\")\"'D .,,,. ..... .,m\n._1.0. -\u0026lt;ii: Oz o\u0026gt;\n10\n10 c-\u0026lt; m.,,\n10 C: -z\nen 0 ..... ,... c5 r-z ,,(.\"...) Ch ,... \"...'.\" D\n10 g mm Zc .... C: ~~ clt:\n10 :::1 I: m z\n10 i\nl\"'\n10 \"D m C: \"D mo ri~ nl!! 0\n10\ns:m ii:(\") m8 Zz .... =l \"'c5 z \"' f\u0026gt; (\") m =p\nl oc..zm :\"c'\"-' c,.: .C ,~. RECEIVED APR 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOfl MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting I n Apr112003 C')\"tl :. ,,.\nm:a ,r-- r_-,: I: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m..,\n:cc:: -z\n:en o-\u0026lt; r- c5 r-z C')\"'  r-r-\n:0 -.:,m c::.., mo r-\n:0 c\"\n-\u0026lt; nS!! o\n:c 31:m :I:(') m8 Zz -\u0026lt;=i \"'c5 z \"' fl C') m=l p\no'-mz :\":'c\"-' c::o  C')  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 April 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. B. Performance - Rockefeller Elementary School Choir 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Accelerated Learning Center - Carol Green Twin City Bank - Baseline \u0026amp; 1-30 Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Marilyn Harrington Fulbright Elementary School - Deborah Mitchell Twin City Bank - Highway 10 Branch - Bob Burch, Laurice Taylor \u0026amp; Arnicee Stigars Henderson Middle School - Marvin Burton Twin City Bank - Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Beth Lindsey Mabelvale Elementary School - Tab Phillips \u0026amp; Janice Moore Twin City Bank - Baseline \u0026amp; 1-30 Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Beth Lindsey McDermott Elementary School - Virginia Ashley \u0026amp; Melanie Greenwald Twin City Bank - Rodney Parham Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Marsha Davis Woodruff Elementary School - Janice Wilson, Shirley Davis \u0026amp; Jovita Lacy Twin City Bank - Riverdale Branch - Bob Burch \u0026amp; Julie Wagner Watson Elementary School - Javanna Wood Waste Management of Arkansas - Wayne Rathbun (\")\"D ,,.\u0026gt;. ....\n.,m._a.. ... :11:: Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o C-\u0026lt; m-n\na C: -z\na\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; o-\u0026lt; F\n(\")\"' ,,\u0026gt;...... U\u0026gt; \"0 -\u0026lt;\na g mm Zo ... C: ~~\na,- ~ ~\n:o::I ~m Z\n:o i\ni U\u0026gt;\na \"Dm C: \"0 aio l'\"\n:o 1'5-\u0026lt; nS!? o\n:o :11::m ii::(\") m8 Zz -\u0026lt;=i \"'o z \"' r\u0026gt; (\") m=I  ,:\n\u0026lt;-m oz en\"' :i::- ~p !:l \u0026gt; Regular Board Meeting April 24, 2003 Page2 C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Little Rock Public Education Foundation - - Initial Distribution of Grants C. Desegregation Update D. Budget Update E. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update H. Statistical Report on Little Rock Youth APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - 03-20-03 Special Meeting - 04-10-03 Special Meeting- 04-17-03 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Arkansas History Textbook Adoption B. Career- Technical Education Textbook Adoption VII . ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Charter School Program Evaluation VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report C. Request for Easement - Wilson Elementary School D. Request for Easement - John Barrow Road and Henderson Middle School n -o ,,.\u0026gt; ..:..:,_mC.. -4:IC Oz o\u0026gt;\nc\nc cm-.,\u0026lt;.,\nc C: -z\nc n ,o..\" c\"5' r-z OU\u0026gt; ,,\u0026gt;....\nc -o m C: -0 ,C..D\nOc \u0026lt;'5-\u0026lt; n{!? 0\nc\ni:m\ni:n m8 Zz\n~ z Cl\u0026gt; !\"' n m:::.  Fl c..m oz Cl\u0026gt; Cl\u0026gt; ::c- !\n:!=' .n.. \u0026gt; Regular Board Meeting April 24, 2003 Page 3 IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Varsity / Junior Varsity Athletic Program X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT O\"O .\u0026gt;\nmo ,r---,-__,\ni: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no om-.,\u0026lt;.,\no C: -z\noo_n, != ~ OU\u0026gt; \u0026gt; !=\no -om C:.,, ,C--D\nOo l'i _, nl!! o::o\ni:m\ni:n m8 Z_, =zI u, 0 z u, .!1,7, .,,. \u0026gt;o ~=I Z\u0026gt; m--\u0026lt; ~a ::cZ ,.\nu, u, f' n m =I  p\n:j o\u0026lt;--zm CJ)CJ) ::cc: o \u0026gt;  n_, \u0026gt; I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS STUDENT PERFORMANCE Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS/ D. CTA E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 April 24, 2003 Board of Directors J Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education~~ T. Kenneth James, 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: Accelerated Learning Center and Twin City Bank-Baseline \u0026amp; I-30 Branch Fulbright Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch Henderson Middle School and Twin City Bank-Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch Mabelvale Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Baseline I-30 Branch McDermott Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham Branch Woodruff Elementary School and Twin City Bank-Riverdale Branch Watson Elementary School and Waste Management !='~ a,c, c:m 8 gi ~~ C: \"ti \"CC, ,C,. \u0026gt;..... --,m m ~ C') m =I  ,:::\nc....m oz en en ::c- \n!=' C') \u0026gt; Twin City Bank and the Accelerated Learning Center are proud to announce their partnership: Twin City Bank commits to the following: 1. Twin City Bank will serve as resource speakers and conduct business seminars for ACC students. 2. Twin City Bank will assist when possible with assemblies and educational opportunities for ACC students. Accelerated Learning Center commits to the following: I . ACC will keep Twin City Bank apprised of all educational activities at ACC. 2. ACC will help plan and schedule business seminars with Twin City Bank. 3. ACC will help Twin City Bank with promotional and public awareness events. 4. ACC will acknowledge Twin City Bank as a Partner in Education. Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch and Fulbright Elementary School Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Recruit employees to read to students  Career Day speakers  Job shadowing  Provide pencils for test bags and tour bags  Count any change collected through fundraisers  Arrange for Penny, Nick and Buck to make appearances  Attend the Spring Supper  Provide volunteers and/or hot dogs for Field Day  Support 5th-grade graduation celebration  Consider ways to support the school's fundraising efforts for the computer lab  Provide speakers for parent workshops on topics such as trusts, wills and planning for college expenses  Consider assisting with a staff breakfast Fulbright Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide student artwork and photos of school events for display in bank lobby  Provide the joy choir to perform at special bank events  Acknowledge Twin City Bank-Highway 10 Branch as a Partner in Education  Invite the bank to school events ?I r\no\n.i.\n,: C\u0026gt; ~ tn I !='P C:lO c:m gig ~~ C: \"D \"DO 0)\u0026gt; )\u0026gt;-\u0026lt; -\u0026lt;m m p C') m =l ,-\nc..m oz tn tn ::c- ~!=' C') ..... \u0026gt; Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch and Henderson Middle School Twin City Bank-Chenal \u0026amp; Bowman Branch commits the following to the partnership:  Speakers on banking, checking accounts, business etiquette and interviewing skills  Job shadowing opportunities  Seminars for after-school program  Support for fundraising efforts to purchase a school sign  Food and staff for a chili hot dog supper  Assistance with staff supper if possible  Certificates for awards assemblies each nine weeks  Readers for 6th-grade classes  Display art, science projects, etc. in bank lobby Henderson commits the following to the partnership:  Student artwork for the bank to display  Allow the band to perform at the bank during the holidays  Acknowledge the bank as a Partner in Education Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Baseline 1-30 Branch and Mabelvale Elementary School Twin City Bank-Baseline 1-30 Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Display student artwork in lobby  Provide volunteers to listen to young readers  Support parent activities such as spaghetti supper  Job shadowing  Career speakers  Recognize the good citizens each month and semester  Dolls and Balls at Christmas Mabelvale commits to the following partnership activities:  Student artwork for display  Choir to perform at bank opening  Acknowledge the bank as a partner  Support partnership activities !='P a,o c:m 8~ !!l~ C: \"ti \"00 O   --\u0026lt; \"m\" '\"' !\" C') 0 z ~\no m c3 ~ p C') m =l\n_~ oz \u0026lt;J)\u0026lt;J) :,:- ~~ .C..'.) J\u0026gt; Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham Branch and McDermott Elementary School Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Support fall carnival, science fair, family math night, honors assemblies and family literacy night  Recruit employees to read with students  Recruit volunteers for McDermott in the bank lobby  Count any change that is collected through fundraisers  Assist with 5th-grade graduation and trip  Arrange for Penny, Nick and Buck to make appearances  Career speakers  Job shadowing  Cook and serve hot dogs at selected school events  Support school efforts to decrease tardies McDermott Elementary School commits to the following partnership activities: Provide student artwork to display in lobby Send choir and cheerleaders to perform at special events Invite McDermott staff to volunteer to assist Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham with keeping their stretch of Rodney Parham clean Acknowledge Twin City Bank-Rodney Parham as a Partner in Education Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank-Riverdale Branch and Woodruff Elementary School Twin City Bank-Riverdale Branch commits to the following activities:  Encouragers to listen to children read  Display artwork in lobby  Cook and serve hot dogs for family or teacher events  Provide student recognition  Job shadowing  Speakers for career week  Assist students with planning end-of-year fund raiser for their graduation trip  Provide Buck, Penny and Nick to make appearances at events Woodruff commits to the following activities:  Provide student artwork for display  Send the cheerleaders and choir to perform at bank events  Acknowledge the bank as a Partner in Education !\" C') 0 z ~ :0 m ~ ~ p C') m =Fll \u0026lt;o-mz en en ::i::- !\n!=' ~ J\u0026gt; Partners in Education Proposal Watson Elementary and Waste Management Watson Elementary School and Waste Management have formed a partnership designed to enhance the education of the students at Watson. Watson commits to the following activities: Provide holiday cards for employees Provide student art work for breezeway Acknowledge Waste Management as a Partner in Education Waste Management commits to the following activities: Sponsor Newspapers in the Classrooms for Watson Encourage employees to read on ViPS Reading Day Provide judges for spelling bees Participate in field day Encourage employees to volunteer as tutors Provide classroom speakers for career week Allow students to job shadow Provide teacher and student awards Provide a field trip to the recycling center Participate in \"career vehicle\" day Provide classroom presentations on landfills and recycling DATE: TO: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Education Foundation-Initial Distribution of Grants Background Information: I am very pleased to inform you that the Little Rock Public Education Board has successfully accomplished their first major objective. On Wednesday, April 2nd members of the Board distributed 32 grants totaling $95,000.00 for innovative programs that target student achievement, parent and community involvement, and teacher quality. The Foundation received a total of 93 applications. Ms. Saviers and Ms. Black will provide a brief report for the Board. Fiscal Impact: $95,000.00 infusion to improve programs across the LRSD Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors receive the report as submitted and commend Ms. Saviers and Ms. Black for all of their hard work and outstanding coordination of this event. .~... ~Pl c::c ...,zo m~ ?= z .-.~.,\na C: -\u0026lt; .... 0 C: c:~ :ten\na m\ng ~ !=IP 11:JC c: m 8 kl ~~ C: \"D \"DC C  -, m.... m !'\" (\") 0z ~\na m \"D 0 ~ - Public Educ:ui\u0026lt;m li n1 rn btion .  L.ittk Rock ' Board of Directors John Riggs President Herman Davenport Vice President of Development Cynthia East Vice President of - 300 Spring Building, Suite 808  Little Rock, AR 72201  501-372-1461  fortheschools.org To: From: Date: Principals and Teachers in the LRSD Lisa Black, Director of Programs \u0026amp; Development April 2, 2003 Administrative Affairs Subject: Spring Grant Awards Jan Hundley Secretary Steve Strickland Treasurer Senator Jim Argue Larry Berkley Bill Clark Frank Cox Cathy Crass William L. Cravens Eddie Drilling T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Xavier B. Heard Barbara R. Hoover Gene Levy Larry Lichty Paulette Mabry Freeman McKindra, Sr. Virgil Miller Bruce Moore Billie Rutherford Charles 0 . Stewart Everett Tucker Ill Judge Joyce Williams Warren Staff Vicki Saviers Executive Director Lisa Black Director of Programs \u0026amp; Development The Public Education Foundation of Little Rock Gives Its First Grants to Schools. Thirh\n-Two grants totaling $95,000 are given to LRSD schools for innovative programs that target student achievement, parent and communihJ involvement, and teacher quality. The Public Education Foundation of Little Rock is a unique non-profit organization dedicated to enriching and improving student achievement in the Little Rock Public School District. On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock will provide 32 grants, totaling $95,000, involving over 71 teachers and reaching 24 schools within the Little Rock School District. In SWEEPSTAKES award style\nthe Public Education Foundation Board of Directors, Public Education Foundation Donors, Little Rock City Board Members, Little Rock School Board Members, along with community volunteers\nwill surprise teachers in the Little Rock School District by presenting them with grant awards. Each grant funded must target student achievement, parent involvement or teacher quality programs. \"We think surprising the teachers is a great way to announce grants and celebrate the success of the Foundation at the same time. The Public Education Foundation provides an avenue of giving and a way to help public schools that did not exist in Little Rock before. These grants represent creative, instructionally focused ideas that would not have been possible before. And because of families, community organizations and corporations like Entergy Arkansas, Fifty for the Future, the Winthrop Rockefeller Family, Riggs Family Trust, CDI Constriction, Inc., Education America, and Metropolitan Bank we are able to make a direct impact in these schools,\" said Vicki Saviers, Executive Director of the Public Education Foundation. Public Involvement Public Education Public Benefit 12 Powerful Presentations by Kids J.A. Fair High $5,000 13 Outdoor Learning Center J.A. Fair High $2,000 p .... 14 Read to Succeed Wilson Elementary $3,994 ~~ 0::,: \u0026gt;...,zo mg 15 Stage A Central High $3,900 -\u0026lt; 16 Literacy in Physics Central High $1,490 17 Fair Park Band Program Fair Park Elementary $1,000\n,: z m 18 Fair Park Stock Market Team Fair Park Elementary $724 ,....~.,\na C -\u0026lt; .... QC ~~ 19 Story Characters ... Jumping off Points for Fair Park Elementary $5,000 ::,: U\u0026gt;\na m Writing ~ 20 Fair Park Family Readers Fair Park Elementary $3,000 ~ 21 Multimedia in the Classroom Forest Heights Middle $2,000 22 Seventh Grade Literacy Fair Forest Heights Middle $776 !=' f\u0026gt; a\u0026gt;o cm 8~ 23 Celebrating Diversity Hall High $4,000 !!IC') C c~ ~o 0  \u0026gt;-tm-t 24 Urban 4-H Southwest Middle $1,500 m 25 Business Theories/Applications Southwest Middle $1,500 26 Parkview All-Star Academy Parkview High $4,850 rn (') 27 $2,215 0 A Science Project for Second Grade Brady Elementary z ~\na m ~ 28 Discovery Lab McDermott Elementary $5,000 0 ~ 29 Special Needs Advancements Fulbright Elementary $1,770 30 Creating the Interactive Classroom Fulbright Elementary $4,750 :,-, 31 ALC Jr. Great Books Alternative Learning Center $1,000 z.... m\na\na mZ 32 Art Bug Group of 5 Elementary Schools $5,000 c3 ~\no \u0026gt; -tC 0 =I 0 Total Grant Funds Provided $94,750\no U\u0026gt; \"The Public Education Foundation wants to send a message to teachers, principals, parents, and students in the Little Rock Schools that says the community believes these schools can succeed and we plan to continue to work to support them\", said John Riggs, President of the Public Education Foundation Board. The Foundation received a total of 93 applications and felt that getting that number of project requests was truly reflective of the tremendous energy and creativity found within the Little Rock School District teaching community. Although we were unable to fund all of those requests we hope those that were not funded at this time will not be discouraged. There were many wonderful projects and we look forward to seeing new requests when applications are accepted in the fall of 2003. Congratulations to all involved and we want to thank everyone that participated. We look forward to working with you in the coming year. To those receiving approved grants please send an updated implementation date to Lisa Black at lblack@fortheschools.org so that we can take your projects to the next step. Grants provided to the Little Rock School District from the Public Education Foundation on April 2, 2003 are listed below: Project Title School Name 1 Candid Camera Kids Carver Elementary $985 - 2 Reading On Up Washington Elementary $5,000 3 Music to Share Mann Middle $1,000 4 The AWS School WeatherNet Program Mann Middle $5,000 5 Life Interrupted: The Story Quilt Gibbs Elementary $1,627 6 Lion Club Camp King Magnet $4,725 7 Cultural and Physical Diversity Awareness Watson Elementary $4,000 8 Chicot Family Literacy Program/Parenting Chicot Elementary $4,700 Component 9 Otter Pockets Otter Creek Elementary $2,300 10 Dodd Mini-Mall Dodd Elementary $3,944 11 ISSE-IDP Information Science \u0026amp; Systems J.A. Fair High $1,000 Engineering Community TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: ~n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" April 24, 2003 Board of Directors T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Bill Goodman~ b April 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that the following projects have been recently bid, and the contracts have been awarded: 1. Media/classroom addition and renovation of Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools in the amount of $3,674,000. 2. New roof for Southwest Middle School in the amount of$761,534. 3. New HV AC and electrical upgrade to support technology for Forest Park Elementary in the amount of$607,253. 4. Athletic field renovations including irrigation systems at Quigley, J. A. Fair and McClellan in the amount of$146,000. Bids were taken on April 17 for Phase 2 of the Technology Center and are being evaluated. Bids will be taken on April 24 for the classroom addition to J. A. Fair High School. You will be given a report on both of these projects at the Board meeting. Bids will be taken in May on the addition/renovation of Dunbar, the addition to Williams, and the addition/renovation of McClellan. The design for the replacement school at Wakefield is nearing completion. This project will be bid this summer, and the completion is scheduled for the start of the 2004-05 school year. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us c:n1 'l0a '\"'\"\"\"  ~-- c\nn1 'l0A 0n'l0\nz: z ,...~.,\n,o C: -\u0026lt; ... 0 C: !:iill ::cu, ill c3 ~ !\" ~\n,o is z z ,m.. CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $100,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,0QQ I Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SPRING/ SUMMER 2003 Facility Name Project Description Cost Baseline Renovation $953,520 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Central Parking  Student parking $50,000 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music I J. A. Fair room addition $3, 1 ss.640 I J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 --- J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I $14,000 I Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 I McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System I ~.750 Otter Creek Repair surface water drain I $25,000 Parkview I Addition $2,121,226 Southwest Drainage / street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 -Sou-thwest Addition - $2,000,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 I Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams 1 Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 t:st. c.\nompIetIon Date Jun-03 May-03 Jul-03 Dec-05 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-03 Aug-03 May-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jun-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Jun-03 Aug-03 t:st. c.\nompIet1on Date Dec-03 Dec-04 Aug-03 Aug-04 Mar-04 Unknown Jul-03 Jul-03 Unknown Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-03 Mar-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 May-04 -Feb-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-03 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. l,\nompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation I Unknown Woodruff ParkinQ addition I $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system Bale Partial roof replacement $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 -Cloverdale Elem. E nergy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park 1Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 I J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras I $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 1 Fulbright ~ ergy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 I Fulbri~-- I Roof repairs I $200,000 Franklin 1Renovation $2,511 ,736 ----- Gibbs 1 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs 1 Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 I Hall 1 Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall !Intercom I - Hall Security cameras I $10,600 Es1. --Comple11on Date Mar-03 Mav-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Mav-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-0_! Jul-0-1 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 F~ Jun-01 2 !D ~ m\no !S zz m,.... CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Est. completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Henderson Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,793 Aug-01 Mann Asphalt walks The total $1.8 Dec-01 Mann Walkway canopies million is what has Dec-01 Mann Boiler replacement been used so far on Oct-01 Mann Fencing the projects listed Sep-01 Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Aug-01 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom $46,000 Feb-02 McDermott I Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff I Fire alarm $16,175 Jul-01 Meadowcliff . Asbestos abatement $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 I Dec-02 Metropolitan I Replace cooling tower I $37,203 Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system I $20,000 I May-01 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 I Aug-01 Mitchell 1 Energy efficient lighti~ $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation I - $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,QQQ I Jul-01 - Oakhurst HVAC renovation I $237,237 i Aug-01 Otter Creek IE nergy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 -- Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 -- !Asbestos abatement I Otter Creek - $10,000 Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 Otter Creek 16 classroom addition -1- $888,778 Oct-02 -- ---- t Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Jun-02 --- - Parkview - Roof replacement -r - $273,877- -- Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 -- Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Aug-01 -- Parkview Locker replacement $120,000--+-- Aug-01 -- Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,ooo I Jun-01 Procurement I Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground - $17,000 . Dec-02 Rightsell  Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting I - $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC I $539,175 Aug-OJ_ Rockefeller Parkinq addition I I $111,742 1 Auq-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD APRIL 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $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 $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 Western Hills Asbestos abatement I $191,946 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Est. c.\nompIetIon Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 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-02 4 .!D,, m Al z~ z m r- Date: April 24, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors @). From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report-April This is the forty-second communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools and two middle 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.\nx: z\n,....., :,0 C: -\u0026lt; .... 0 C: ~~ %VI :,0 m c3 ~ ?\" \"'0 m :,0 z~ z ,m... Audit Report - April 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) 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. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Serving 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. Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update April 24, 2003 o Conversion to the new district network continues to be implemented site by site. Two to three sites per week are scheduled. This project will be finished by mid June. o As each site comes on the network the benefits include:  Being able to share files and folders across the district,  Managing routine maintenance and management from the Tech Center,  Managing desktop troubleshooting from the Tech Center.  Printers/Network Copiers o Network cards are being added to copiers in the schools in order to use them as network printers. o Additional network printers will be added to schools this summer.  Training Plan o Work continues on developing on-line training for district staff. o UALR continues to offer Saturday technology workshops for our teachers.\nx: z .... .S.J,\n%1 C: -\u0026lt; .... 0 C: Sfl:l :c (/) ~ ~ !J:I \"'0 m\n%1 ~ zz .m... DATE: TO: From: Re: ~~~ Mu - ~ \u0026amp;6-\u0026amp;rt CM tt~ - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools To Receive a Statistical Report on Little Rock Youth Background Information: A statistical report detailing trends of Little Rock Youth from 1989-2002 will be presented. The report was recently shared with members of the New Futures Board. Fiscal Impact: None Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board receive the report as presented. The Status of Youth In Little Rock 2003 Presentation by New Futures for Youth, Inc. 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% NOUdOO\\t 1X31 ,UIOlSIH ')nl\\t '\\t 'S::lAS l\\tNOll::\u0026gt;mllSNI 'II\\ Ages O -17 Total Population 1990 - 43,687 Total Population 2000 - 46,711 111 1990 Census 13NNOS'!l3d a S31nNIW '\\t S'!13ll\\tW 3Nlln0'!1 'A  2000 Census 'l\\tA3 lOOH::\u0026gt;S '1131'!1\\tH::\u0026gt; '\\t 'S::lAS 'NIWO\\t 'IIA H::\u0026gt;31'!133'!1\\t::l NOlldOO\\t lf0081X31 a -- - - - -------------------------------------------------~ 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% C 111990 Census Ages O - 4 Total Population 1990 -12,775 Total Population 2000 - 13, 309  2000 Census ~ \u0026lt;/Ji 30% - NOUdOO\\I lX3l Al!OlSIH ')ll!\\I '\\I 'S:li\\S l\\lNOU:\u0026gt;Ol!lSNI 'I,\\ !':\u0026gt;'- Ages 5 - 9 Total Population 1990 - 12,193 Total Population 2000 - 12,991 !':\u0026gt;'- b\" ~ \u0026amp;~ ~\u0026lt;o ~\u0026lt;o ~\u0026lt;o 0~ . ~~ ~ ~~  c,O ~\u0026lt;:f'~ 11 1990 Census 13NNOS\"ll3d a S3lnNIW '\\I Sl!3ll\\lW 3Nlln0\"11 'A ~'1\u0026gt; c'i'\u0026lt;:.\u0026lt;  2000 Census 'l\\li\\3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S l!3UI\\IH:\u0026gt; v 'S:li\\S 'NIWO\\I 'II,\\ b\" \u0026lt;/) H:\u0026gt;31\"1133\"11\\l:l NOlldOO\\I \u0026gt;1008lX3l a Ages 10 - 14 Total Population 1990 -11,795 Total Population 2000 - 12,709 1111990 Census  2000 Census -------- [ - - ----~----- 1111990 Census NOlldOOV 1X31 AMOlSIH .\u0026gt;IMV y 'S01\\S lVNOllOOMlSNI .II\\ 13NNOSM3d a Ages 15 - 17 Total Population 1990 - 6,924 Total Population 2000 - 7,702 S3lnNIIH y SM3llVIH 3NllnOM .I\\  2000 Census 1Vl\\3 lOOH::\u0026gt;s M31MVH::\u0026gt; v 'S01\\S .NIIHOV 111\\ H03lM33MV::\u0026gt; NOlldOOV \u0026gt;10081X31 a 25% Cl 1990 Census Ages 18 - 24 Total Population 1990 - 18,094 Total Population 2000 - 18,689  2000 Census 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% N011d00\\l 1.X31 AMOlSIH \"\u0026gt;tM\\I v \"S:l,\\S l\\lNOll:lnMlSNI \"I,\\ 13NNOSM3d a Black Youth, Ages O - 17 Total Population 1990 -21,411 Total Population 2000 - 24,587 11 1990 Census S31nNll'I v SM3li\\ll'l 3NllnOM \",\\  2000 Census \"l\\1,\\3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S M31M\\IH:l v s:ihs \"Nll'IO\\I \"II,\\ H:l31M33M\\l:l NOlldOO\\I \u0026gt;t0081.X31 a 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ,r- \"- ~\u0026lt;l,c., \u0026lt;,.~ l'I 1990 Census White Youth, Age O - 17 Total Population 1990 - 21,718 Total Population 2000 - 18,891  2000 Census 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Far West N0Ud00V lX31 AHOlSIH \"\u0026gt;tHV y \"S:\u0026gt;AS lVN0U:\u0026gt;0HlSNI \"IA [ \"Other\" Youth, Ages O - 17 Total Population 1990 - 558 Total Population 2000 - 3,233 West r-brthwest Southwest Mdtown CentraVDow ntow n 11 1990 Census 13NNOSH3d a S310NIW y SH3UVW 3Nl100H \"fl  2000 Census \"lVA3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S H31HVH:\u0026gt; y \"S:\u0026gt;AS \"Nllr'l0V \"IIA East H:\u0026gt;31H33HV:\u0026gt; NOlldOOV \u0026gt;4008001 a Percent Below Poverty by Area 60% .---------------------------------------------------- ---~ 40% +--------------------------------------------t 30% +------------------------------\"\"\"\",r-------------t 22% 21% 20% 10% 5% Little Rock Far West West Northwest Southwest Midtown Central East Area Source:2000 U.S. Census /, 6096 I 5096 ,-1-- 4096 13596 I 3096 20% 1996 1096 Little Rock Source:2000 U.S. Census NOlldOO\\I 1X31 A'l!OlSIH ')I'll\\/ '\\I 'S:lAS l\\lNOll:ln'lllSNI 'IA 1696 Far West Percent Below Poverty Level by Race, Age O to 1 7 West 13NNOS'll3d '8 Northwest Southwest S31nNIW '\\I S'1!3llVW 3NllnO'll 'A 5396 4696 Midtown Central 'l\\li\\3 lOOH:lS '1!31'1!\\IH:l '\\I 'S:lAS 'NIWO\\I 'HA IJ Black  White  Other East H:l31'1!33'1l\\l:l NOlldOO\\I )40081X31 e [Median Income I $80,000 ) '74,713 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $43,591 --------- $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Far West West Northwest Southwest Midtown Central East Source:2000 U.S. Census 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NOlldOOV 1X31 AM01SIH \"\u0026gt;IMV v \"S:)i\\S 1VNOl1::\u0026gt;0M1SNI \"th / \u0026lt;P'~ ~ro\"'\" v~ 'l, ,,_,s- 13NNOSM3d a Percent of Single-Parent Families with Children Under 18 Years Old ~ro\"\"' 1111990 Census 6\" .,, ,j.' ,j. 'l, ~  ~ e:,O S310Nll'l v SM3UVW 3N1100M \",\\ 59%  2000 Census \"lVi\\3 lOOH::\u0026gt;S M31MVH::\u0026gt; \"V \"S::\u0026gt;hS \"Nll'IOV \"llh H::\u0026gt;31M33MV::\u0026gt; NOlldOOV \u0026gt;1008001 a -- ---- ---------- --------------------~ [wedian Fami--,-\nincome by Family Type I $90,000 $80,608 -- $80,000 ------------------------------\u0026lt; $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Far West West Northwest Southwest Midtown Central East C II Married  Single Father  Single Mother Source:2000 U.S. Census Little Rock Source:2000 U.S. Census N011d00\\l 1X31 AHOlSIH \")IH\\I y s:\u0026gt;AS l\\lNOl1:\u0026gt;0M1SNI 111 Percentage of Households Without Vehicle Far West West 13NNOSM3d e Northwest Southwest S310NIW y SM3ll\\11f113NllnOM \",\\ Midtown \"l\\li\\3 lOOH:\u0026gt;S M31H\\IH:) y \"S:\u0026gt;AS \"NIWO\\I 1111 Central East H:\u0026gt;31H33H\\I:\u0026gt; NOlldOO\\I \u0026gt;4008001 e 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% '- ~q,\u0026lt;o ,'8 Source:Little Rock Police Department Percent of High Violent Victimization of Youth Little Rock - 2000 200 182 184 180 163 160 ~ 1.54 140 120 100 80 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source:Arkansas Crime Information Center NOlldO0V 1X31 A't!0lSIH \"\u0026gt;t'!IV v s::\u0026gt;/\\S lVNOll::\u0026gt;0'tllSNI \"I/\\ 13NNOS'tl3d a 143 1993 Juvenile Arrests In Little Rock Violent Crime 1989-2001 1994 1995 1996 I - Ju~nile Arrests I S310NIIH v S't1311WI 3Nl100'tl 11. 1997 1998 \"lV/\\3 lOOH::\u0026gt;S 'tl31'!1VH::\u0026gt; v \"S::l/\\S \"NIIH0V \"II/\\ 1999 86 2000 2001 H::\u0026gt;31'!133'!1V::\u0026gt; N0lldOOV \u0026gt;40081X31 a TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes 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 19, 2002 are considered intern teachers. .!D., z \u0026gt;z n\nE en Personnel Changes Page 2 April 24, 2003 NAME Brewster, Melanie Reason: None Given Cleveland, Joyce Reason: Personal Flanigan, Laura Reason: Retired Lee, Mildred Reason: Retired Moore,Ann Reason: Deceased Samuels, Lori Reason: Personal Shells, Byron Reason: Leaving City Smith, Phyllis Reason: Deceased Breckenridge,Lynn POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified Employees Spanish I 1-6-03 4-11 METRO 3-11-03 TCH925 Elem IV 8-13-98 1-11 MITCHELL 4-10-03 TCH925 Pupil Personnel 9-21-87 62-12 ATHLETICS 12-10-02 ADC105 ElemV 8-24-87 1-17 WAKEFIELD 4-16-03 TCH925 Elem I 9-23-69 2-17 TERRY 3-28-03 TCH925 Elem I 8-9-00 1-03 WILLIAMS 4-1-03 TCH925 Social Studies 7-22-99 1-11 HALL 4-16-03 TCHl0 Voe. Business 8-10-87 6-21 MCCLELLAN 3-18-03 TCHl0 ew Certified Employees Law Enforcement 3-3-03 1-12 METRO TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 39742.00 35735.00 45000.00 42339.00 43667.00 27567.00 35735.00 53213.00 36756.00 annual 12060.56 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 April 24, 2003 NAME Doss, Jimmy Goodman, Tamora Harris, Veronica Higginbotham, David Jackson, Susan White, Jerald POSITION SCHOOL ISSP FORESTS HGTS. ElemV KING America History PARK.VIEW Music CHICOT Counselor FAIR Metal METRO START DATE END DATE 3-31-03 2-24-03 2-18-03 3-10-03 3-3-03 2-3-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 TCH925 1-17 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 5-12 CNLl0 1-04 TCHl0 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 annual 6341.25 prorated 42339.00 annual 35944.05 prorated 26546.00 annual 9263.45 prorated 26546.00 annual 8019.10 prorated 42141.00 annual 15144.42 prorated 28588.00 annual 12953.94 prorated .,,. ns %- \u0026gt;'\nc\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;c\nm, cS-: ~\nz %~ ,8-~. m r~ :S \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!! .\u0026gt;.,.Zm c5\"' z\"' \"'~n !\" .!J.,l z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;- en .,,.\n\u0026gt;,c.s\n:-:z :::en in~ cl~\nc..,. ~ c5 5~ \u0026gt;~ 8n .\".C.C. I\u0026gt; c5 z Personnel Changes Page 4 April 24, 2003 NAME Chambers, Anthony Daniels, John Harris, Donald POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE PROMOTION Head Football Coach MCCLELLAN Head Football Coach HALL Head Football Coach FAIR SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Baird, Sharon Care 9-27-94 1-10 Reason: None Given CARE 11-26-02 CARE Banks, Arthur Security Officer 8-16-99 37-19 Reason: Resigned SAFETY \u0026amp; SECUR. 4-14-03 ANl0 Boyd, Nakita Child Nutrition 10-14-02 5-01 Reason: Abandonment ROCKEFELLER 3-14-03 FSH6 Bright, Kenrick Inst. Aide 9-10-92 1-10 Reason: Accepted Another MlTCHELL 4-9-03 INA925 Position Carter, Linda Child Nutrition 8-18-00 1-10 Reason: Accepted Another DUNBAR 3-21-03 FSH5 Position ANNUAL SALARY 3959.00 Head FB Stipend 3959.00 Head FB Stipend 3959.00 Head FB Stipend 7.391hr 26292.00 8773.00 14067.00 7564.00 Personnel Changes Page 5 April 24, 2003 NAME Chatman, Dennis Reason: Leaving City Clanton, Willie Reason: Leaving City Dunbar, Ora Reason: Deceased Ellison, Damein Reason: None Given Ellison, Shannon Reason: Terminated Fox, Carla Reason: Personal Hasan, Abdullah Reason: Health Jackson, Evelyn Reason: Health Jackson, Shirley Reason: Abandonment Johnson, Thomasine Reason: Accepted Another Position Langston, Dorothea POSITION SCHOOL Custodian BALE Maintenance MANN Bus Driver TRANS. Custodian WAKEFIELD Custodian FOREST HGTS. Kindergarten STEPHENS Custodian FAIR Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Care CARE Custodian Reason: Returning To School FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 12-6-00 3-31-03 8-26-02 3-13-03 8-17-87 4-13-03 7-12-00 3-10-03 5-22-00 3-18-03 8-12-99 3-31-03 4-22-92 3-25-03 8-21-02 4-4-03 8-5-02 4-1-03 2-12-03 3-18-03 2-12-02 4-18-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 CUS12 1-01 CUS12 3-11 BUSDRV 1-03 CUS12 1-03 CUS928 2-05 K925 3-09 CUS12 1-01 FSH5 1-04 FSH5 2-03 CARE 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 14535.00 13399.00 14553.00 14535.00 11201.00 30936.00 20703.00 7312.00 7396.00 6.94/hr 10329.00\n,,, ns ::C- \u0026gt; \" ::c\u0026gt; --\u0026lt;c m:: c31-: ~\nz: ::c\"' 8,....~. ~ r s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!/? \u0026gt;.,..mz 0 g: ZCJ\u0026gt; \"'\u0026lt;n !\" !.,\"., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,.... CJ\u0026gt;\n,,,\n\u0026gt;:c .s ?t z :CCI) en\na b8 ~ .... .... l5 s~ c\u0026gt;C\nsJ\u0026gt;\nOU\u0026gt; ~- l5 z Personnel Changes Page 6 April 24, 2003 NAME Moore, Lana Reason: Abandonment Owens, Craig Reason: Terminated Purdiman, Earnest Reason: Personal Singleton, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Smith, Vivian Reason: Health Trammell,Rickey Reason: Personnel Allison, Curtis Anderson, Almarie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition PUL. HGTS. MID. Security Officer SOUTHWEST Custodian WATSON Secretary CENTRAL Child Nutrition FRANKLIN Custodian BRADY START DATE END DATE 9-6-02 2-19-03 3-8-95 3-18-03 3-25-91 3-28-03 8-23-01 5-16-03 2-23-98 4-30-03 8-15-01 3-31-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 36-16 SOFR9 3-11 CUS12 38-13 CLKl0 5-11 FSH6 1-02 CUS928 New Non-Certified Employees Custodian MCCLELLAN Instr. Aide CHICOT 3-17-03 3-13-03 1-01 CUS12 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 16336.00 21899.00 22656.00 9113.00 10737.00 13399.00 annual 4105.23 prorated 14067.00 annual 3725.85 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 April 24, 2003 NAME Bonds, Dorothy Davenport, Earl Harper, Carolyn Hines, Demetra Hunter, Thelma Jackson, Ossie Jenkins, Cleburn POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition ROCKEFELLER Custodian CENTRAL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 4-2-03 1-27-03 3-13-03 MABELV ALE MID. Security Officer 3-17-03 SOUTHWEST Instr. Aide 3-10-03 FRANKLIN Child Nutrition 3-21-03 PUL. HGTS. MID. Custodian 3-24-03 PLANT SERVICES SALARY CLASS 5-01 FSH6 1-01 CUS928 5-01 FSH6 36-12 SOFR9 1-10 1NA925 1-01 FSH5 54-5 ADN12 ANNUAL SALARY 8773.00 annual 1987.25 prorated 10329.00 annual 3565.09 prorated 8773.00 annual 2375.01 prorated 14502.00 annual 3585.56 prorated 14067.00 annual 3877.93 prorated 7312.00 annual 1737.10 prorated 28764.00 annual 8053.92 prorated ~ ns ::C- \u0026gt;\" Al\u0026gt; -\u0026lt;c m :I: Al- ~\nz :g:cg\"' .-  m r~ s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!? \u0026gt;..,.Zm c5 gi Zu, \"'\u0026lt;n !\" .!.I,' z \u0026gt;z n .\u0026gt;.... \"' ~ \u0026gt;s\n\u0026lt;:, . ?-z ::c UJ in~ cl~ Al-\u0026lt; ~ c5 mz ~\ne \u0026gt;~ g~ ~ - c5 z Personnel Changes Page 8 April 24 , 2003 NAME Love, Tawanna Miller, Kim Phillips, Jeremiah Porter, Hazel Reyes, Norma Ricks, Anjanette Scott, Derrick Stacey, Robert POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition MCCLELLAN Bus Driver TRANS. Care CARE Care CARE Child Nutrition DUNBAR Care CARE Custodian FAIR Custodian METRO START DATE END DATE 4-7-03 3-17-03 3-17-03 4-1-03 4-4-03 3-17-03 3-21-03 3-3-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 3-04 BUSDRV 1-03 CARE 1-04 CARE 1-01 FSH5 1-04 CARE 1-01 CUS12 1-01 CUS928 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 annual 1535.12 prorated 11296.00 annual 2855.73 prorated 6.431hr 6.551hr 7312.00 annual 1575.51 prorated 6.551hr 13399.00 annual 3877.16 prorated 10329.00 annual 3199.74 prorated Personnel Changes Page 9 April 24, 2003 NAME Sterley, Pamela Thompson, Jesse Tyler, Earnest Washington, Sydney POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition FOREST HGTS. Child Nutrition FAIR Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition GEYER SPRINGS START DATE END DATE 4-4-03 2-14-03 4-7-03 4-1-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 1-01 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7312.00 annual 1575.51 prorated 7312.00 annual 2511.37 prorated 7312.00 annual 1535.12 prorated 7312.00 annual 1696.71 prorated .,. ns :\u0026gt;:C. -\nn \u0026gt; m--\u0026lt;,1c:\nn - ~\nz: ::c U) 8,-~. m\n: ' s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!? \u0026gt;z --4m ou, zu, u,~ !II ?..,' z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- u, TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: DATE: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District Instructional Resource Center Social Studies Department 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Board of Directors T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Marie A. McNeal, Director of Social Studies Education April 24, 2003 Arkansas History Textbook Adoption Recommendation The Arkansas History Textbook Adoption Committee established according to Board Regulation U-Rl, has completed the selection process for Arkansas history textbooks and materials. After extensive review of available textbooks and materials, the committee is recommending for Board approval the adoption of An Arkansas History For Young People. This textbook is published by the University of Arkansas Press and will have a 2003 copyright edition. The major factors that led to the decision to select the University of Arkansas Press textbook are listed below:  Correlation to the Arkansas History Guidelines  Correlation to the District's Social Studies Curriculum  Compatibility with a Student-Centered Activities  Historical Accuracy  A Multicultural inclusion. For your review, a copy of the textbook and the teacher's edition will be located in the conference room. .!.D, z \u0026gt;z (\") \u0026gt;,... en 2003 ARKANSAS HISTORY TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE Jeff Carr, Forest Heights Middle School Irene Holcomb, Mann Middle School Sandra Pearson, Southwest Middle School Rebecca Simpson, Dunbar Middle School Gertrude Stubblefield, Dunbar Middle School Laura Beth Arnold, Lead Social Studies Teacher Marie A. McNeal, Director of Social Studies Education Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Little Rock School District Board Member Sharrell Tate, Textbook Coordinator RECOMMENDATION Grade 7: University of Arkansas Press. An Arkansas History For Young People. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda.watson@lrsd.org April 7, 2003 TO: Board of Education THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 FROM: Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline SUBJECT: 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information The 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation is being presented to the Board for approval as a requirement of the Federal Court. On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Charter School Evaluation to Dr. Larry McNeal. Recommendation The administration recommends approval of the 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation for submission to the Federal Court. s  ?' 8~ z!!? ..,.Zm 0 gi z\"' \"'\u0026lt; C') !h .~., z \u0026gt;z C') ~ \"' To: From: Through: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT CAREER-TECHNICAL EDUCATION 7701 SCOTT HAMIL TON DRIVE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72209 April 24, 2003 Board of Directors Carol Green, Director, Career-Technical Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Career-Technical Education Textbook Adoption Recommendation In accordance with the District's PN Agreement, the LRSD Career and Technical Education Textbook Committee has completed the selection process for the 2003-2009 adoption cycle. Committee members voted unanimously to recommend the attached list of textbooks for adoption. /ljh 03/CBG/077 :s \u0026gt;\n= 8~ z!!? -\u0026gt;-,Zm c5 gi Zu, UJ n\u0026lt; !\" .!D., z \u0026gt;z n ,\u0026gt;.... UJ CAREER-TECHNICAL EDUCATION TEXTBOOK ADOPTION LIST 2003-2009 Career Orientation (grades 7-8) Exploring Careers, 2003, 4th Edition Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Workplace Readiness Skills At Wark Thompson Learning/Southwestern Publishers Jobs for Arkansas (JAG) Succeeding In The World of Work, ?1h Edition, 2003 Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Business Education Keyboarding Century 21-Computer Applications \u0026amp; Keyboarding, ?1h Edition, 2000 Thompson/Southwestern Publishers Keyboarding Application Applied Computer Keyboarding, 5th Edition Thompson/Southwestern Publishers Word Processing A and B Mastering and Using Word 2002: Comprehensive Course Thompson/Southwestern Publishers Dragon Naturally Speaking-2003, ?1h Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Computerized Accounting I Century 21 Accounting: Multicolumn Journal Text Thomson Learning Publishers Computerized Accounting II Century 21 Accounting: Advanced Text Thomson Learning Publishers Programming A and B Microsoft Visual Basic 6: Complete Concepts and Techniques Thomson Learning Publishers Rapid Writing A and B Alphabetic Writing Systems 2nd Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Marketing Education I Marketing Essentials 2002, Yd Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Marketing Management Business Principles and Management, 11 th Edition Thomson Learning Publishers Computer Technology: Introduction Computer Literacy with Microsoft Office XP Prentice-Hall Publishers Multimedia Applications A and B Microsoft PowerPoint 2002: Complete Tutorial Thomson Learning Publishers Adobe Illustrator 9: Illustrated Introduction, 2000 Thomson Learning Publishers Desktop Publishing A and B Desktop Publishing 2002: Complete Concepts and Techniques, 2001 Thomson Learning Publishers Adobe PageMaker 7 Basics, 2003 Thomson Learning Publishers Business Applications Office XP: Introductory Concepts and Techniques, 2001 Thomson Learning Publishers Database Management Microsoft Access 2002-Complete Tutorial Thomson Learning Publishers Spreadsheet Applications Microsoft Excel 2000-Complete Tutorial Thomson Learning Publishers .!I.I, z \u0026gt;z C') \u0026gt; I'\"\" V, Fashion Merchandising Fashion Marketing, 1st Edition, 2004 Thomson Leaming Publishers Advertising Advertising, 1st Edition Thomson Leaming Publishers Hospitality and Tourism Hospitality and Tourism Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Financial Systems Thomson Leaming Publishers Banking Operations Midtown Bank: A Bank Teller Simulation Thomson Leaming Publishers Banking and Finance Law Introduction to Banking, 1st Edition Thomson Leaming Publishers Office Management The Office: Procedures and Technology, 4th Edition Thomson Leaming Publishers Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship: Ideas In Action, 1st Edition, 2000 Thomson Leaming Publishers Business Law Understanding Business and Personal Law, 11 th Edition, 2003 Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers International Finance Investing in Your Future, 2nd Edition, 200 I Thomson Leaming Publishers Securities and Insurance Fundamentals of Insurance, 200 I Thomson Leaming Publishers Travel and Tourism Introduction to Travel and Tourism Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers Introduction to Hospitality Introduction to Hospitality Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers Web Design Macromedia Dreamweaver 4, Against the Clock Pearson Education-Prentice Hall Publishers Microsoft Frontpage 2002, Again the Clock Pearson Education-Prentice Hall Publishers :S  == 8~ z!!? .,..Zm oz\"\"'' \"'~ !\" .?.,' z  z C') ,\u0026gt;- \"' 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-3580 E-mail: linda. watson@lrsd.org April 17, 2003 TO: Board of Education THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent fJrftf LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSIST ANT SUPERINTENDENT STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 447-3581 FROM: Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline SUBJECT: 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information The 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation is being presented to the Board for approval as a requirement of the Federal Court. On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Charter School Evaluation to Dr. Larry McNeal. Recommendation The administration recommends approval of the 2001-2002 Charter School Program Evaluation for submission to the Federal Court. s ,,.\n= ~tD 0 C: ,z,!.!z? ..,.m 5gi Zen tn\u0026lt; (') !I' !.J.,I z \u0026gt;z (') ~ tn LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: April 24, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Geyer Springs Elementary School Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet Mabelvale Magnet Middle School McClellan Magnet High School McClellan Magnet High School Item $500.00 Literacy Grant to be used for student incentives to continue promotion of the Accelerated Reader Program Baseline Wal-Mart Store $1,000.00 cash to Julia Lloyd's Mrs. Genevieve Y. Jackson Pre-K class to be used to purchase educational materials and classroom supplies $1,500.00 grant to the Accelerated Reader Incentive Program. Funds will be used to purchase books for students and to fund the AR incentive parties held each nine-weeks. $1,000.00 cash for the Baseball Team $250.00 cash to be used for a student to attend AR Boys State Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Outreach Committee Ms. Sharon Prested Cloverdale-Mabel vale American Legion !..D., z \u0026gt;z n ~ V, Board of Education April 24, 2003 Page 2 School/Department Little Rock School District Little Rock School District Item A pallet of library books valued at approximately $1,000.00 Five (5) portraits of President George Washington for each of the District's high schools. Portraits are framed in cherry mahogany wood and are valued at $250.00 each for a total value of $1,250.00. Ms. Cynthia Brown, Sales Consultant for Scholastic Mr. Dave Elswick of Radio Station KARN It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From~onna Hall, Principal of Geyer Springs Elementary School Date: March 18th , 2003 Re: Donation Our school received a $500 Literacy Grant from the Wal-Mart store on Baseline Road. We are very grateful to Wal-Mart for this grant. The grant will be used as student incentives to continue to promote our Accelerated Reading program at our school. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Wal-Mart Store 8801 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR., 72209 5240 Mabelvale Pike Phone /501) 447-4800 Little Rock. Arkansas 72209 ?\u0026lt; C\") .!D., z \u0026gt;z C\") ~ \"' 5 \"z' G\") ~ ~ ~ \"' MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement .j1~I From: Tyrone Harris, Principal Date: March 7th , 2003 Re: Donation Mrs. Genevieve Y. Jackson of 16801 Davis Cup Lane, Little Rock, AR 72210 made a donation of$ 1000. 00 to our Pre K teacher, Julia Lloyd. This donation was given to her to purchase educational materials and supplies for her classroom. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. ... -.,..:  ~ --\nr r ..\n:',. c ~\n, .. !,L.. ~ .. ~ ~.: .. 905 Martin Luther King, Jr Drive  Phone (501) 44 7-5100  Fax (501) 447-5101  Little Rock, Arkansas 722C ~ Linking Students to the Future through  Environment Science  Information Communications Technology  Medical Studies To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Ann Blaylock, Principal Date: March 18, 2003 Re: Donations Mabelvale Magnet Middle School 10811 Mabelvale West Road Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 501/455-7400 Fax 501/455-7403 Please accept the grant donation of $1 ,500.00 from the Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Outreach Committee. These funds were donated to our Accelerated Reader Incentive Program. This program is managed by Beckie Jones, Reading Specialist, and Stella Cameron, Media Specialist. The purpose of the donation is to buy books for the students and to fund the AR incentive parties, which are to be held each nine-week period. Paperback books will be purchased as a final reward for summer reading for the top AR readers. Our students are very excited about the Accelerated Reader program and look forward to participating each year. We will hold a special celebration at the end of the year for the AR Readers and their parents. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. .~,, z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ en McCLELLAN MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL DATE: TO: FROM: THE ACADEMIES: BUSINESS FINANCE, ENGINEERING, MULTIMEDIA March 20. 2003 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Larry Buck, Princip~ SUBJECT: Donations Please accept these generous donations given to McClellan High School. Ms Sharon Prested, 105 Oak Lane, Flint, MI 48506 has given a cash donation of $1000.00 to be used for the McClellan Baseball Team. Cloverdale - Mablevale American Legion Post 128, Mabelvale, AR 72103 has given a donation of $250.00 to be used for a student to at.tend Arkansas Boys State. We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance With the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent r,:\n::.\u0026lt;r. :: .. ~:::~:,.. .. ~-:\n,. u ..  --v ~\"' .. . ~ . -.,t. , 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 447-2100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Little Rock School District Department of Instructional Technology March 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services SUBJECT: Donation of Library Books Ms. Cynthia Brown, sales consultant for Scholastic, has donated a pallet of library books to the Little Rock School District. The value of the books is estimated to be $ 1000. It is recommended that the donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Contact information is as follows: Ms. Cynthia Brown 14112 St. Michael Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 r- ~ -:-.. -..... -,.-{\nI{\"!-\\ ~ ~-~::\n:.:: ~: .:_9 L: ~\nJ .!J.:,l z )\u0026gt; z (\") ~ \"' ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 \"z' C) ill f\n~ \"' To: From: Date: Subject: Little Rock School District Social Studies Department Instructional Resource Center 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone (501) 447-3395 Fax (501) 447-7613 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Management ~ - McNeal, Director of Social Studies Education April 24, 2003 Donation Mr. Dave Elswick of radio station KARN wishes to donate a portrait of President George Washington to each high school in the Little Rock School District. The listeners of Mr. Elswick's daily radio program provided the funds for the purchase of these portraits. Their goal is to furnish each high school in the central Arkansas listening area with a portrait of the first president of the United States. The portraits are framed in a cherry mahogany wood and each is valued at $250 for a total of $1 ,250. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board Of Directors It{ Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services THROUGHMKenneth James, Superintendent Of Schools ~.....,onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. ~ ?\u0026lt; C') 5 V, z C'l Rl ~ ~ V, ,- \u0026gt;\u0026lt;  ,- 0 ::c g~\n,\n,_ zz :11::C'l .zm.. . v, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2001/02 03/31/02 COLLECTED 2002/03 03/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 57,850,000 57,086,336 98.68% 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% DELINQUENT TAXES 6,950,000 7,273,053 104.65% 8,000,000 8,936,338 111 .70% 40% PULLBACK 28,450,000 29,400,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 190,000 186,429 98.12% 187,000 205,072 109.66% DEPOSITORY INTEREST 575,000 353,143 61 .42% 385,000 174,515 45.33% REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 125,000 126,034 100.83% 135,000 337,232 249.80% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 600,000 182,143 30.36% 340,000 287,973 84.70% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 600,000 156,275 26.05% 275,000 150,103 54.58% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 155,000 146,770 94.69% 160,000 183,777 114.86% TOTAL 95,495,000 65,510,182 68.60% 97,432,000 67,422,790 69.20% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71 .73% TOTAL 25,000 17,024 68.10% 24,000 17,215 71.73% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,568,331 38,808,339 71 .12% 54,867,630 40,257,119 73.37% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,455,741 6,101 ,709 81 .84% 7,590,000 5,241,465 69.06% VOCATIONAL 1,325,000 1,006,688 75.98% 1,340,000 903,646 67.44% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,900,000 707,441 37.23% 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 175,782 75.12% 273,358 205,407 75.14% TRANSPORTATION 3,468,291 2,317,542 66.82% 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,865,000 2,286,063 59.15% 3,265,000 2,212,482 67.76% ADULT EDUCATION 987,869 586,220 59.34% 1,006,014 583,296 57.98% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 1,195,000 1,097,074 91 .81% 658,607 658,607 100.00% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 25,000 124,150 496.60% 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 605,000 116,653 19.28% 650,000 84,923 13.07% WORKER'S COMPENSATION 600,000 TOTAL 76,229,224 53,327,660 69.96% 75,441,106 53,643,152 71 .11% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 600,000 620,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 700,000 15,540 2.22% 1,126,233 200,754 17.83% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,639,927 546,642 33.33% 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% TOTAL 2,939,927 562,182 19.12% 3,410,671 755,567 22.15% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 174,689,151 119,417,049 68.36% 176,307,777 121,838,724 69.11% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 15,868,127 10,063,640 63.42% 22,230,023 11,634,200 52.34% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,921 ,766 2,091 ,348 53.33% 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 9,744,782 39.29% 25,065,942 11 ,601 ,757 46.28% TOTAL 44,592,636 21,899,770 49.11% 51,275,965 25,318,432 49.38% TOTAL REVENUE 219,281,787 141,316,819 64.45% 227,583,742 147,157,156 64.66% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED 2001/02 03/31/02 EXPENDED 2002/03 03/31/03 EXPENSES SALARIES 98,743,100 64,161,051 64.98% 100,865,586 64,090,483 BENEFITS 25,603,621 16,270,102 63.55% 24,838,361 16,098,491 PURCHASED SERVICES 20,235,454 12,815,684 63.33% 19,795,774 13,340,573 MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 9,252,512 5,584,365 60.36% 8,347,098 5,434,989 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,792,554 712,748 39.76% 1,616,991 927,565 OTHER OBJECTS 8,402,940 2,863,443 34.08% 8,508,680 2,932,072 DEBT SERVICE 10,526,942 10,653,854 101.21% 12,217,048 12,213,572 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 174,557,123 113,061,247 64.77% 176, 189,538 115,037,745 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 16,519,453 8,380,209 50.73% 22,995,210 11,442,759 DEDICATED M\u0026amp; O 3,921,766 2,295,160 58.52% 3,980,000 2,113,349 MAGNET SCHOOLS 24,802,743 14,012,636 56.50% 25,065,942 14,296,955 TOTAL 45,243,962 24,688,005 54.57% 52,041,152 27,853,063 TOTAL EXPENSES 219,801,085 137,749,252 62.67% 228,230,690 142,890,808 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (519,298) 3,567,567 (646,948) 4,266,346 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,937,298 1,937,298 1,645,440 1,645,440 OPERATING 8,489,087 8,489,087 8,557,652 8,557,652 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET'\u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,285,972 (850,937) 880,253 (889,191) OPERATING 8,621,115 14,844,889 8,675,891 15,358,630 TOTAL 9,907,087 13,993,952 9,556,144 14,469,439 % EXPENDED 63.54% 64.81% 67.39% 65.11% 57.36% 34.46% 99.97% 65.29% 49.76% 53.10% 57.04% 53.52\"/4 62.61% ~ ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 en z C) Rl ~ ~ en ,... \u0026gt;\u0026lt; ,... 0::,: 5~ !5 e! zz :I: C) men .z.. . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-02 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 2002-03 03-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 78,319.02 800.00 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,956.07 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 0.00 182,400.00 109,945.29 72,454.71 NEW WORK PROJECTS 22,028,270.87 8,302,568.00 8,535,570.17 8,774,542.13 13,020,726.57 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 348,708.80 30,625.90 379,334.70 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 5,749,803.26 406,072.00 2,952,613.67 236,838.54 2,966,423.05 RENOVATION PROJECTS 47,947,115.45 983,360.00 12,996,044.03 12,372,345.20 23,562,086.22 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 4,744,881.05 2,090,512.80 4,003,245.64 154,220.09 2,677,928.12 SUBTOTAL 80,861,053.40 0.00 11,995,538.70 28,976,753.50 21,537,945.96 42,341,892.64 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 139,801.90 45,668.11 5,771.03 179,698.98 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 FULBRIGHT PROJECT 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 31,569,505.02 (11,995,538.70) 19,573,966.32 P_8.OCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 5,022,644.80 2,056,177.03 7,078,821.83 SUBTOTAL 38,500,102.43 2,151,845.14 (11,995,538.70) 5,771 .03 0.00 28,650,637.84 GRAND TOTAL liD :ii:i lll l!D il:il 11:1:il:I l2.llll ill a11a ai:1 :ia il :iaZ ll:l:i llli Zi l5~ B ~~ PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL AMV1N31'1313 NOSllM  1N3W3SV3 :, PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 03-31-03 586,846.55 35,363,912.16 265,814.17 4,853,208.89 11 ,165,555.29 53,447,136.00 11,735,611 .78 20,867,787.29 138,285,872.13 1N3WNMnorov 11x S9NIMV3H 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE 2000-01 2001-02 THRU 03-31-03 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 109,945.29 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 8,535,570.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,641 ,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,334.70 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 2,952,613.67 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 12,996,044.03 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,003,245.64 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 28,976,753.50 S\u0026gt;4MVW3M 9NIS010 'X ENDING ENCUMBERED  ALLOCATION THRU 03-31-03 SUBTOTAL 03-31-03 514,391.84 72,454.71 8,774,542.13 22,343,185.59 13,020,726.57 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,853,208.89 0.00 236,838.54 8,199,132.24 2,966,423.05 12,372,345.20 29,885,049.78 23,562,086.22 154,220.09 -- 9,057-,68-3.66 2,677,928.12 - - - - 20,867,787.29 21,537,945.96 75,076,192.20 63,209,679.93 -- -- --- WVMOOMd :\u0026gt;1131HlV v S3:\u0026gt;IJ\\H3S 100HOS 'XI lOOHOS 3100IW NOSH30N3H1N3W3SV3 o Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Fund Total Food Service Total Activity Fund Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHEDULEOFINVESTMENTSBYFUND FOR THE PE~o ENDED MARCH 31, ~2-~ 00~3~------------ - Purchase Date Maturity Date 12-0-9-02 - 06-09-03 --- 01-19-03 07-19-03 08-10-0-2 - 04-08-02 03-31-03 TFN 03-03-03 04-15-03 - \u0026gt;--- -- Institution lnteres_t_R_a_te-+-__ T~y~p_e __ !--_P_ri_ncipa_!_ __ +-------+------ - ---- ~egio~ _ 1---1_.19_0_/co +--M_o_n_e~y_M_a_rke_t-+- _ 20,000.00 Regions _ 1.190% Money__ M_ark_et ___2_ 0~,o_o_o.o_o, Pulaski 2.330% Money Market 10,000.00 - - - - - -----'---1----'------l------- Bank of America 1.160% _R__ e ~p_o_ _+ -_8,~3_25~,_ooo_._oo_ Bank of the_O_zark~ _ 1.360% = __gQ__ _____ 1_0~,o_o_o~,o_o_o_.o_o ... 18,375,000.00 03-31-03 TFN - ~ank of America 1.030% Repo 800,000.00 -+-------+----~---+---~ao~o~.~00~0~.0~0~ 1 11-14-02 03-10-03 01-17-03 01-17-03 02-14-03 - r 04-02-03 ,- -- 09-08-03 01-16-04 - 01-16-04 - -- 10-15-03 Bank of America 1.120% - Treasury ]lif~!----8_0_0--,'--5_2-=3=.1_5--l 800,523.15 - --- ,- -----+-------t---~--l - --- -------tf---------1----- Regions 1.190% CD 400,000.00 ___l:-1etro~litan - 1.930% --r CD 1,000,934.31 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5,116,598.09 Bank of the Ozarks 1.440% CD +- -- -- - 10,000,000.00 - 01-29-03 01-17-03 1-- 02-14-ro 11-15-02 - 02-14-03 01-22-03 - 03-14-03 11-15-02 ~ ----- 09-17-02 09-17-0-2 03--31-03 - - 01-29-04 01-16-04 - 11-14-03 05-15~ ~ -15-03 - - f---- - 01-16-04 06-16-03 -- - -- 05-15-03 04-=--i5-03 09-15-~ ---=ri=N-- 01-10-03 06-11-03 09-27-02 - --- - 06-10-03 01-30-03 06-24-03 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,058,896.90 Superior 2.250% CD 2,500,000.00 Superior 1.900% CD 11,000,000.00 USBANK 1.380% CD 11,000,000.00 USBANK - -1.360%- -- -- CD 10,000,000.00 - Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 - Bank of the Ozarks 1.480% CD 9,000,000.00 --- Bank of the Ozarks 2.070% CD 3,000,000.00 -Ban-k of t-he O-za-rks 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 Bank of America 1.160% _ Re~ 7,850,000.00 - - --- -- -- 93,226,075.73 -- Bank of America 1.050% -- Treasury Bills 124,445.83 Ba-nk of- Am-eri-ca 1.430% Treasury Bills 534,508.80 -- --- r 658,954.63 -- ---- Bank of America 1.090% -- Treasury Bills 249,898.04 249,898.04 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003  :kck ool District Board of Directors a o~n, D1rfectoFr o ac1 11 ty Serv.1 ces _ yenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Funald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Request for Easement, Wilson Elementary School The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 5-foot right-of-way easement north of Wilson Elementary School as depicted on the attached map. The granting of this right-of-way is to allow for eventual street-improvements and construction of sidewalks in the area. Our agreement to this right-of-way was a condition of our Conditional Use Permit that was granted by the City in February of 2003. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it will not negatively impact the operation of Wilson Elementary School. Permission is requested for the Administration to enter into this agreement. DE:cg ?5 ?\u0026lt; n 5 u, z C) ~ f\n~ u, ,... \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... 0:,: 5g\n! :C,::::,,:_:, zz ~ C) mu, .z.. . I COR. 1/4, SWl/4, :.13 T!N, R13W . AHTil JOB 6965 7 I I _ _J I 5' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION DESCRIPTION: A PART OF THE SW!/4 OF THE SWl/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 13 WEST, CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, PULASKT COUNTY, ARKANSAS. BEJNG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED A5 FOLLOV\\'5: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SWJ/4 OF THE SWJ/4 OF SECTION 13\nTHENCE S8703'23\"E 114.52 FEET\nTHENCE :\n()2'56'37\"W 23. 70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID POINT BE!tJG AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EXT.5T!NG SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST 40TH STREET AND THE EXJST!ll!G E.t'.ST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STANNUS STREET\nTHENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING SOUTH ,,- fUGHT-OF-WAY LINE S8719'12\"E 636.34 FEET\nTHENCE DEPARTING SAID EXISTING SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE S17!4'03\"E 5.32 FEET TO THE PrtorCSED sourn RlGHT-OFWAY LINE OF WEST 40TH STR::=T\nTrlcNCE ALONG SAID PR00SED SOUTH RJG'IT-OF-Wt.Y LII/E N8\"'19'C''W 638.09 FEET TO THE EXISTING E/1.ST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE O 5TAPNUS STREET\nTHErJ:E /\\LONG SAID :'\u0026gt;:!STING E~ST I\n::111-0FWAY LINE N010:: 0 '58\"E S.O(' F:'ETTOTHE POIIITOF a: .~Ir1I n iG, CCNTAUIJI\\IG J, 186 s:-i~t.nE FEE7 C.1!: U.07J1 ACn.ES, I 1~P.E 0P. I_E:'S. SURVEYOR'S DECLARATION: I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I HAVE THIS DAY COMPLETED A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON, TH!S MAP IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE TOPOGRA AND PHYSICAL FEATURES AS FOUND IN THE FIELD. 6!:l.t'.N D. SCOTT, AR. PLS f 1287 DATE 1::o:., - O I ~J - /7.\n- \\0 - o- I:\n ~ ':-D - ,,()  !Ze' GRAPHIC ~ ( IN p I INCH= TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 \\:\n.!~:t School District Board of Directors ~~ of Facility Services THROUGH: ~T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ~~r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Request for Easement: John Barrow Road and Henderson Middle School Entergy has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 15-foot right-of-way easement along the east line of John Barrow Road adjacent to Henderson Middle School. Entergy is requesting this easement for the purpose of relocating the electrical lines that must be moved in order to accommodate the City's widening of John Barrow Road. Details of the easement-area are depicted on the attached map. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Henderson Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg ?5 :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :- 0 ::c 5,\n! C\n:o\nlCzz\ni:: C) zm... . \"' Mar. 13 03 03:40p p.5 Doctt 2003021809 0 CJ 0 D u ST A TE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI LinelJ\u0026gt;roject Identification: WR 351363 RIGHT-OF-WAY INSTRUMENT ENTERGY ARKANSAS, I.NC. KNOW ALL MEN BY TI-IESE PRESENTS THAT: Little Rock School District , Grantor(s), acting individually, and for, and on behalf of, my/our heirs, successors, assigns and any other person claiming the ownership to the property hereinafter described, collectively \"Grantor\", for and in consideration of one dollar, in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, assign, convey unto and warrant and defend Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and its successors and assigns, collectively \"Grantee\", a right-of-way. servitude and easement 15 feet in width, for the location, construction, reconstruction, improvements, repairs. operation, inspection, patrol, replacement and maintenance of electric power and communication facilities, or the removal thereof, now or in the future, including, but not necessarily limited to, poles, cross arms, insulators, wires, cables, conduits, hardware, transformers, switches, guy wires, anchors and other equipment, structures, material and appurtenances, now or hereafter used, useful or desired in connection therewith by Grantee over, across, under or on that land of Grantor in the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas described as follows, to-wit: As built along and adjacent to the East line of John Barrow Road all on a part of the NEI/4 SWI/4 and SEI/4 NWl/4, Section 2, T-l-N, R-13-W. In conjunction with highway relocation for the City of Little Rock. Together with the right of ingress and egress to and from said right-of-way across the adjoining land of the Grantor and the right to attach wires and cables of any other party to Grantee's facilities. Grantee shall have the full and continuing right to clear and keep clear vegetation within or growing into said rightof- way and the further right to remove or modify from time to time trees, limbs, and/or vegetation outside the said right of way which Grantee considers a hazard to any of its electric power or communications facilities or a hazard to the rendering of adequate and dependable service to Grantor or any of Grantee's customers, by use of a variety of methods used in the vegetation management industry. Grantor shall not construct or permit the construction of any structure, obstruction or other hazard within the said right-of-way, including but not limited to, house, barn, garage, shed, pond, pool or well, excepting only Grantor's fence(s) and Grantee's facilities. Grantor shall not construct or permit the construction of any buildings or other structures on land adjoining said right-of-way in violation of the minimum clearances from the lines and facilities of Grantee, as provided in the National Electrical Safety Code. Grantor. if husband and wife, do hereby release and relinquish all of our rights of curtesy, dower, and homestead to the said right-of-way. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Right-of-Way Instrument on this _ day of GRANTOR: Little Rock School District By: __________ _ Title: _____ ______ _ ACKNOWLEDGMENT ST ATE OF AR.KANSAS COUNTY OF _________ ____ _ BE IT REMEMBERED that on this day come before me the undersigned. a Notary Public. within and for the cow1ty and state aforesaid. duly commissioned. and acting ________ me well known as the ________ of Grantor in the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that Little Rock School District had executed the same for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this __ day of ___________ , 2003. Commission Expires ___ _ _ Notan Public ~ ?\u0026lt; n 5 \"z' Cl ill ~ ~ \"' :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;:- 0:,: 5,\n! C ::0 :z: 0z- 3C Cl zm \"' --\u0026lt; DATE: TO: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 24, 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools To Consider Moving to a Varsity and Junior Varsity Athletic Program Background Information: Earlier this year, Mr. Johnny Johnson brought forth a recommendation to move to a Varsity/Junior Varsity athletic program in the LRSD. The rationale for this request is the number of actual participants at the 9th grade level. I have attached a report indicating the level of recent 9th grade ~articipation in football, volleyball, basketball, and track. The report reflects that 9 h grade participation has fluctuated from year to year and campus to campus. During this past season, only one high school (Central) was able to field three teams. Representatives from the Arkansas Activities Association have indicated that it would not be a problem for the LRSD to implement the Varsity/Junior Varsity approach. In this format, coaches would still have the option to schedule sophomore games if they have sufficient players to do so. The ninth grade student-athletes would also be able to play in the sophomore games. All Varsity coaches and secondary principals overwhelmingly support the proposal as submitted. Fiscal Impact: There will be minimal financial savings as a result of moving to this concept. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the request to move to a Varsity/Junior Varsity concept for the 2003-2004 school year. ,i!.:.S. \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;,... O:r 5~ C:\nu\nzu z- 3C C') mUJ z... . To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II\\ ATHLETIC DIRECTOR-SECONDARY SCHOOLS ii\\ February 12, 2003 Dr. Ken James, Superintendent ofLRSD Johnny Johnson, Director of Athletics Ninth Grade Athletic Proposal The information below shows the number of ninth grade students participating in the sports of football, volleyball, basketball, and track for the school years of 2001-02 and 2002-03. These numbers can be a bit misleading because they are the numbers of students that began the season and not the numbers of students that finished the season. One fact that is not misleading is the number of ninth grade girls participating in sports. This is one major reason why I believe going to a varsity-junior varsity program will benefit our athletic program. 2001-02 9th Grade Participation Football Volleyball Basketball (Bs) Basketball (Gs) Track (Bs) Track (Gs) Fair 38 5 11 15 1 2 Central 47 13 21 15 0 1 Parkview 20 8 17 9 5 6 McClellan 32 0 13 3 12 0 Hall 31 4 16 4 (NIA) 12 2002-03 9th Grade Participation Football Volleyball Basketball (Bs) Basketball (Gs) Track (Bs) Track (Gs) Fair 31 6 18 18 Central 46 13 18 19 Parkview 24 5 16 8 McClellan 25 3 12 4 Hall 22 5 15 9 The number of ninth graders fluctuates from year to year. Parkview could not play a ninth grade football schedule in 2001. Hall could not play a ninth grade schedule this past year. In both cases, the main reason was not enough players. Both schools could have played a junior varsity schedule if they would have been allowed to move their ninth graders up to junior varsity. Attrition plays a major role in this proposal. In 2001 , Central had a large class ofninth graders, but could not field a junior varsity team because of lack of sophomores and juniors. The past year, Central had only eight seniors on the football team. With a varsity-junior varsity program, 3615 West 25th Street*Little Rock, AR 72204*(501 )447-2060 there will not be a school that would not be able to field two quality teams. This past football season, Central was the only school to be able to field three teams. The AAA has said that they do not have a problem with the LRSD not designating ninth grade athletics for the AAAAA high schools. I really believe this proposal will strengthen our athletic program, especially for women's athletics. One final point to bring up is that coaches would still have the option to schedule sophomore games if they had a large group of athletes. The ninth graders would be able to play in the sophomore games. I hope you will continue to look closely at this proposal. I really believe it will benefit our coaches and athletes. Attached is a copy of Parkview's 9th grade participation for the last three years. ~ :- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; :-- 0 :c :s ! \u0026lt;=\n:o\nJIJzz\ni:Q .zm.. . \u0026lt;n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  fllrkview Athletics 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 501-447-2300  Fax 501-447-2301 PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS PATRIOTS The following are the number of athletes who participated in Parkview football for the last 3 years at the beginning of the school year. Year JV 9th 2002 20 24 2001 21 15 2000 20 38 Each year we cancelled the JV season after the fourth game due to injuries to athletes or our opponents no longer had enough players to complete their season. The 9th grade season had to be cancelled in 2001 after the fourth game due to injuries and lack of athletes. * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\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_1409","title":"\"2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2003-03-26"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","School enrollment","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1409"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["106 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1272","title":"'Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Court records","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["'Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy''"],"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/1272"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["93 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_562","title":"Program evaluations, Volume I","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume I"],"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/562"],"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\nBox 5 LRSD 1) Program Evaluations, March 14, 2003, Volumes I - IVCollection Number $ S O S' Box of Collection Name: OC^ (V\\ Q Coo PelsX ri X z a 2 VOLUME H  P3 \u0026gt; SC X X  RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING J 2 X \u0026gt;, 2 r e o e k/ o e z \u0026gt;6 O O oSOUTHWEST SF.m. PWXiKXM CHARTER SCHOOL EARl.Y LITERACYri ri LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education ri FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: J Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments: the Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4. and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. z The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. S 0p 99 Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 I  kI k1 ku LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2000 - 2001 ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL EVALUATION p 9 9 9 9 9 I 2 IJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PI \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; EVALUATION REPORT: 2000-2001 Prepared By Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, Arkansas e 2 \u0026gt;2, t  ! 0 0 c p 9 9 3 Executive Summary The twentieth centurys influence on school choice is reflected in the introduction of charter schools, school vouchers, magnet schools, academy schools, alternative schools, and a host of other specialty schools that focus on specific and often time unique student groups. The recent interest in school choices can be traced to the Nation At Risk report, which was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983. The findings about the poor quality of public education alarmed the American public. The report concluded that America was losing its competitive edge in the global marketplace because of its educational system. The result was the passage of educational reform laws and legislation that promoted standards for students, teachers, and administrators. The American educational system continues to search for programs and services that meet the developmental needs of its students. Charter schools are the latest spin-off to a discontented American public looking for vast improvements in educational practices that will better equip its children with marketable skills. Arkansas has also been influenced by this trend. Arkansas modified its existing charter school law in 1999 (Arkansas Charter School Act of 1999) and as a result the charter school movement in Arkansas took off. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School opened its doors in the fall of 2000. The charter school offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3,4, and 5 grades. \u0026gt;  Pl \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Mission The missions of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are mutually supportive and facilitative of student success. The intent of the missions of both are to provide students with programs and services that fit their educational and developmental needs, as well as prepare them with the knowledge and skills needed to compete in the marketplace. Z P O 9 9 P 9 9 Goal The goal of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is to provide opportunities for students educational and behavioral needs while guiding them to adjust 1 4 their behavior and habits in such a manner that they will become successful, lifelong learners and productive citizens. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School accomplishes its goal through an alternative learning environment. Description of Need The description of need is an overview of the variables that influence student academic achievement and behavior at the elementary grade level. Collectively, these variables provide a richer understanding of what is happening at the elementary grade level to some students in the Little Rock School District and why it has become increasingly more difficult to educate all children in a regular classroom setting. Poverty and other factors present barriers for many children who reside in the city of ?5 \u0026gt; JC PI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Little Rock from receiving the educational opportunities critical for their development. The inability to obtain preschool and other early-childhood education programs is evidenced in the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Program where an enrollment capacity of some 750 students leaves approximately 1,000 children on the programs waiting list each year. Once behind, children face a significant challenge of catching up in their school career and many of these children become potential school dropouts in later years. In the 1997-1998 school year, 921 students out of 10,628 students at the secondary level dropped out of school. This represents 8.7% of the Little Rock School District secondary student enrollment. Black students accounted for 69% of the dropout population, with black males representing 44% and black females representing 25.1% of the total. During the 1998-1999 school year the dropout rate increased to 9.7%. For many of these students, the barriers that they faced prior to elementary school were so overwhelming that it left them ill prepared for the challenges associated with schooling\ntherefore, less capable to take advantage of the educational opportunities at the secondary level. 9 2 2 \u0026gt; ii Iz* b 9 9 9 s 9 Student performance on standardized tests also served as an indicator of the extent of at-riskness for some students in the Little Rock School District. Scores on standardized tests showed percentile ranks across the District and the racial disparity in academics in all grades and subjects. Standardized test scores in reading for the 1997-1998 school year 2 5 I revealed that overall more than one-third of Little Rock School District students were in the lowest 25% nationally for reading skills, with elementary students at 38%, junior high students at 36% and high school students at 34%. Standardized test scores for the 1998- 1999 school year revealed that overall approximately two-thirds of the students (64% of the fifth grade students tested, 63% of the seventh grade students tested and 70% of the tenth grade students) tested were at or below the 50* percentile. The pattern of low performance on standardized tests can be contributed to several factors with the lack of availability of early childhood education programs and low social development being but two. Children who come to school ready and able to learn usually face fewer educational barriers than students who come to school not ready and able to learn. These students are less capable of performing at the levels necessary to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities of education. n \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Student success can also be influenced by the composition of the family unit. Family composition is related to income and poverty for youth, with two-parent families generally having greater income than families with only one parent. Students coming from families with higher incomes are usually better prepared at an earlier age for schooling. Nationally, in white families a single parent heads two out of every ten households, while single parents head five out of ten Afincan American households. In the city of Little Rock single parents head about six out of ten Afincan American householders. The majority of whom are single mothers. The relationship between income, poverty and academic success suggests that some students who are attending school in the Little Rock School District may need more support prior to the formal schooling experience and perhaps throughout their educational career in the public school system. Students who experience behavior problems often times are not benefiting as much from the academic aspects of schooling because usually they are removed from the educational setting. The number of students who were long-term suspended and/or expelled from the Little Rock School District increased during the 1992-93 to 1997-98 school years. The District revamped its alternative learning environments during the 1997-98 school year by enlarging the Alternative Learning Center and establishing an Accelerated Learning i ! X9 \u0026gt; z p 9 O o p 9 9 3 6 Center for secondary students. During the 1998-99 school year, the District experienced a decrease in the number of long-term suspensions and a significant decrease in the number of expulsions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the District established four elementary alternative classrooms in four of its elementary schools. The fall 2000 opening of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School was a logical progression in the Districts goal to provide for the educational and social needs of all students, especially, those with behavioral problems. The continued development of alternative learning environments is representative of the Districts commitment to providing the proper match between programs and services and students. The needs of some students cannot be met within the regular classroom setting and so alternative learning enviroiunents that focus on academics and behavior modification can ensure that all students receive an education that will prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive members of society. \u0026gt;P5 2 5P!I \u0026gt; Governance Two years of exploration and planning took place prior to the establishment of the charter school by the Little Rock School District Charter School Planning Team. The comprehensive effort included teachers, parents, and community members. The charter school model developed by the team was based on twelve years of research and evaluations by parents and teachers of the Alternative Classroom Experience (ACE) program at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. The team reviewed data to determine where the greatest needs exist. After careful review, subcommittees made up of classroom teachers, specialists, parents, and administrators discussed the implementation of various programs and services. For instance, a subcommittee examined the Success For All program while the Mental Health/Parental Involvement Team subcommittee investigated possible programs and services to include parents, families, and the community. Reports from the subcommittees were made to the Planning Team. After careful consideration, the Planning Team delineated issues, concerns, and discussed subsequent proposals. The Planning Team was later changed into an advisory group (Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee). 4 IZ* P 9 9 9 P 9 9 7 The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School Advisory Committee met periodically to monitor the progress of the school as well as provide assistance and feedback to the charter school principal and staff. Little Rock School District personnel facilitated the planning and advisory process and provided technical assistance and support. District personnel were instrumental in supporting the charter through inservices on proven educational practices, data evaluation, and a review of the Title I plan. They also offered parental involvement suggestions as well as conducted research activities. D Instructional Program The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is located at the Badgett Elementary School. The Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School was modeled on proven methods and strategies used in the Alternative Classroom Experience at Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp. Those strategies include effective early intervention/prevention for academic underachievement, effective early intervention/prevention for socio-behavioral and personal failure, and an aggressive approach to rebuilding community and parent identity and support for public education. In addition to these methods and strategies, other innovations include Success For All, an Extended Day/After School Program, Gifted and Talented Program, Exceptional Children Services Program, Accelerated Reading Program, Read Across America Program, Media Center Program, Awards Programs, Incentive Programs and programming using computer technology, mathematics and science modules, field trips, the residential component located at Pfeifer Camp, music, experiential education, and physical education. Students also wore school uniforms. PI \u0026gt; 2\u0026lt; Pl I z 5 5 \u0026gt;1 21 fl z p 9 O e p 9 9 The charter school has six classrooms staffed with teachers and program assistants to teach each student. A gifted and Ulented teacher, resource teacher, reading specialist, reading tutor, media specialist, music teacher, speech therapist, occupational and physical therapist, counselor, nurse, school examiner, director, secretary, cafeteria personnel, and custodians provide other services. 5 8 I Student Demographics The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School offers a nontraditional innovative learning environment for students in the 3*, 4*, and 5* grades. Students attending the school come from a host of elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District\nhowever, priority admission was given to students cunently enrolled in Baggett Elementary School. Other students were eligible for admission if they were academically functioning one or more grades levels below grade placement\nhad a pattern of recurring absenteeism\nhad poor social and interactive skills (displaying unacceptable patterns of behavior and failure to fit the social environment of the school)\nwere retained one or more grades: and, were from an unstable family structure. 2\u0026gt; P5 % \u0026gt; Once students were selected multiple assessment measures were used to assess them. The assessments included Success For All Baseline Assessment (which is reported in terms of grade level). District Achievement Level Test (RIT Score), State Benchmark Test (4 grade 2000 only) and Teacher Recommendations. The data generated from the assessments facilitated a better understanding of the needs of individual students. i 5X \u0026gt;1 2 Initially, 116 students made application to enrolled in the school\nhowever, 17 students did not attend for various reasons including relocation out of the District, logistics (parents wanting their children to all attend the same school or schools closer to home). program fit (some parents concluded that the program and services offered were not appropriate for their child), and a few students withdraw prior to the start of the 2000- 2001 school year. Ninety-nine students attended the school at some period during the school year of which eighty-seven students completed the school year at the school. z p 0 p 9 9 The demographic data shows that overall the characteristics of the students enrolled were similar to other schools within the District\nhowever, there were significant differences in some aspects. For instance, the school was different than most other elementary schools because of its concentration of students who were academically underachieving and 6 9 I I behaviorally and socially challenged. No other elementary school in the District had an exact similar student population. I I The demographics of this student population are highlighted in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The demographic data examined include racial makeup, grade level, attendance, absenteeism, and discipline. In addition, social economic statue and mobility are discussed. I I Table 1 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Racial Make Up Black Female White Female Black Male White Male 3rd Grade 4 3 23 1 4th Grade 2 3 24 1 Sth Grade 10 1 23 4 Total 16 7 70 6 Percentage 16% 7% 71% 6% Total Student Count 31 30 38 99 100% \u0026gt; g Pl ? \u0026lt; 3 A review of the data shows that the majority of the students attending the school were black. The majority of the students were black males followed by black females. The number of white females and males attending was about the same. The overall gender and racial make up of the school does not reflect the gender and racial make up of the average elementary school in the Little Rock School District. The above data includes student suspension data. If the suspension data were subtracted from the data, the overall attendance rate would be 94.5%. 2 2 \u0026gt;, pj z p o p 9 9 In addition, an examination of student records shows that an overwhelming majonty of the students in attendance receive reduced or free lunch. Of the students attending the school, 91% receive reduced or free lunch. Again, this percentage is higher than the average elementary school in the District. The combination of gender, race, and reduced or free lunch provides a better understanding of the social-economic status of the student population at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. 7 10   L Part of the criteria for admission to the school was a pattern of recurring absenteeism. On average absenteeism is lower at the elementary school level than at any other grade level\nhowever, the absenteeism rate for students attending the charter school is higher than normal. The attendance history of the student body is presented in Table 2. Table 2 STUDENT ATTENDANCE BY QUARTER Grade Level 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade__ Qverall Average 1st Quarter 87% 84% 92% 88% 2nd Quarter 94% 83% 87% 88% 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter 84% 92% 89% 88% 83% 85% 82% 83% Average 87% 86% 88% 87% The overall average attendance rate for all grades was 87%, which means that the school had an absenteeism rate of 13%. The attendance percentage is lower than the District elementary school average of 95%. The attendance and absenteeism rates of students in attendance at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School are more similar to the attendance and absenteeism rates of other schools with similar students. In addition, the mobility rate of the school was 14%\nhowever, the adjusted mobility rate was 4%. Mobility can be understood as the relationship between the number of students who started out the school year attending a particular school and the number of students who were still in attendance at that same school at the end of the school year. The number of student transfers and suspensions impacted the mobility rate at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. When the impact of the transfers and suspensions are factored out, the mobility rate declines from 14% to 4%. A major criterion for admission to the school was a history of academic, social and behavior problems. Students attending the school usually had poor social and interactive skills along with imaccepUble patterns of behavior. As a result students who attended the 8 n \u0026gt;2 P3 ft \u0026lt; j: V. i XX \u0026gt;, ! Z p 9 e p9 0 11 school usually had experienced more instances of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in more suspensions than other students. Students with poor social and interactive schools came from all three of the school Districts. Table 3 reflects the disciplinary records of students. Table 3 STUDENT DISCIPLINE Total Number of Suspensions Total Enrollment________________________ Total Number of students with Suspensions Total Number of students with No Suspensions Percentage of student with Suspensions______ Percentage of students with NO suspensions 66 99 37 62 37% 63% P5 \u0026gt; 2 P5 r\n\u0026lt;  When considering the grade level of students being suspended the 3\"* and 4* grades had 13 student receiving suspensions, and the 5* grade had 11 students receiving suspensions. Several of the students had multi-suspensions. In addition, some of the students who were suspended no longer attend the school. The majority of students attending the charter school had no suspensions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that suspensions will decrease in the 2001-2002 school year with the _. cih current 5 grade class leaving and with the 3\"* and 4* grade students returning to an environment that advocates behavior and social management. Student Academic Achievement The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School complies with all mandated state and federal testing, and other assessments based on student needs, which the teacher deems most appropriate. Student performance is measured in part by the same critena as for the rest of the schools in the Little Rock School District. The performance indicators include the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4, Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, Success For All. quarterly grades, WRAT (pre 9 12 V 5 \u0026gt;1 2 z p 9 9 9 9 9 Iand post), and SAT 9 at grade 5. These performance indicators are examined in the tables and charts contained in this section. The data presented in Table 4 represents the 1999-2000 school year student literacy achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5* graders at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. Table 4 PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% As illustrated in the table, only 7% of the then 4* grade students were proficient in literacy. The majority of students fall within the below basic range. This can be interpreted, as the overwhelming majority of 4* grade students who entered the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000 could not read at grade level. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 5, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student reading achievement. Table 5  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR LITERACY: SCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001 PREFORMANCE LEVEL PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BELOW BASIC 83% BASIC 17% PROFICENT ADVANCED 0% 0% 10 13 Pl P\u0026gt;l 2 Z P 0 c p 9 9 STAFF Staff Title I Staff Residential Component TOTAL Materials \u0026amp; Equipment Computers Classroom equipment/ Furniture Printers Computer Tables Computer Software_______ Cabling________ Server(s) Hubs__________ Classroom supplies Office materials and supplies Repairs of equipment Textbooks Periodicals Audiovisual materials TOTALS CHARTER SCHOOL BUDGET 2000-2001 Proposed 725,000 96,000 821,000 53,100 35,000 7,000 8,500 1,500 20,000 10,000 1,000 2000-2001 Acutal 345,000 71,000 20,000 400 2,000 158,000 89,000 505,000 61,596 34,147 7,000 8,500 1,500 31,176 3,811 26,681 Source of Funds LRSD Title I Provided Provided 174,411 2001-2002 345,000 71,000 ADE Grant ADE 43,000 USDE 62,335 ADE 35,000 LRSD LRSD LRSD ADE 36,000 USDE 43,700 USDE USDE ADE LRSD LRSD LRSD 33,500 449,500 7,000 3,000 5,000 5,700 1,000 5,000 Provided Provided 26,700 Source of Funds LRSD Title I LRSD LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 1 14 B \u0026gt; \u0026lt; d PI JB \u0026gt; J i 3 ?) z I* p 9 9 9 P 9 9fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl nn HH fl fl Contractual 2000-2001 Proposed 5,000 2000-2001 Actual 10,000 Staff Development Training \u0026amp; Curriculum/ Improvement Success for All - Staff Development \u0026amp; Materials Travel Dues and Fees Telephone Postage Printing Utilities Maintenance Supplies \u0026amp; Equipment Construction \u0026amp; Repairs Transportation Other Support Services TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 50,000 49,135 40,000 10,000 1,200 500 500 500 30,000 3,500 100,000 (at least) 150,000 346,200 1325,700 9,751 1,000 38 144 Provided Provided 175,000 224,263 S09331 1,188,742 Source of Funds USDE 35,000 USDE 50,000 ADE 40,000 USDE 10,000 USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD 2001-2001 Proposed 50,000 4,700 10,000 2,500 1,200 500 300 500 Provided 3,500 250,000 5,000 328,200 804,400 Source of Funds USDE USDE LRSD USDE LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD NOTE: The above budget included grant funds from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and United States Department of Education (USDE). 1 15 P5 \u0026gt; r 5 Pl XX \u0026gt;1 2 z * p Q9 0 P 9 0 5     The number of students scoring below basic decreased from 86% to 83%. The largest increase occurred in the number of students rated basic. The number increased from 7% to 17%. Overall, the student of students who were rated as proficient readers decreased from 7% to 0%. The Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on reading has not yet impacted student reading achievement.   The data presented in Table 6 represents the 1999-2000 school year student mathematics achievement as measured by the Primary Benchmark Exam at Grade 4 for current 5*'' graders at the school. As previously mentioned he current 5* graders were not in attendance at the school during the 1999-2000 school year.  ?5 \u0026gt; P5 \u0026lt; Table 6  PRIMARY (GRAPE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS^ SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 PREFORMANCE LEVEL _____ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 86% 7% 7% 0% i \u0026gt;1 Seven percent of the then 4* grade students were proficient in mathematics. The overwhelming majority of students fall within the below basic range which indicates that students were not proficient in mathematics at grade level prior to attending the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School in the fall of 2000. An examination of the results of the 2000-2001 benchmark scores, as presented in Table 7, further illustrates the challenging task of improving student mathematics achievement.  P 0 0 P 0 0 t 0 11 16  Table 7  PRIMARY (GRADE 4) BENCHMARK EXAMINATION FOR MATHEMATICS\nSCHOOL YEAR 2000-2001     PREFORMANCE LEVEL ______ BELOW BASIC BASIC PROFICENT ADVANCED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 96% 0% 4% 0% The number of students scoring below basic increased from 86% to 96%, while the number of students rated basic and proficient decreased 7% to 0% and from 7% to 4% respectfully. Again, the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary Schools emphasis on mathematics has not yet impacted student reading achievement. \u0026gt; g W I   In addition to the benchmark examinations, the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School has an array of iimovative programs and services to offer students that focus on their academic development. A variety of means exist to measure the effectiveness of those programs, for instance, the grade level reading and mathematics tests. These tests are given in the fall and spring of the year. The grade level achievement tests highlight student progress. They measure students progress over the school year. The reason for measuring the rate of student growth is because it serves as an indicator of how much progress students are making compared to themselves over a defined period of time. I \u0026gt;,  The data are presented in Charts 1 and 2. The data presented compare the growth rate of students in the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School to similar students in the Little Rock School District and nation. In Chart 1 the grade level reading achievement growth rate is presented. Z P o c p 9 9 0 12 17E 14 12 Chart 1 READING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 LU s *r P s  z \u0026lt; 5 UJ S 10 I6.J' i5 1^5 J5.4\n Charter\n District j I National \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; OJ' 3rd Grade 31- 4 Grade Sth Grade 8 6 4 1 ' ^5 I At the 3* and 4* grade levels, the growth rate exceeds those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from 4.2% at 3\"* grade to 2.5% at 4* grade. The growth rate in both cases is significant. At the 5* grade level, the growth rate is equal to those of students in the Little Rock School District and only slightly below the national growth rate for similar students. 2 * 21 In Chart II the grade level mathematics achievement growth rate is presented. The data contained in the chart also indicate that the growth rate for students in the Little Rock * P 9 O Q P o 9 School District Charter Elementary School is either higher or slightly below that of the Little Rock School District and the nation depending on the grade level. 9 13 18E 16 14 12 10 Chart 2 MATH ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL TEST FALL 2000 TO SPRING 2001 111.9 U15| \u0026gt;n 2 P |9 8.7 s O Z. \u0026lt; uS 2 a'  Charter  District  National 0-* JI 10 2 Si 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade ?! 8 6 4 2 w ( i 1 i + ! I 8 1^11 yi Similar statements can be made about student performance on the mathematics achievement level test. At the 3\"* and 4* grade level the growth rates exceed those for students in the Little Rock School District and in the nation. The increases range from .1% at 3\"* grade to 6.3% at 4* grade. The growth rate at 4* grade is significant. At the 5' grade level, the growth rate is 1% lower than the Little Rock School District and 2% lower the national growth rate for similar students. th p e o e p o 9 The Charter School also used the Success For All program. The program has been used in more than 1000 schools. Benefits are particularly strong for students who are at risk. This is especially the case for those students in the lowest 25th percentile of their class. 1 i 14 19 IM The data contained in Chart 3 show the progress of students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School during the 2000-2001 school year. Charts SUCCESS FOR ALL READING BY GRADE LEVEL d ! fl u o \u0026lt; UJ u 100%/r 90% ** 80%'*' 70%-*' 60%** 50%-^ AS/? !56%r|  BASELINE ' PI \u0026gt; Pl 40% 30% 20% 10% 132% :24'}^n ir^39?i38% llnl iQ FIRST SECOND IBTHIRD io FINAL A 3 pi third grade FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE The 3\"* grade reading scores have increased each quarter of the school year. The percentage of students reading at grade level in the 3\" grade went from 0% to 56% over the course of the school year. The 4*\" grade reading scores have remained fairly constant with 40% of the students reading at grade level at the beginning and end of the school year The 5* grade reading scores have also increased from 24% to 38% during the same time period. Student reading scores have increased as a result of the Success For All reading program and other such programming activities. Those other activities include a total of 1,776 hours of staff development in such areas as Success For All, active learning with technology, experiential education, Smart Step, and cooperative learning. Student grades are also indictors of achievement. Student report card grades are presented in Charts 4 and 5. In Chart 4 reading grades by grade level and quarter are presented 15 20 I IS \u0026gt; z r  o e p  d d d I _ I I I I X Chart 4 READING SCORES BY GRADE  A 60/ u g H CZ3 b O u o \u0026lt; u CU 50--^' 40 30^ 20 10 J21 14 1616 2( JS11 28 124 1 24' X-  1ST QUARTER READING  2ND QUARTER READING  3rd QUARTER READING '  4th QUARTER READING \u0026gt;n 2 P3 r\u0026lt;\nGRADE The number of students receiving an A and B grade increased at the same time that the number of students receiving a C grade decreased in the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a D grade also increased. Overall, 2 more students received an A grade by the 4'*' quarter and 31 more students received a B grade by the 4* quarter. The number of students receiving a C grade decreased by 17, while the number receiving a D grade increased by 1 in the 4* quarter. Reading grades have continued to rise with significant improvement occurring in the number of students receiving a B grade along with the decrease in the number of students receiving a C grade. fl I\u0026gt; Si P V- r n e a e u o o 16 2X \u0026lt;3 I I I t 1 B 0 A B C D Math scores have also risen with a significant increase in the percentage of students receiving a B grade. Chart 5 MATHEMATICS SCORES BY GRADE LEVEL 60/   50-^ i43 UJ O  CZ5 o UJ o  UJ U 40-^ 30 i22!\n28 28 20-'\" 120B 10 1321 :23 H3B3 13  FIRST QUARTER MATH B SECOND QUARTER MATH J B THIRD QUARTER MATH i BFOURTH QUARTER MATH\nP5 \u0026gt; g Pl 5C \u0026gt; r: I\n37 I 1 I I 0 1 0  B A c GRADE s X X \u0026gt; F D The percentage of students receiving a B grade has increased over the course of the year, while the number of students receiving an A, C, D or F grade has decreased. Overall, the number of students receiving a B grade increased from 28 in the 1 quarter to 51 in the 4* quarter. The biggest decrease was in the number of students receiving a C grade. That number went from 43 to 23. There were also small decreases in the number of students receiving an A, D, or F grade. The numbers ranged from 2 to 3. The decrease in the number of students receiving an A, C, D, or F grade is offset by the increase in the number of students receiving a B grade. Z P o c p 9 9 \u0026lt; 17 22 Additional data about student performance at the Little Rock School District Charter School can be glanced from results of the Math WRAT assessment. Student performance on this examination is presented in Chart 6. The examination was administered both as a pretest and posttest to students in the 3\"*, 4*, and 5* grades in the fall and spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Chart 6  g \u0026lt;  ou u\u0026gt; \u0026lt; O s oo cU4J a 2 z 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 1 0 MATH WRAT ASSESSMENT 3RD GRADE 4TH GRADE STH GRADE  PRE i I a post\n9 i /i V 2 2 Student performance as measured by WRAT indicates an increase in the average number of correct responses at all three grade levels. In 3\"* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.5. In 4* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 1.3. In 5* grade the average number of correct responses increased by 2.6. B z * p e c p e 0 The final academic assessment examined is the Stanford 9 Basic Battery for the 5 grade from fall 2000. As shown in Table 7, the examination provides another view on student performance. The test was administered to 5* grade students shortly after the start of the 2000-2001 school year. B The performance of the 5* graders reflects their prior academic preparation rather than their preparation at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The 18 23 a students had been attending the school for only several weeks before the test was administered. I 1 Chart 7 a STANFORD 9 NORM REFERENCE TEST NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY STH GRADE FALL 2000 1 a a a a a CZ3 LU Q  H CZ2 LU O LU u u oi u Qb 100 90- 80 10 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ,88 12 OE 0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% QUARTILES The test results show that 88% of the student population performed in the 0 - 25% quartile, while the remaining 12% of the students performed in the 26% - 50% quartile range. Student performance for this group represents past academic preparation efforts. This groups performance should be compared with that of the fall 2001 S* graders who were 4 .* graders during 2000-2001 school year. This kind of comparison would ascertain the affect of the charter school program on 4* grade students during the 2000-2001 school year. Academically, the students at the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School have made progress. The arrays of assessments highlight this improvement in 19 24 Pl 2 Pl ft 5/5 I % \u0026gt; 2 7- C C o o t Ia mathematics and reading. The schools success is a measure of the effectiveness of the programs and services provided in the innovative alternative learning environment. Financial The program and services provided during the 2000-2001 school year by the Little Rock School District Elementary Charter School cost $1,182,842 (see attached budget).  fl Even in an otherwise well-conceived and fairly funded charter school the need to purchase textbooks, instructional materials and supplies, computers and equipment as well as provide for the staff development training needs of staff can make it appear to be an expensive venture. Given the singular nature of several of the expenditures, the overall cost of operating the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School should decrease during the remaining years of the charter school contract (see attached budget). W \u0026gt; 2 P5 \u0026gt; ft \u0026lt; fl fl Also, in comparing the start up cost of the charter school to similar schools a more reasonable comparison would be with other elementary schools in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, or Pulaski County Special School District that have opened within the past three years. Just like in these schools the initial cost is high but tends to decrease over a period of time. Another comparison could be made between other schools in the Little Rock School District that are serving students with special needs such as the magnet or incentive schools. 1 ?! y z ?! 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 Conclusion Virtually all charter schools have had to overcome obstacles during development and implemenUtion. The barriers range from lack of start-up funds, lack of planning time, inadequate operating funds, inadequate facilities, state or local board opposition, internal conflicts, hiring staff, acquiring enough students, determining the right mix of programs and services, accountability requirements, and community opposition. While not all of the barriers apply to the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School, some did. They include barriers associated with sharing a building, acquiring enough students, and meeting accountability standards. In addition, to the biggest challenge of them all pi z p 9 0 P 9 9 / 20 25a which was meeting the needs of all of the students who were academically, socially, and behaviorally challenged through the right mix of programs and services. The ability of an organization to respond to these bamers can be somewhat quantified by examining student demographic data, student academic data, staff commitment to program goals, and stakeholders satisfaction. The demographic data indicates a student a a population that is highly challenged academically, socially, and behaviorally. The impact of this challenge is felt in the areas of student attendance, mobility, and discipline. The school can positively impact attendance and discipline, however, its ability to impact mobility is questionable. a a The academic data also illustrates a population that produces mixed results. Pre and post student achievement scores range from above average to below average. The school has the capacity to positively impact student achievement with its array of programs and services. The issue of matching students with the right program may still need to be refined. a P5 \u0026gt; P5 ft \u0026lt; I ifi Another way of quantifying the organizations ability to respond is by examining the diligent and commitment of staff to the goals of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School. The closer the alignment of diligent and commitment to goals the better the chance that the needs of all students will be met. The numerous hours devoted to staff development and volunteerism is an indicator of the staffs diligent and commitment to students. JO 2 \u0026gt; a Still another way to quantify the affect of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is through the impact that it has on stakeholders. Those stakeholders are the parents, children, teachers, and staff of the school. Stakeholder satisfaction is crucial to the overall success of the program. The overall impact of the charter school to stakeholders can best be summarized by the responses attained from a survey given earlier in the school year to parents, students, and staff and from the comments of parents at the end of the school year. Stakeholders developed consensus on the importance of curriculum, instruction, sUff development, and parental involvement. These items were a z r c c e p 9 0 21 26a key elements in the program and related directly to successful student outcomes. The stakeholders felt these items would provide the foundation for long-term success.  a In closing, the overall impact of the Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School is apparent not so much in the data presented but in the comment of one parent who perhaps speaks for all stakeholders. She comments, The benefits that my child received from being in the program can not be understated. He is better as a result of being at the charter school. a a \u0026gt; 2 r 5 P5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; a a Vi 3 4 fl fl n 2 ?! 2 z r c p 9 9 a a 22 27EARLY LITERACY 1 Lisa 7 i J J '3 fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206  fl TO: Board of Education fl FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Early Literacy Program Evaluations fl fl Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. ys 23 I j: ri 2  During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. z* p c p 9O Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. 1, All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data: Patricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and 28 f D Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two II II Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction\n a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement:  a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography: and  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows: Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness.\" To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81) II II n n H B n n n n H n 29I - 7 1 i Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three I The report included a detailed analysis of all available data: I I I - I The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (fve sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) 3 fl fl i \u0026gt; {fl z p 9 e p 0 0  Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement. / I 30B Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four B B At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the programs implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3. African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the growth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAUadg Attachments B B B B B B B B n nnn H 31 i: k:t It-  Ir b-' b- Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 I fl 9 2 \u0026gt;2 Ir b^ pj z r p G G G y G G I Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon Kiilsgaard 1 I 32 p I i p Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 s Section I: Introduction I I 1 d i 1 Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Educationjust discussed among staff members.  An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. 3 d 5 5 fl fl I \u0026gt; The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to provide valuable insights into how programs arc operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future. In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. P c p 9 0 An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for readiness, the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to J 1 33 I' I' (' I. I' 1 E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education n I I B B B B B n n n 34 I ' Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 I Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 7-13 7-8 8 8-13  Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Defimtion of Readiness vs. Proficiency Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21-23 23-25 V: I JC I Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 3: Grade 1,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 4: Grade 1,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 5: Grade 2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 30-42 31 31 32 33 33 35 [fl r G C\u0026gt; c p 9 9 I I I Table 6\nGrade 2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 7\nCohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 8\nCohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 9: Grades K-2,1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 10: Grades K-2,2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students Table 20: Cohort 1All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 21: Cohort 2All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 36 i- I i 3 Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 f Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development 68-71 68-70 70-71 I I Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question 1^Program Effectiveness Research Question 2Achievement Disparities Research Question 3Professional Development Research Question 4Four Literacy Models Research Question 5^Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 72-113 72-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 ( pl V! pl 9 IB2 \u0026gt; Section IX: Bibliography 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 pj z r p 0 c Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten 139-142 Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 I 37 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 163-166 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 Cohort 1^Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 1^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 183 184 185 186 187 188 Cohort 2Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2^Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black 189 190 191 192 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 193-195 196-198 199-201 ! Grade 2 ALT, ReadingAll Students Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 202 203 204 205 Appendices A. B. C. D. PrcK-3 Literacy Program Plan Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) 38 I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. I I This Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. I I The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19,2001, the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01. Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from, but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data\nit includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey\nand it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test^not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to non-black student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past years kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year beforeespecially when this past years end-of-year scores were higher than the previous classs end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on the improvement of the academic achievement of Afiican American children. 2 39 3 1 fl dX V. fl *I pzl pr c 0 ep 0 8 r* 1 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Boards Strategic Plan, and the Boards Policy IL, the following research questions were estabhshed to guide this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) Is there evidence of success in each of the four Uteracy models in useEarly Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined^the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on findings or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 3 40i I  score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. i The Districts statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. fI 5 Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level.   Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewedespecially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineoualitv. which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the programs quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each schools results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 4 41 J I fl 4 CZ! fl 2 s 2 ?5 Z e P 0 0 \u0026lt; Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writers ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section n provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section HI describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which readiness standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plans design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section V is a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS)\nthe Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)\nand the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIH that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 414 1 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan e B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report I C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 6 z 0 5 ?! *5 43 4 I \u0026gt; J r C e p o e 4II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the Districts 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed fixjm the same research base on early literacy\nthey differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.  Shared reading.  Guided reading.  Familiar reading.  Modeled writing or shared writing.  Interactive writing. I 7 441 Writing aloud. Revising and editing. Independent writing and conferencing. Phonetic skills. Classroom management. r Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. :9 3 ' Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan:  Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the Sd'' percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. I z 0 .*) z3 Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Section 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2.7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. I\u0026gt; 2 Section 2.7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. zr ec 0P 9 0 On January 21,1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: \u0026lt; With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 9 8 45 To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize designed to improve... the academic achievement of African- American students, rather than to remediate that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998)\nthe research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association\nand from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by todays adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following\nTeachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of well-intentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). I t She explains that  the cycle of failure often starts early in a childs school career and that there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4. Therefore, as the child continues to experience failure and defeat, he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 9 - 46 I' r she states that supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years (326). She concludes: sr* Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures firequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: i I7 Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. 0 I ... instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). 9 I 3 In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention of reading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). z p c c c p 0 0 In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dom, si si (1998) urge teachers, therefore, to identify the strengths of young children and use this information as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25). In these ways, schools can prevent failure. I 10 47 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01.) The second section fiom the Revised Plan (2.7.1) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of Afiican American studentsand then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the programs implementation or replacing it. Section 2.7A: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ! Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of leaming-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and growth of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements-the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 11 48 i The third section (5.2.1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations\n[ I 1 IIf Readim/Lansuaee Arts Section 5.2.1: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. b. c, d. e. g-h. i. j-k. I. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nFocus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nPromote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvideparents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, andfirst grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 12 49 7 0 3 fl 3 CZ! fl 2 2 z r p c a c p 9 9 9 Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the Districts program. A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned. A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cumculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the Districts general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $35O,(XX) was expended in the purchase of reading and other cumculum support materials during the past two years. 9 A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card. Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance fiSgOU in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000. An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001. 13 50 f 3 in. The Assessments 1 ' - -Jg h H I I i Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is siunmary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the childs preferred mode of identifying letters\nthe letters a child confuses\nand the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. 5 I ?! V. Word Test The student is tested over the most fi-equently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a childs readiness to read. (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 14 51 9 I {fl z r p c p 0 9he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The childs performance is scored by counting the childs representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skills primarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Teacher selects book Teacher introduces text Teacher reads one or two pages Child points and reads rest of story\nteacher takes running record Teacher asks print questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures\ntells what is happening 4. 5. 6. 7. Child reads story aloud\nteacher takes running record Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud Child predicts what will happen in story Child reads complete story silently in another location Child retells story Teacher asks response questions Child reads selected portion of text\nteacher takes ruruiing record 15 52r 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (Levels 28-44). 3 3 Readiness levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  KindergartenLevel 2  Grade 1Level 16\nand  Grade 2Level 24. 4e 5 The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency is a delineation of the Districts efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of readiness for success at the next grade level. I' I Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. Proficient is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are coimected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading levels of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. V! 2J 5 fl fl I\u0026gt; 2 r I The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define proficient performance. To gauge which level is equivalent to how Arkansas defines proficiency, the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade bv Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: fl z r p c e p 9 0 f I 16 53 Grade Level Kindergarten Grade I I I Grade 2 Reading Standards Children at the end of kindergarten should understand that every word in a text says something specific. They can demonstrate this competence by reading Level B books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, attending to each word in sequence and gening most of them correct. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to\nread Level 16 books that they have not seen before, but that have been previewed for them, with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (self-correction allowed). When they read aloud, we expect first graders to sound like they know what they are reading. Fluent readers may pause occasionally to wo^ out difficult passages. By the end of the year, we expect first-grade students to be able to independently read aloud from Level I books that have been previewed for them, using intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade students to be able to independently read aloud unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or bener accuracy of word recognition (selfcorrection allowed). DRA Level_______________________________________ Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or sentence panem with natural language structures. The simple illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that children can point as they read. The number of words in the texts ranges fiom ten to thirty-six._______________________ Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and setting is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty. Assessment texts 16 through 28 are stones with beginnings, middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sening is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficulty.___________________________________________ The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several sUtes and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing proficiency levels developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that On Grade Level is defined by a kindergarten students performance at levels 1,2 on the DRA\ngrade 1 is levels 16,18\nand grade 2 is levels 24,28. Above Grade Level is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten\nlevels 20-28 at grade 1\nand levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the Approaching Proficiency levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten\nlevels 10-12 at gr^e 1\nand level 24 at grade 2. 17 54 3 5^^ IS fl 1 I 4 A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the Grade Level performance on the DRA was defined level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. as The State of Ohio defined Success Indicators for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy: At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words. By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization. By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as substantially deficient. Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progresssimilar to the Districts Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2\nat grade 1 level 16\nand at grade 2 level 28. Vermont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. 7- 9 5 I Vi 9 I \u0026gt; i Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten\nlevels 16-18 at grade 1\nand levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD sUff or are very close. 18 55 pi y\nr 9 C P 9 9 \u0026lt;Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent defimtion of proficiency that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination. District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term Readiness to define the desired perfonnance. VA/MAM T\\a\u0026gt;A_^A 1_____1x* Ma When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004 then the staff can do some stotistical calculations that will enable the District set cut scores that reliably predict Proficient performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. to I 1 I I Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers ongoing observations of student progress over time withm a hterature-based reading program (p. 2). Over the next six years ere were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spnng 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers fi-om various parts of the United States and Canada participated, (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the I Iz A W M TAI Am. t* M M  . _ 1 - J ..._________ * M - * DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  deterluirung individual students instructional text reading level\n describing his/her performance as a reader\nselecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction\nand identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA. The findings were at both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct vahdity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Readmg subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that the DRA validly measures a childs ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 4 s a 19 56I-I I .\u0026lt; I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). 5 3 \u0026lt; d It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instructionfor the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Yoimg Children that was adopted in 1998: [ Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of childrens knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not rehable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (20). i Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the Districts statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. 9 3 I ?! ?! CorrelatioBal Matrix* Spring 2001 ALT Reading RTF, ALT Reading Goal RTTi, Olmrvation Survey, and DRA Scores e I\u0026gt; Goal 1: Word Meaniog Goal 2: Literal Comprebeu SMB Goal 3: Goal 4: Interpretive Evaluative Compreheo Coapreben Observation Survey: Word Test SIM sion Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary Observation Survey: Dictation DRA Reading RTF Skore Goal 1: Word Meaning Goal 2: Literal Comprehension 0.937 0.940 0.839 0.922 0.805 0.823 0.917 0.815 0.822 0.280 0.255 0.223 0.467 0.438 0.418 0.638 0.602 0.577 0.788 0.733 0.12A Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension Observation Survey: Word Test Observation Survey: Writing Vocabulary ObMrvatiM Survey: Dictation__________ 0.795 0.199 0.207 0.410 0.413 0.276 0.535 0.574 0.351 0.442 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 P c p 9 9 AU conclahons arc significant at the .05 level \u0026lt; N's range from 1577 to 1684 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 57 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has value above .50-.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are a lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures leaming- how-to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. 1 The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbachs Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a tests stability\nthat is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the DevelopmenUl Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: 1 Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test The lower correlation values of the Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are admimstered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the students performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each childs answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scoresthose most likely to be influenced by bias. Students spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then if there is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next years fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 21 58* 5 the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The steff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. I a 3  To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: 1  Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and wnting skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difhcult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teachingone approach fits allthe opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 22 59 c 3 I fl 3 cz: fl flI\u0026gt; Z j* C c p e 0 4 }| with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers\nthey measured the leaming-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers\nthey provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and sununative dau\nthey were developmentally appropriate\ntheir administration procedures met test administration standards for young children\nand their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Readmg and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The ALTs are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole fi-om year to year. With the ALTs, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each students academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the ALTs, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports carmot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the ALTs, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RTT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a childs physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 23 604 I 2. 3. I I 4. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Authors purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) Evaluative Comprehension I A. B. C. D. E. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) Identify fact and opinion Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) Distinguish text forms Identify bias, stereotypes. 1 Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: 1. Writing Process A. B. C. D. E. F. Prewriting skills Drafting and revising- Editing/proofreading Choosing appropnate format Sentence choice appropriate to purpose Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) z 93 fl W! fl 9 I \u0026gt;s 2 2. 3. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives pi r p c p 90 24 61 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring leaming-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. I 25 62I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the reports recommendations for early learners: Prekindergarten: Preschool programs ... should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are known to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. 1 Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction\nto enrich childrens vocabularies\nto encourage talk about books\nto provide practice with the sound structure of words\nto develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters\nand to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, sight recognition of fi'equent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of well- written and engaging tests at the childs own comfortable reading level. ^5 2 I pl (/) pl \u0026gt; 2 Children who have started to read independently, typically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. z r p p e a  Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge fl 26 63in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the und\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_551","title":"Program evaluations, Volume II","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":["2003-03-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluations, Volume II"],"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/551"],"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\nB s n 5C \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 5 z m I VOLUME 2 II 2 p5 z RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGfl fl Appendix G Academic Comparison Data by Area, Magnet, and Incentive Schools \u0026gt; n 5 s z m 2 fl I I I i I I 67 471 2 Z 9 s z wI d d Number of Students by Grade Level d d d d d d d d nn d d n PK Area Magnet Incentive Kindergarten Area Magnet Incentive 1 Grade Area Magnet Incentive 2* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 3'' Grade LEP 26 0 3 51 3 2 42 14 43 4 1 NAEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 FEP FEPE 6 0 3 0 0 0 14 4 5 19 2 1 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Area Magnet Incentive 4'* Grade Area Magnet Incentive 5*^ Grade Area Magnet Incentive 6'* Grade Area Magnet 7* Grade 8\"^ Grade Area Magnet Area Magnet 9 Grade Area Magnet 42 4 2 38 0 0 25 2 2 20 0 36 6 31 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5 2 2 15 7 1 17 4 1 25 5 1 25 3 17 3 22 2 10 5 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 J 0 68 472 c \u0026gt; S S\u0026gt; Pl \u0026gt; 04o z nI 2 z UI \"I. n rr F d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 10*^ Grade Area Magnet 11^ Grade [Tep Area Magnet 12^ Grade Area Magnet DRA Scores LEP - Kindergarten FEP- Kindergarten FEPE - Kindergarten NAEP- Kindergarten LEP - 1 Grade FEP -1 Grade FEPE -1TT Grade NAEP - 1 Grade LEP - 2\"^ Grade FEP - 2\" Grade FEPE - 2^ Grade I NAEP- 2'* Grade NAEP FEP FEPE 20 0 18 0 12 0 Area W 1 3 3.5 7.4 1 15.5 34.5 19.5 2 3 6 9 0 6 17 0 12 0 9 0 Spring Growth 4 9.3 3.1 56.3 13.2 19.3 6 24.2 37.5 34 0 0 1 0 0 I Magnet Fall 9 8 Spring 13.3 10.5 Growth 7 2.5 '.as\n-' 11.2 11.9 5 13 8 14.5 6 21 34 42 28 21 17.5 35.3 33 42.6 15.5 7.3 69 Incentive Fall 0 5.8 2.5 3 Spring 1 9.6 14 14 XL -O' Growth i 3.8 11 11 N 1 ff 2 \u0026gt;99 C\u0026gt; \u0026lt;m 3 5 zn \u0026gt; 2 Z C F z n cr ^13 d d SAT-9 Complete Battery: National Curve Equivalent Scores Area 1 Magnet d d d d d d II II II n n n n \u0026lt; LEP-5^ Grade FEP - 5*^ Grade FEPE-5^ Grade NAEP - 5^ Grade 1 LEP - 7^ Grade FEP-7*^ Grade FEPE - 7^ Grade\" NAEP -1'^' LEP -10*^ Grade FEP-10*^ Grade FEPE - lO^* Grade NAEP -10'^ Grade 4\" 15.7 39 \\1 l^.'i Incentive 85 d \u0026gt; CO O X \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q 5 z n I 26.3 74.3 33 30 54.8 21 49 11.5 11.5 52 if 'fSi  2 5 -2. C cz: s z ri w Grade State Benchmark Exam for current 5* Grade Students Math LEP-4*'Grade NAEP- 4* Grade FEP- 4*^ Grade Area \"IT 184 Magnet 266 Incentive TIT or FEPE-4^Grade j 180 Literacy LEP - 4*^ Grade NAEP- 4*^ Grade FEP- 4^ Grade I FEPE- 4*^ Grade Area 126 i 199 171 Magnet IST 228 -j: 200 Incentive 202 70 474d d ALT RIT Scores: Elementary Math dLEP - 2\"** Gride T?T?n -\u0026gt;ntl riJo FEP - 2 Grade 1 Area I 166 Magnet | Incentive d d d d d d d II n n n n  FEPE - 2\"^ Grade NAEP- 2\"'^ Gradl LEP - 3\"* Grade FEP - 3'^* Grade \" FEPE - 3'^Grade~~ NAEP-S'** Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE-4*^ Grade\" NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5* Grade FEP-5^ Grade FEPE - 5*^ Grade NAEP - 5* Grade 198 193 188 198 170 d M \u0026gt; s 5 \u0026gt;  5 z P5 \u0026gt; 2 185 206 211 207 195 213 211 209 189 220 221 206 212 183 210 2 \u0026gt; 229 198 224 3 220 210 222 *  ALT RIT Scores: Reading Elementary Level LEP - 2\"'* Grade FEP - 2' Grade FEPE-2'^ Grade I NAEP- 2\"^* Grid? LEP - 3 j Grade FEP - 3\"^ Grade FEPE - 3\"^Grade i NAEP - 3\"^ Grade I i LEP - 4*^ Grade I FEP - 4*^ Grade FEPE - 4* Grade~ NAEP - 4th Grade LEP-5*^ Grade FEP - 5*Grade ~ FEPE - 5*^ Grade\" NAEP - 5* Grade \u0026gt; z o {5 z n Area ~iS7~ 179 189 .ti' 171 198 205 201 184 210 203 191 Magnet Incentive 183 198 188 a 187 205 178 202 - 223 3* tn 208~ tri* 187 213 212 193 223 188 214 71 475d alt RTT Scores: Language Elementary Level Area Magnet Incentive d d d d d d d n n II n n n  n LEP - 2\"*' Grade  FEP-2\" Grade FEPE-2' Grade NAEP- 2\"** Grad^ LEP - 3^^ Grade ~ FEP - 3^Grade FEPE - 3'^Grade~ NAEP - 3'*' Grade LEP - 4* Grade FEP - 4'^ Grade FEPE -4*\" Grade NAEP - 4th Grade LEP - 5*^ Grade FEP - 5* Grade FEPE - 5^ Grade NAEP - 5*^ Grade 171 186 194 192 208 189 2 \u0026gt; S X \u0026gt;  5 2 n I 182 204 212 207 192 214 211 200 191 218 215 193 212 184 213 227 218 z O CZ5 ?5 z rj w 197 226 192 210 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Math LEP - 6* Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6* Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7*^ Grade FEPE - 7'*' Grade NAEP - 7*^ Grade LEP - S'* Grade rrn FEP - 8 Grade FEPE - 8* Grade NAEP - 8* Grade 1 Area I 199 221 223 Magnet 218 234 203 243 210 222 237 230 202 233 233 253 260 72 476d Id ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Reading Area Magnet d d Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id II II II LEP - 6^^' Grade ~ FEP-6'^ Grade FEPE - 6\"^ Grade NAEP- 6*^ Grade LEP - 7*^ Grade FEP - 7**^ Grade FEPE - 7**' Grade NAEP - 7'*' Grade LEP-8*^ Grade FEP - 8*^ Grade FEPE - 8*^ Grade NAEP - 8*** Grade 192 215 216 217 228 204 223 205 202 226 221 210 221 227 225 236 ALT RIT Scores: Middle Level Language LEP - 6*^ Grade FEP - 6* Grade FEPE - 6* Grade NAEP- 6'* Grade LEP-7*^'Grade FEP - 7*^Grade I FEPE - 7** Grade I NAEP -Grade LEP - 8* Grade FEP - 8* Grade FEPE - 8'* Grade NAEP - 8^ Grade\" Area W 219 217 207 227 214 2Q1 230 226 Magnet 226 ^30~ 218 230 227 234 239 2 \u0026gt; s \u0026gt; P3 \u0026gt; 4 5 z m 2 2 \u0026gt; 2. O r S z Pl 13 ^11M [fl ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Reading [fl [fl n M [fl [fl n [fl II n II n n  n LEP - 9* Grade  FEP - 9*** Grade FEPE - 9* Grad? NAEP-9^ Grade' I Area Magnet LEP-10^ Grade \" FEP - 10*^ Grade FEPE -10^ Grade\" NAEP -10^^ Grad'e LEP- ll^' Grade ~ FEP - 11*'Grade ~ FEPE - 11'^ Grade NAEP -11*^ Grade 201 230 222 174 225 224 208 211 213 232 205 225 S w C z \u0026gt; d  s z \u0026gt; 2 1 229 218 ALT RIT Scores: High School Level Language LEP - 9* GradT\" FEP - 9* Grade FEPE - 9* Grade NAEP-9* Grade LEP -10*^ Grade FEP - lO\"^ Grade FEPE -10* Grade NAEP -10* Grade LEP - 11\"^ Grade FEP-11* Grade FEPE-ll*^ Grade NAEP -11'^ Grade 2 5 Z c t/i W 2. Area ~2i2' 236 231 210 208 214 214 220 233 213 Magnet 211 2T1 Ssi:\n' '240 K 217 74 478ri ri Appendix H ri Achievement Data by School ri  w s \u0026gt; 5 5 z n 2 ri 2 ri H 2. C uc F 2. P5 fl fl fl n n n n n  75 479i 2 M ri Badgett I I 1 ri ri ri ri ri ri H [fl n iri n n n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 'i DRA Fall i DRA Spring? i SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language } (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) j DRA Growth i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) J:'_________ _ .u~ -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 I I i Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i ALT Language \u0026gt; ee C ?: \u0026gt; \u0026lt; Pl \u0026gt; Q 5 z -J pj \u0026gt; 2 1 I I i 1st General 1 i I _i_7 1 I t I I 3!^ 2 1 I i Ei^ 5M? 1 1 J \"  .........ibas^ hi^B\u0026lt;M*r1rr* JJtM I i :2nd LEP I I I 480 Z P5 z P5 ! Bale ! o I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring ) i I (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I DRA Growth j i Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I SAT-9 1 BencnmarK . ali Keaumy nti i-.aui  ou. L^uyuoy. i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) 1 ! I 1 I i \u0026gt; S 55 \u0026gt;  s z n I fl\nK-LEP K-NAEP [k-fep K-FEPE iK-General i .00 (2g) i 1.5 (2g) I I I I i I is^ vA-. H fl fl fl fl I Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE i 1st General ! 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP 12nd FEP , 2nd FEPE 2nd General , 3rd-LEP i3rd-NAEP prd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General i4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP ~ |4th-FEPE 14th-General 5th-LEP jSth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 6.0 (3/1)\n26.0(3/1) i 20.0(3/1) 1 ! I I I J. T ^WSO Z C CZ) 2 2. ri ff xv5i-,P=::i- ss^l!saaa*s^\u0026lt;. lAk. Ai  .*\u0026gt; -I. 1 I t I i I 1 utjR5asEfr,Bsy7?S535*\" I 2it5i, T I 176.0 (2/0) 33ST5S55g^' 165.5 (2/0)\n170.5 {2JQ} ' B !fSiSS^--'-^V 55iS! F I (0/1) y=*^V ui^Jwv.w  -i.- 1 fe 207.0(1/0) j 208.0(1/0)  214.0 (1/0) I I i ISO a2s I T I (0/1)\nS 3^-3: (0/1) (Og) ?^4 -l\u0026gt;-. I 1 (0/1) 71.0 {2J0) 1 5th-General g ____________ *N=Number of students tested S\n207.0 (1/0) 219.0(1/0)- 218.0(1/0) (1/0) I I (1/0) T (1/0) 221.0 (2A)) 231.0(2/0)\n229.0(2/0) I I 1 481Grades Baseline I DRA Fall I DRA Spring i ! SAT-9 j Benchmark ! ALT Reading\nALT Math ? ALT Language j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) 7 7 i j ( i ! 2 \u0026gt; B3 o X \u0026gt; n \u0026gt; Oz -j Pl S ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I T7I i IX i ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i (0/1) ' (0/1) i (0/1) I 1T i7 1 r SSTJ^S I ^171.0(1/0) '179.0(1/0) 1180.0 (1/0) 8^' 1. 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE 5th-General 10.0(1/0) , 20.0(1/0) 10.0 (1/0) I V52: ! +I SSs^ T I ^5 (0/1) I I I7 T TIT (0/1) (0/1) (0/1) IT T I 1 T (0/1) !l7.0 (1/0) ,  196.0 (1/0) ' 207.0 (1/0) i 208.0 (1/0) 4------------------------------------------- 1--------------------- J I N=Number of students tested 482 ri c ri ri ri Grades 1 1 j DRA Fall ! DRA Spring j Booker SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth |(N/Missing) (N/Missing i ------------ i S J ____ _ I Benchmark I ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ............ i ! .(..N.../.M.. iss in g ) 1 j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl K-1LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K:--FEPE !T K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I I .50(S/3) ! I I T T1 1.0 (1/4) i I 1 iI i7 1 I SS\nT I \u0026gt; :b C\u0026gt; m  z5 n I i 44.0(2/0) i 44.0(2/0) .00 (2/0) I 1 JI I i7 (0/1) ''-T'^T-T- ~\n..eTA'.-':^2WBflx\u0026gt;.7.14\u0026lt;.5-^ fSSSEil sass 1 ^205.0 (2/0) 198.0(2/0) 211.5(2/0) I I i 191.0 (1/0) ! 186.0 (1/0) ! 196.0 (1/6) i i I T 1 25 \u0026gt; \"I. O CZ) n 2. n [fl TT I {om 17.0 (1/0) wr~- =7r.-*  J iriT'jr-itiiA'-ajiV.x-' I 1 Lai  '3^535S^  187.0 (1/0) ' 205.0 (1/0) ' ----------------------------1 T 189.0 (1/0) N=Number of students testeo *iM**i. T I I 483 Iri c Iri S Iri r- Brady I I 1 I Iri ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring ( i Benchmark i ALT Reading ! ALT Math j ALT Language Grades ' SAj.g i s ALi Keaaing { mui  lau- , r^u. I MMisig) 1 WMi^i drag#. I Iri 1 i ri K-LEP Ic?iAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .50 (2/3) i 1.0 (V4) I. 1 I T ri i  i T _L i T ri Ist-LEP ist-N^ Ist-FEP lstFEPE~~ 1st General i 4.0 (3/1) I 9.7 (3/1) i I i i A.OjMQ) I 8.0 (1/0) ! 1 I X i T I ri ri i2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i 16.0(1/0)  28.0(1/0)\ni t I _L I ri 01 3rd-LEP ^-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i^^FEPr~ 3rd-Genera? ri ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP WvFEP 4t)vFEPr~ 4th-General H Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sfr^^FEP 5th-FEPl~ 5th-General I Q 5 z H n \u0026gt; i I I i\n5.7 (3/1) 4.0 (1/0) r.--. -t:\n ^iaS^ Ss I- J I_______-----------__ ______J_______-------------. .. .Z: I z ni- z\u0026gt; in\\ AQA O /A ICW -------------------''^-^rS7^SiS#?1sri?53LtT7^ i185.0(1/0) 184.0(1/0) 12.0 (I/O) !-------------------1------------------------ (0/4) I ! 167.3 (4/0) i 189.3(4/0)\n179.3(4/0) T 2 5 \u0026gt; z (Zi n z n n  wV r^=' (0/5) (0/1) I A\"-* i i r ^^1951W) ' 205.8 (4/1) 2^0 (4/1) i 219.0 (1/0) 209.0 (1/0) I 212.0 (1/0) I^SWBO oA qpu i*/? (0/5) I i I 36.0 (1/4) .ll C'St (0/1) (0/2) '5.0 (1/0)\n39.0 (210) Trt4^'iaR^ '*N=Number of students tested ^3.6 (5/0) 206.0(5/0)' 191.0(5/0) I V84.0 (1/0)~ 'l92-0 W 181.0 (1/0) 2^A.5 C^Q) 223.0 (2/0) 219.0 (210) 484iri ri \u0026gt; SX \u0026gt; -i ri Carver I I 1 I ri i DRA Fall i DRA Spring | 1 SAT-9 Grades I u/1'/' I o 11 I I     I i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\nDRA Growth j (N/Missing) Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I 1 I PI 5 52 n I ri ri M ri ri ri ri ri  K- :-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP (-FEPE (-General K-K-ist- LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 12nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP Sth-NAEP 5th-FEP 5th-FEPE Sth-General I 2.0 (1/0) I 4.0 (1/0) i 2.0 (1/0) I I 10.7(3/0) i 14.0(3/0) 1 3.3 (3/0) !T I I I 6.0 (1/0) I 34.0(1/0) 1 28.0 (1/0) I i i 8.0 (1/0) ! 40.0(1/0) I 32.0 (1/0) a I i i 1 i 16.0(2/0) i 32.0(2/0) T T i 18.0(1/0) ' 40.0(1/0)\ni g ! iSSl 1 193.5(2/0) '193.0(2/0) I ^\"\"  16-0 (2/0) jgagSffw 22.0 (1/0) E 184.0(1/0) !197.O(1/O) 1202.0(1/0) T i 1 2 \u0026gt; 1. ff {012) (0/2) I 1 I S'- I 1 (0/2) Ah. *- w I (0/1) 187.0(2/0) 205.5(2/0) i 193.5(2/0) 202.5 (2/0) i 213.0(2/0) I 213.5(2/0) 1 T I I 223.5 (2/0) 226.0(2/0) 228.5(2/0) T 1 79.0(1/0) - - - \u0026gt; i 227.0(1/0) 226.0(1/0) 225.0 (1/0) I 1 !N=Number of students tested 485 ri 2 ri ri Chicot 1 I I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri I ri ri ri Grades iK-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ! DRA Fall I DRA Spring j SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading ' ALT Math ! UKA rail opuuy\n: \u0026lt; /M/kj-  \\ i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n----------------------- -- ------------------------------ : \" i ' T I ! ALT Language (N/Missing) I I I 1 9.1 (11/0) i .91(11/0) ! .82(11/0) 1 I 1 i .00(1/0) 2.0 (1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I \u0026gt; co C \u0026gt; 5 sz P5 \u0026gt; 2: 1 1 1 I 1 i .33 (3/8) 4.33 (6/5)\n.50 (2/9)  I fS. I 2.5 {2JQ} I 13.0(2/0) i 10.5 (2/0) r*\nI (K ----------------------  WP*^H '^?3!W i 18 0(1/13) 12.5(11/3) i 26.0(1/13) 1 i I T W-S 25 --af^ j*.j i o *4 * ! 1 113.1(10/4)' 141.2(10/4) i 136.2.(10/4) T .00(1/1) I 182.0(1/1) i .00 (1/1) z o zn n M Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (012) (012) I I I I :yy2 i I 1 - ..^^4eiiSSiia3^SSfis i 10.0(2/0) I (0/13) 172.5(10/3) '5^ (0/1) r\u0026gt;s\" v.'-c' I 144.4 (8/2) _____________ _ 193.0(1^ 178.6 (8/2) ! 166.6 (8/2) 204.0 (1/0) ' 203.0 (1/0) 1t\n185.3(10/3) , 184.0(10/3) I 210.0(1/0)\n211.0 (1/6r~[^ 214.0 (1/0) T I I ^2?\n^3^ (015) i (0/6) 176.2(5/1)  148.0(5/1)7 180.2 (5/1) (0/2) i 18.5(2/0) 1 Q9.5(2/0) i 207.0(2/0) ' 210.5(2/0) '*N=Number of students tested i I 486 c a5 \u0026gt; I Cloverdale 1 Grades ! DRA Fall ! DRA Spring ' 1 SAT-9 I Benchmark ALT Reading\nALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) | DRA Growth j (N/Missing) { (NZk/i Missing) /M(N/M/Micisesininng\\ ) i i (N/Missing) fN(N/M/Miciscsininng^) Q5 z n 2 fl :-LEP (-NAEP K-K- 00(2/0) I 2.0 {210} ! 2.0 (2/0) K:--FEP K:--FEPE I I K-:-General I I 1 I I I I I I jtjj a?? T TS-pTt- SRlth,\n?\n,T 2S\n\u0026gt;3 - i-~ 2 \u0026gt; I I I 2. S Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP ist FEPE 1st General 2.0 (2/0) i 2.5 (.210} I j 2.5(210} i 23.0(2/0) j 1 I 1.5 (2/0) !7 19-5(2/0) i ft ______ ..... 0^- w-2. ri 2nd LEP |2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 44.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) i .00 (1/0) Jaisg^s?^ i 1 r (01^} Si: 185.0(1/0) : 183.0 (1/0) i 190.0(1/0) T I 182.8(4/0) 1 187.3(4/0) ' 192.3(4/0) - ----------- --------*------------------'I--------------------- *.9^' T 1 (0/1) ga^S^ ilW sis *llM'V^'yS\u0026lt;.3K^75.2,T n-r i 196.0(1/0) : 201.0 (1/0) : 198.0(1/0) I I T (0/1) 113.0(1/0) r^- '.*i (0/1) i71.0(1/0) i*N=Number of students tested T I ! t 197.0(1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) ! T I 206.0 (1/0) 215.0(1/0) i 215.0(1/0)\n213.0(1/0) T I I 487 fl c fl ec \u0026gt;S fl Dodd I 1 1 I I 1 fl Grades i Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language i ---- \\ 1 Zkl/u\n,.-\n.,.,! ! rW/Miccinnl j (N/MISSing) ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring! I SAT-9 j | al i matn , ' (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing)\nf ___! ____ I ____ n 5 5 z -i Pl 2 1 fl fl fl fl fl fl fl n fl fl H K-:-LEP K-NAEP K-lFEP K-:-FEPE K-^-General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-l-EP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I I IT I I i I 8S I T 1 1\n18.0(1/0)\n30.0(1/0) ! 12.0 (1/0) 1 I I !  I i 1 I I I (0/1) 1 T I I '*N=Number of students tested I ml. I ri-riK-Trt i I I 2 z 5/5 -z rr r i I I t I TI I _____________ ____________ 170.0(1/0) 1 172.0(1/0)! 172.0(1/0) ------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------- isfeTSF': 1 1 I I T I t i T ! T I 1 I I I 488 Il  rt s s IM - Fair Park I 1 I I ! i Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i (N/Misstng) 1 (N/Missing) j DRA Growth Benchmark j ALT Reading , ALT Math j ALT Language i fN/Missina^! (N/Missinq) m  z5 m I Ifl 1 Ifl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General 1 i n II ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ilst-FEP [IFfe^ 1st Genera? ! i I Ifl Ifl 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE ^nd General Ifl Ifl |3rd-LEP ^-NAEP~ [^-FEP~ ,3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ------- n Ifl l4th-LEP |4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE MtivGen^ H Sth-LEP IStMiAEP 5th-FEP \" Sth-FEPE Sth-General i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I j 20.0 (1/0) i 40.0 (1/0) ! 20.0 (1/0) I I I 1 I i T i I i SAT-9 I 199.0 (1/0) T 1. T I 'N=Number of students tested T i I 1 25 z CZ5 z trri 183.0(1/0) 183.0(1/0) ! 489 o d \u0026gt; \u0026gt; d I Forest Park i I ! I n d Grades DRA Fall DRA Spring i DRA Growth  SAT-9 Benchmark\nALT Reading j AALLTT MMaathth , (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j ALT Language (N/Missing) d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-reP^ _ K-General I I .1 i I I 1 I i ) I i t I T 1.,.___ X.. -,4 zO m 2 d d J.st-LEP Ist-NAEP Tst-FEP \" ]^f^pe2 1st General I 1 I i 1 I d d 2ndLP _ 2nd NAEP _ M F^P \" ZndFE^E _ 2nd General 20.0(1/0) i 40.0(1/0) 120.0(1/0) I I 20.0 (1/0) I 44.0 (1/0) 124.0 (1/0) I I I II II 3r^LEP ^d-NAEP 3rd-FEP ^rd-FE^ 3rd-General  i II Il 4th\u0026lt;EP 4th-NAEP ^-FEP 4th-FEE 4th-General 5, .K. 4 -9^ e II II Sm-LEP Sth-NAEP ^-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General II fr fejCL? - , J=- r^t-.rf - . - I -r^ - JT  Si* * e '* \u0026gt; H 1 L -J 1 5 \u0026gt;*3 aft \" 4 - I ' te-sX'- '\"7 ~ - 7\"- z  i 'CTAtT 4^A7i 1. CZ) zn n 1 \u0026gt; -'* tt.1^ 1 sT\n7 198.0(1/0) ' 199.0 (1/0)7 205.0 (1/0) i -fi, ler I I 214.0(1/0)\n203.0 (1/0) 223.0 (1/0) I i is\"- BOI I I I I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I 1 I S^5VT 1 89.5 (2/0) !*N=Number of students tested '*6. A-it I 177.0 Q/O) i 209 0 (1^0) 179.0 (1/0) 224.0 (1/0) 722Z0(1/0)  223.0 (VQ) 224.U(1 ' : 227.5(210} ' 238.5 (210} 227.5 (2/0) !T I I 490 d d \u0026gt; CB d Franklin m T 1 I d Grades HR A Fall j DDRRAA SSoprriinnqg j 1 bSAATi-y9 DBeennccnhimiidainrk. i ! nAuLiT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i DRA Growth i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) 5z w d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I .00(1/0) .00 (1/0) i .00 (1/0) Ij 3.0 (1/0) 7.0 (1/0) i 4.0 (1/0) I i I 1 i I 1 d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP Ist FEPE 1st General f~3.0(1/0)\n26.0(1/0) j 23.0(1/0) T I 1. I I aWwSK, 5^- z d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d d 5th-LEP i5th-NAEr~ StivFEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General i _t_ I i !7 I T 1 I i }T I i (0/1) i\u0026gt;r' I I I I I ! i I 1 .^ I ! I Bs 202.0 (1/0) I 210.0(1/0) I 213.0(1/0) 1 1T I I I 5? 1 1 i 'i-. N=Number of students tested 204.0 (1/0) 220.0(1/0) i 214.0(1/0) I t I t I I d 491 d c d B9 Cse \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d t Fulbright I ____ I n Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ' DRA Fall i DRA Spring 1 i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I TI (0/1) ! (0/1) 1 I ! 3.0 (1/0) I 12.0(1/0) I ! I (0/1) 9.0 (1/0) I 1 i : 5.0 (1/0) 38.0(1/0) ! 33.0 (1/0) i !  IT i 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading i ALT Math I ALT Language (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) SAT9 I I I I 44.0(2/0)\n44.0(2/0) I .00 [210) I i I T I (0/1) zO -i m\u0026gt; 2 Sth-LEP Sth-NAE^ 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General (0/3) .  * i 190.0(2/0) : 194.5(2/0) 197.5(2/0) II (0/1) (0/1) I.-wsix': i 2 \u0026gt; 2. 9 (/: n n [012} ' 70.0(1/0) (0/1) N=Nuinber of students tested I I T g 223.0(1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I i i ! i 228.0 (1/0) 221.0 (1/0) ' 221.0(1/0)  223.0 (1/0) i I t it' I ,r_ 196.0(1/2) . 214.0(1/2) I 197.0(1/2) I I 222.0(1/0) ' 215.0(1/0) i 229.0(1/0) 207.0(1/0) : 218.0(1/0) : 208.0 (1/0) 1 492 d 2 ri 05 ri Geyer Springs 1 I ri Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring i i SAT-9 j Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) I 1 d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I I 1 ! T i t ri 11 ri ri ri ri ri ri ri M I I Q 5 z m 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP i5th-NAEF^ Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General\n1.5(270) i 8.5(270) , 7.0 (270) I I i T I i T 1 I KS? 2 ii TltT- 20.0 (1/1) i 40.0 (1/1)\n20.0 (1/1) g ! ! fi .3\nX I T S-iSss I 184.0 (2/0) 185.5(270) ] 189.0 (2/0) ! i /\n175.0(1/0) i 183.0(1/0) ! 188.0 (1/0) HUr.iu\n*'\"-!-.-  ' -'w^T-v.- ' ' SiiTS3S\u0026amp;seK-^^-\u0026amp;Sss=iis5s\nEiffi\u0026amp;?Ss5K3rXj=?^2S^^ -------- i3. I I 3^ 'Sii\n3K Ki'.t \" ______ * \u0026lt; \u0026gt; r ..... . -. t... -\n5p~ i 4. i T I 4- J___ I I -A** M' ,rT.f P *N=Number of students tested I } I I 493 z c V3 zd c ri a C ? ri Gibbs P3 1 j I ri Grades\nDRA Fall I DRA Spring  SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language DRA Fall I DRAbpnng i i Dcmjuuaiis  .xs,...3 ,    == =\u0026gt; i fN/Missing)i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) S (N/Missing) I I I ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General (0/1) j 8.0 (1/0) I (0/1) T ! J. I I Q 5 z -J pl 2 .. ri ri Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General i I ri n 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General\n19.0(2/0) M DI |3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ri ri 4th-LEP ?th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE 5th-General I i i I I 1 I I I T I fia 5 T 1 z 9 If. I Pl Z Pl I 34.0(2/0) i 184.5(2/0) 183.0(2/0) i 191.0(2/0) 1-------------------i I i T I I K'. I T rX-  I I -r I (0/1) a. 203 0 (VO) ! 213.0(1/0) ! 217.0(1/0) ^ -.2Trt*,\ni\u0026lt;SSfe\u0026lt;5ii 1 1 i I T 'i'jS-i\u0026amp;i -3^. *T-5r^)55W7=^*T?.jrsr __________ aWTA iiv C.' .H?5*''!9'  ' (0/1) .-sr t T 3^ i 17.0(1/0) SSfe! I Z' 199.0(1/0) ' 190.0(1/0) i 205.0(1/0) '.y BV.' I 1 *N=Number of students tested I i I 494d d d  Jefferson ! 1 \u0026gt; S X H \u0026lt;w d d d d d d d d d d d ( Grades K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ,lSt-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP [2nd NAEP 12nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP [srd-NAEP [srd-FEP |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General [4th-LEP [ahi-naep [Ath-FEP ~ lAth-FEPE I4th-General Sth-LEP [ Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP I Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT J___________ i-----------------------i-------------------------------------------------------------- r i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring i i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j DRA Growth | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I i i I I IT i 1 nH Sz \u0026gt;m 2 III 1 T i t T t i7 I I 5.^ ? w\\* *5, Sf\" S'-? 2 \u0026gt; -} ITT I I i 1 I 1 1 -I. Sr ^5 S5W cSg^^'A * S' 75 ^^^1=2\n! i i T i*4'S S^ \"^1 TI 5^ irtK ffriiwlfyiri I + 1 !T nz w 'iij g^j\u0026amp;fis I ! i I I i^- i I I W* ! I U^J i*N=Number of students tested I I I I 1 495 d d \u0026gt; S  d M. L, King ! I i ri d Grades ! DRA Fall i DRA Spring j ! SAT-9 j Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)! DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 d d d d d nd d d d d K-K- :-LEP :-NAEP . 1 I 1 K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I 1 1.0 (2/0) ! 10.0(2/0) i 9.0 (2/0) I ! I ^5.5(2J0) \\ 28.0(2/0) i 12.5(2/0) I I I I I (0/1) I t I 55.0(1/0) IT I 1 (0/1) I'KWW! ^^5 i I I 5 zB \u0026gt; 2 \"r-., A xi'^  2 \u0026gt; H M 1 I 1 I .1 6iC^j'E*:2xt'r^  I g iSz^ ^s?5s .^AoiX-fct'n* \"A., e it:i WuT. 175.0(1/0) j 176.0(1/0) 182.0(1/0) T 1 *j\u0026gt; la I g \u0026lt;fraqtq^By4. I I (0/1 ^3t5fLruftSt I 205.0 (1/0)  212.0 (1/0) }N=Numbe^ of students tested -^2fS' SSfe T7 T I T 1 i I I t ! I 217.0 (1/0) 496 7!. C cz: 2 t*5 2 n CT A 2 4 d I I Mabelvale I I i i a Grades I DRA Fall i DRA Spring j i SAT-9 j Benchmark ' ALT Reading [ ALT Math [ ALT Language 1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)' DRA Growth ! (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) [ (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) SAT9 a n K-LEP [K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General I 1T I I I 1 I I I i I ! I aa Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 11st FEPE 1st General 1i i +I IT I i\" aaci*i*S8Sti nn 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP i2nd FEP 12nd FEPE 2nd General I n n 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP |3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General nn |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP |4th-FEP |4th-FEPE ~ 4tti-General Sth-LEP I Sth-NAEP } Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE I Sth-General I L 'N=Number of students tested I T T i 7 } 201.0(1/0)\n207.0(1/0)' 207.0 (1/0) X i i I I I I I TI 1 I 497 \u0026gt; S 5 \u0026lt;m 3 sz P-Ji \u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt;2 2. a cz: 2 pj 2 d d 2 w S d d d d d d d d d d d n K-Grades :-LEP K-:-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE K-K-K-:- General Ist-LEP ISt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General I McDermott I i 1 r^^^T^^DRASDringl 1 SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading ALT Math i Language '\n(N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing)\n: ' ________!_______ _ . ..I |,JI-.IIII I DRA Fall j 1.0 (4/0) ,4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Spring j I 9.8 (4/0) 1 8.8 (4/0) I I .00(1/0) i 4.0 {MO) i 4.0 (1/0) I SAT-9 mu 1 1 I i I t 9.0 {210) 33.0 (2/0) i 24.0(2/0) I I I I I IT i 7 T I '*^SS'iS?S^fr'  i : 7.5 (2/0) j 24.0 (2/0) i 16.5 (2/0) | I 73 : 24.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) 1 20.0(1/0) | I 10.0(2/0) 26.0(2/0) ! 16.0(2/0) | I 1 1 I 5555*?^^ I L '*1 g 175.5(2/0), 179.5(2/0)1 181.0(2/0) T ! 204.0 {MO) I 213.0 {VO) j 213.0 (1/0) g 185.5 (2A))i 187.0(2/0) ! 190.5(2/0) 5\n! i 1 t (0/2) ( 171.0 {210)  177.5 {2J0) i 172.5 (2/0) (0/3)  (0/2) (0/2) ^iF- 198.5 (2/1) i 204.0(2/1) 1 204.5(2/1) I i-7ah.TLi, 188.5(2/0)1 191.0(2/0) * 194.5(2/0? 1 205.0(2/0)'' 216.0(2/0) 216.0(2/0) Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 (0/1) 1 '\n16.0 (1/0) '*N=Nuniber of students tested  ^4' i'-ir t t 202.0 (1/0) 1 203.0 (1/0) i 195.0 (1/0) I T I I T I I7 498 m \u0026gt; 3 5 z H Pl \u0026gt; 2 2 2 sz ri iri d Meadowcliff d Grades d d K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General d d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General d d 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General d d 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General d d 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General d ce S\u0026gt; n 5z n ! i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1----------------\n-------------------------------- ! DRA Fall\nDRA Spring i I SAT-9 i Benchmark ! ALT Reading J ALT Math i ALT Language ! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ii 1 1 I I 1 1 SAT-9 .J.. K.g.\u0026gt;yy?gi=tnEr*j^^gEgx?*gy\n-v-.f3\n^^-\u0026gt;.- te i .i' I i I IT te?s ! I 1 i i e^^.SX-''T -A\" a Jt****^^.^*^'*^^ . \u0026gt; -H I I i T T  V ?*\u0026gt;. - 2.0 (1/0)\n10.0(1/0)\n8.0 (1/0) Sg 4B^ss. eS3^::-vA^t-\niBiA.er*^ss I I I 170.0(1/0) i 174.0(1/0)1 162.0(1/0) I I I w (0/1) 3^ I 1 L (0/1) (0/1) a-' ' i I g 177.0(1/0) 173.0(1/0) T i T I 187.0 (1/0) I T T i 7^. C C2Z5 n 7 !P*I^ ,5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 1 .kvCsCV\n' 188.0 (1/0) 197.0(1/0) 198.0(1/0) I i*N=Number of students tested I I 499 d d \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; -i d d d d d d d d d d d d d I Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General ! DRA Fall DRA Spring ! 1 (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | DRA Growth I 7 i 1 I i I T i i T Mitchell B \u0026gt; I I SAT-9 i Benchmark ALT Reading J ALT Math ' ALT Language (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i M I I 7 TI J_ I I 7 i 4. T T I i ! I I I 1 I I ?gS T O z n \u0026gt; 2 Z 9 (Z5 B Z n B 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 '*N=Number of students tested i I T + i I I I I I T i! I + I T I IT I 500 II c n II Otter Creek i I Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring I .1 .......... . X SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math : ALT Language j (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) \"i i 1 !___ 1 n n II II n I I n n n n  K- :-LEP K-NAEP 1 I 1 ?2 - K- :-FEP K-FEPE K-General ISt-LEP Ist-NAEP , Ist-FEP 15t FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FP 4th-FEPE 4th-General |5th-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1.5 (2/0) ! ^.5(2J0) I .00(2/0) I I T I T \u0026gt;5 I T ! I I I I I ! T i I i 1 I (0/1) (0/1) (0/2) I I g I I I I (0/1) I I t ^4^ (0/1)  32.0 {-ilO) I X I t N=Number of students test^ T a m \u0026gt; q 5 2 n I * \u0026gt; z 8 Vi (St z I 1 I t 195.0(1/0) M95^(1/0)\n203.0(1/0) I 207.0 (1/0) i 215.0 (1/0) i 205.0 (1/0) I I T 186.5(2/0) ! 191.0 (2^r 190.5 (2/0) i 214.0 (1/0) I 203.0 (1/0) i 207.0 (1/0) I ! T T t I T I 206.0(1/0) 212.0(1/0)\n208.0(1/0) I I 501o IM IM Pulaski Heights I I ( IM Grades DRA Fall i DRA Spring j I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j I SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math  ALT Language DRA Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) a c\u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q sz I I IM IM IM IM n I [M IM n I n Ml K-\n-LEP K-K- :-NAEP :-FEP :-FEPE :-General K-K- ! i i 1 I -W I P5 I i I 1 i Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i I 1 I 193.5(2/0) I 204.5(2/0) : 201.0(2/0) 19.0(2/0) j 30.0(1/1) 10.0(1/1) T I I 7 \u0026amp; i i i 1I , 1 fl . xr, I I (0/1) 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt;2. J!. Pl 3 I 221.0(1/0) '220.0(1/0)' 215.0(1/0) 7^^_______________________:----------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------- ! I 1 (0/1)\n77.0(1/0) - 'N=Number of students tested T T I TT T I i + 224.0 (1/0) I 223.0 (1/0) 221.Q (VQ) I r 502 d 2 d d [ Rightsell I I t d Grades I DRA Fall ! DRA Spring i ' /MZMiccina'i (N/Missing)  DRA Growth I DRA rSil UKMOpnny ' (N/Missing)} (N/Missing) SAT-9 Benchmark i ALT Reading , ALT Math ALT language i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) d d K-LEP I K-NAEP I K-FEP ~ K-FEPE K-Generai I 17 I I T I I 1 I i i SSt?ov)^n I I I I 9\u0026gt;3 S n n Sz n2 \u0026gt;*v zSSs^ !nSM\u0026gt;5u\u0026gt;5\u0026lt;-'?r--^*55! vT d Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FE^ 1st General iT 1 3\n* 2. O CZ5 I 1 t d fl  _l_ I I t KW ?!r^ P5 i't. z 1 t 1 I )) |4th-LEP [4th-NAEP 4ttvFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP 5th.-NAEP ~ SttvFEP 5tivFEPr~ Sth-General 3rd-LEP [^-NAEP ,3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE l3rd-General ,2nd LEP Iznd NAEP' jindFEP ,2nd FEPE 2nd General 'i 1 i 2^*\" 'Wi N=Number of students tested .L Is\n/\u0026gt;- 1 j i1 T i I 1 T I 1 I T i i T T ! 503  ri (J  ri \u0026gt; CD c 3S ri Rockefeller n \u0026gt; I i ri\nDRA Fall ! DRA Spring i I 7 SAT-9 4 Grades I UtSrt rail\nII ly j j -. .. -\nI (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i. DRA Growth\n(N/Missing)\n! Benchmark ! ALT Reading i ALT Math ALT Language i (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I 1 I I ri ri ri fl K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General I ,00(1/0) I 2.0 (1/0) I I 8.3 (3/0) ! 13.7(3/0) I I i 1 I 1 2.0 (1/0) 5.3 (3/0) I Oz n \u0026gt; 2 , 3.0 (1/0) i 14.0(1/0) ! 11.0(1/0) I i7 X i I i I (0/1) i T i I t I + I I I g 188.0(1/0) 1170.0(1/0)\n189.0(1/0) fS 2^4 fife (0/1) 1 (0/1) T I I T ________I i i T 2 \u0026gt; z CZ5 z i I I 1 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 504 Iri {J Iri 5 S\u0026gt; Iri Romine I Iri Iri Iri Iri iri Iri iri Iri 01 M Mn Grades i DRA Fall i DRA Spring j j SAT-9 ' (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)' DRA Growth j (N/Missing) T-------------------1 K:--LEP K-NAEP K-:-FEP I .00(5/1) ! 1.80(5/1) 1 1.8 (5/1) I 1 K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP ~ 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4tivFEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I I t IT I , 23.0(210} I 15.0(2/0)  1.0 (1/0) : 6.0 (1/0) i 5.0 (1/0) I 22.3 (6/0) } T 1 I 1 DdlUHIIiail^ 1 nui 5 , (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) go Benchmark i ALT Reading i ALT Math\nALT Language I 179.5(6/0) i 179.5(6/0)\n187.7(6/0) 34.0 (6/0) i 11.7(6/0) T 44.0(1/0) 44.0(1/0) ! .00 (1/0) I I I 1 I T B 175.0(1/0) ! 190 0 (VO) i 183.0(1/0) i i ! I 181.0 (4/Oy ' 189.5 (AIO) ' ---------- i r 190.5(4/0) T I I I 1 50/^5 I I I I 190.0(4/0) i 203.8 (4/0) 193.8 (4/0) 13.0 (3/1) g75.0 (MQ} _______ ____ i*N=Number of students tested t T ! T X i 'tnj 197.0 (4/0) 198.0(4/0)^ 224.0 (1/0) 224.0(1/0) i I T i 199.5(4/0) 223.0 (1/0) 505 \u0026gt; sz m S \u0026gt; z 9 (/! tzn nw ri ri ri Stephens i 1 I i I I I 1 I 7 ri Grades Benchmark 1 ALT Reading i ALT Math ! Language /II \\ I { /Kl/Miccinn\\ ' rN/Miccinn i DRA Fall I DRA Spring i SAT-9 Benchmark ALT Reading 1 ALT Math i Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! ! _____1_____________1________ 9 s d n \u0026gt; q 5 z W 2 ri ri |K-LEP I K-NAEP |k-fep iK-FEPE I 1 I T ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl ! 1.0 (1/0) I .00(1/0) [(-1.0) (VO) 1 ! K-General\nIst-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP 1st FEPE I I i 2.33(3/0)\n10.0(3/0) ! I i:j (3/0) 1 1 1st General * I T i2nd LEP 1 -U I 2^^ 2 \u0026gt; z F5 z n ,2nd NAEP |2nd FEP I 2nd FEPE 2nd Generali i3rd-LEP Isrd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE i I I I I 1 I + i i 7 3rd-Gener3l 4th-LEP 1 1 (0/2) 177.5 (2/0) I 183.0 (2/0) j 183.5 (2/0) I i i i T i ^-NAEP ------------------------- |4th-FEP fe-FEPE + t T feh-General^^^ i stL + 1 -k 1 1 I + ,5th-LEP [sth-NAEP' 5th-FEP  I I kL {om I 8.5 (2/0) \u0026gt; ,5th-FEPE (0/1) I (0/1) ^E^^^n87.5 (2/0) i 209.5 (2/0) 192.0 (2/0) '^^SB'^4.0 (1/0)\n222.0 (1/0)1 210.0(1/0) 'few |N=Number of students tested I 506ri ri \u0026gt; CD o X ri Terry PJ I I 1 I ri ri ri ri ri  fl fl fl fl fl H Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-Generai Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General\nDRA Fall '\nDRA Spring j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th^P ~ 4th-FEPE 4th-General 1 i ! 3.2 (6/0) I 7-8 (6/0) I 1 SAT-9 ii BBeenncchhmmaarrkk iS AALLTT RReeaaddiinngg Ii AaLlTi nMaamth ,\nAaLlTi LLaanngguuaaggee DRA Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) i (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) I I 4.5 (610) I fJ i 9.0(270)\n24.0(270) j 15.0(2/0) 85?^ I I i 2.0 (2/2) 14.0 (2Z2) i ^2.Q (212) I 1 i 20.0(170)\n40.0(1/0) I 20.0(1/0) g I I I  19.2(5/3) ' 33.0(8/0) i 18.8(5/3) 1 1 I I ..........\"  K! ir:^-'.a!X-^3QR2s\u0026lt; ss .au^.**'SW 1 I I K 148.1 (8/0) i 139.3(8/0) j 180.3 (8/0) I 207.0(1/0) 222.0(1/0)\n209.0 (1/0) o H 5 2 P5 2 2 z o pi z ri 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP ^FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General 38.0(1/0) ! 44.0(1/0) ! I I i i 6.0 (1/0) T fl I* ie' 54.3 (31^) 1^___________ ! i 167.5(2/1) i 177.0(2/1) j 175.0(2/1) T 204.5 (2/0) i 208.0 (2/0) ! 209.5 (2/0) ^^g^bi^(2/0) ' T 206.0(2/0) 210.5(2/0) 191.0(2/0) 209.0(2/0)\n200.0(2/0) 2i7?7(3/0) 221.0(3/0)- 223.0(3/0) 199.0(1/0) 202.0(1/0)1 201.0(1/0) 216.3 (410) ' 219.5(4/0) f 217.8 (4/0) ! I !*N=Number of students tested 507 ri  .c ri c ri Wakefield ! i ri Grades I i DRA Fall i DRA Spring i SAT-9 j (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i DRA Growth (N/Missing) i Benchmark ALT Reading j ALT Math\nALT Language (N/Missing) (N/Missin_g)/ j M(N/Missin' g) ^1 N/M(Ni/cMciinsnsiing) 5 5 zn ri K-LEP K-NAEP I TI I .00(4/1) ! 1.0 (4/1) I 1.0 (4/1) 1 I I i  K-FEP K-FEPE K-:-General I i I I 1 I I 1 I I ri ri ISt-LEP I Ist-NAEP ~ Ist-FEP TstFEPT^\" 1st General I .00 (1/1) i 6.0 (2/0) ' i .50 (2/0) ' 3.5 (2/0) i 1 I I I 4.0 (1/1) 3.0 (2/0) T Bilifesill ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP IndVEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP ri 3rd-FEPE 3 rd-General ri 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP i4th-FEP I \u0026gt;2 -J M 4th-Fi i44tthh--FFEi PE 4th-General ri Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-GeneraT z9 75 T T It 4.8 (4/0) ! 18.0(4/0) i 13.3(4/0)  182.2(5/0) 202.0 (1/0) 1 ? 71.0 (1/0) 1^ z ri PI 167.8 (4/0) I 179.5 (4/0) I }75.3(^IQ) T I I 1 I t I 188.4 (5/0) i 189.6(5/0) I + 176.7 (3/0) ! 185.3(3/0) + I T 182.3 (3/0) 206.0 (1/0)1 205.0(1/0) T I i T 222.0 (1/0) 234.0 (VO) j 226.0 (1/0) '*N=Number of students tested I I 508 ri ri (.  S 3\u0026gt;5 ri r I Washington 1 1 I 1 n ri I Benchmark i ALT Reading 1 ALT Math j ALT Language Grades I I I K-LEP i 2.8 (4/1) ' ^2.22 {212) \\ 10.7(3/2) ri K-NAEP _ K-FEP K-FEPE iGGen^ I I I 8.2 (s/oTT^s^o^ I I H ri ist-LEP Ist-NAEP ISt-FEP ,15t FEPE 1st General i .00(2/5) 1 6.9 (7/1) I 6.0 (2/5 i 6.0 (2/5) i 19.4(7/1) i 12.6(7/1) i 171.1 (8/0) I ^rw?(8rarnzii(?^ -------- ---------------- .w I I ri ri 2nd LEP 12nd NAEP ijnd?^ 2nd FEPE 12nd General I 19.4(8/0) j 8.4 (8/0) 1 195.0 (6/0) I 200.3(6/0) ! 201.0(6/0) ri ri ri ri ri 32.8(5/1) 40.8 (5/1) ! 8.0 (5/1) i3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 13rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP |4th-FEP i_4th-FEPE i4th-General Sth-LEP [Sth-NAEP SUvFEP Sth^FEPE^ Isth-Gen^ I 180.0 {21^) I 77RT(4^r? 190.5 ('^^0) T 186.5 (4/0) 190.0 (6/0) i 205.5(6/0) I 200.5 (6/0) 212.0 (2/0) ! 217.0(2/0) ' 220.0 (2/0) I 1\n192.3(3/0) 2Q7.Q{3IO)\n204.0(6/0) \"tiP --- I 197.7 (3/0) 208.8 (6/0) 1 207.5 (6/0) 1\ni98.o(2/1) 1183.5(2/1) 0(6/0)  2^7.2(610) 1 i 509 zo -Pi) \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; 2 S (/) z n Pl ri (\nC ri ri Watson I I ri Grades 1 Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math 'i ALT Language , nRA Fall ! DRA Spring I SAT-9 Benchmark j ALT Reading | ALT Math\nALl Languag I fN/Missing) i (N/Missing) j DRA Growth (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing^ 1 1 ri K-LEP 1 K-NAEP K-FEP |k-fepe K-General i I 1 1 I 4. ri ri ri ri  ri I ! i i T T 1 T I I siiWM'ws? \u0026gt; co O J5 \u0026gt; m Q 5 z Pl 2 Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP Ilst-FEP list FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP i2nd NAEP 2nd FEP |2ndFEPE 2nd General ,3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP [3rd-F~EP~ |3rd-FEPE 3rd-General (4th-LEP [4ttvN^ |4th-FEP [4th-FEPE |4th-General Sth-LEP ^h-NAEP ~ feth-FEP ' I Sth-FEPE^ Sth-GeneraT 1 I 1 I I I T I I 1 I i I I I i I I I feifc i:RS5RWiT!AaM. IS \u0026gt; e4\n^Ssssiis5S: z 9 z ri I I t t 1 ^^E\n2S3iBS\u0026gt;a\u0026amp;2^Sdise\u0026lt;M^J 1 I I T i i I -t- I 1 I I T T I ry3: I t\n197.0(1/0) 204.0 (1/0) i 200.0 (1/0) I I ! T I j 's___________________t. 181.0(1/0) 195.0(1/0) 195.0 (1/0) .asi, V I L s' A t- I T I + I N=Nuniber of students tested I i 510ri o ri a C ?3 \u0026gt; -j ri Western Hills I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades , K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP ilSt-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General i DRA Fall I DRA Spring SAT-9 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) DRA Growth (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 Benchmark ! AU Reading i ALT Math j ALT Language ....... . X i __ ' \u0026lt;KI/KXlee\nnn^ ' \u0026lt;M/Mieeirtn\\ I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) m \u0026gt; 9 5z \u0026gt; I Sth-LEP Sth-NAEP Sth-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General I 1 1 I I X i I I 1 ! r I f u 9KS-I t T L l*N=Number of students tested 1  25 .???* iI I I 1 T t T T I i T -r T I -z m z ri Pl 1 1. i T T! I i T 1 1 1 i I ! 511 [ o ri a C 3C \u0026gt; ri Williams I 4. I I I ri ri ri ri ri fl fl fl fl fl n fl Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE K-General Ist-LEP Ist-NAEP I Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2nd FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3rd-FEPE 3rd-General |4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4th-FEP 4th-FEPE 4th-General 5th-LEP 5th-NAEP 5th-FEP Sth-FEPE Sth-General i nRA Fall 1 DRA Spring 1 i SAT-9 i Benchmark j ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) i DRA Growth ! (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) | (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I I I I  I ___ I... ....... .Jin*........................ ................. 3 z5 \u0026gt; 2 1 16.0(1/0) ! 28.0(1/0) I i .00(1/0) I .00(1/0) I I i 1 I 34.0(1/0) i 44.0(1/0) I I i I I 1 I i 12.0 (1/0) .00 [VO} 10.0 (1/0) !W I WJ I T j I7 i $ 'N=Nuniber of students tested i 73.8(4/0) g T I I i \u0026gt;2 -I I z 75 2 S 2. ri I 4- I i 211.7 (3/0) ! 218.7(3/0) I 214.3(3/0) IT 221.5 (2/0) i 232.0 (2/0) I I IT ll 227.0 (2/0) t 222.0 (4/0) i 223.8 (4/0) I 225.8 (4/0) I I 512 ri (\ns ri ri r Wilson ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri n ri ri Grades K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEPE K- (-General ist-LEP I Ist-NAEP Ist-FEP 1st FEPE 1st General 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP Ind FEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General i i3rd-LEP 3rd- NAEP i DRA Fall '1 DRA Spring I SAT-9 I Benchmark I ALT Reading j ALT Math i ALT Language 'i (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) DRA Growth I (N/Missing), j fN/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) I ' ^.5(210) 1 .50(270) 1 I i i 7 i 1 1 u'a I T I 1 i T 1 I I T T i 24.0(1/1) ! 19.0(2/0) ! 10.0(1/1) y ! 40.0(1/0) i AA.QjMO) S 4.0 (1/0) 3 i 1 3rd-FEP 3?d^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP 4th-NAEP 4fr^FEP 4th-FEPE~ 4th-General Sth-LEP SttvNAEP Sth'^FEP 5th-FEPE~ Sth-General rz- 2i 1 5 9 o \u0026gt; \u0026lt; PI q 5 z -i pn 2 Tir I t^fs\"..... 2 5 % \"V C ij\u0026gt;w.rr-: \"3 * i*- \u0026gt; z e (fi T. n fl Si\nii*** 1 1 2^5Scs^^, 157.0 (2/0) ! 177.0 (2/0) 167.0(2/0) I 1 R5.0 (1/0) i 189.0(1/0) 192.0 (1/0) I i 196.0(1/0) I 201.0 (1/0) 1 198.0(1/0) 1 I i sseS ' K- ^' i 39-0(1^0) *O. '. l*N=Number of students tested I X i T 219.0 (1/0) 202.0 (1/0)  223.0 {^10) ' Mk/} I I 513ri g ri 93 CX \u0026gt; ri Woodruff 1 I ri Grades 55 z P3 2 ri ri K-LEP K-NAEP K-FEP K-FEPE iGGenei^ ri ri Ist-LEP ist-NAEP IsfFEP l^EPE ~ 1st General ri ri 2nd LEP 2nd NAEP 2ndFEP 2nd FEPE 2nd General ri fl 3rd-LEP 3rd-NAEP 3rd-FEP 3i5^FEPr~ 3rd-General 4th-LEP fl 4th-NAEP fl 4tti-FEP 4th^FEPE~~ 4th-General fl 5th-LEP '5th-N\"AEr~ Sttv^EP 5th^FEPE~~ ^-GeneraT ! I I t t i I Benchmark ' ALT Reading  ALT Math 'j ALT Language (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i DRA Fall 1 DRA Spring ! j SAT-9 i (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)  DRA Growth i (N/Missing) 1 I T I ! 'I 514 \u0026gt; z 9 5Z5 z fl ri 2 ri ri ec 5 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; ffi n ri O z H n 2 ri Central I I t[5RKTall i DRA Spring  Grades 1 DRAI-aii uiv^opHiia I (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) | Growth I Benchmark ! 1 ! i . _____ rSCTRiSaingALT Math i ALT Language 1 1 ri ri ri fl fl |9-LEP i9~-NAEP ~ 9-FEP 19-FEPE ~ Ig-General 25 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) \u0026gt; -2. 9 JZ52 w 2 r5 |g 32.9 {\u0026amp;I0) I JaSSiSSsii: iJBL* -1 ---------------- ^'WrjV\" I (0/1) (0/4) (0/1) I ! 10-LEP lO-NAEP ~ llO-FEP [lO^FEPE 110- General 11-LEP 11-NAEP ~ 111- FE~P fe-FEPE~ fll-Gen^ 12-LEP ^iTna^ T^FEP I ^j7:5~(i/o7T256.O (2/0) ' 229.5 (2/0) !2IQ) I 256^2/0) i 230.5 (2/0) 238.6 (5/0) 1 269.4 (5/0)\n246.4 (5/0) r I I I [414} i 258.3 (4/4)\n235.5 (4/4) ? i ' (0/1) t 1 (0/1) (0/4) 1 (0/4) 12-FEPE 112-G^ral N=Number of students tested I T 7 1 T-+ T I (0/1) (0/1) IT iT I 515 ri ri Grades I DRASpnng\n3. A. Fair ! Benchmark : ALT Reading ' ALT Math I i ' (N/Missing)! (N/Missing)! (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) 2 I I ri 9-LEP 9-NAEP 9-FEP 9-FEPE 9-General I i 1 1 CSljc-Xstft'\n150.0(1/0) , 182.0(1/0) 162.0 (1/0) 09 o X \u0026gt; ri ri ri ri ri I -'-*''7.'A'sw\n'r ''^ '5\u0026lt;t\nV\u0026lt;''''- 't\nw \u0026gt; r! 5 z n 2 4.C 228.5 (2/0) 222Q(2JO) 1 125.0(2/0) | ri C-\n''TS*T 'P-iX 20.0 (4/0) i-ir 1 I I I WWW\u0026lt; \".--T:'A s'?:  iT-rsfe* JST^ 31 -s, -\u0026gt;fc, owwe.\n?' s_3 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10-FEPE___  10-General ^^)^Z2^^Yt2Si5^i2.'a.iJif/2etBS 11-LEP 11-NAEP 11-FEP 11-FEPE Il-General .4\n. 12-LEP |12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General ? *\u0026gt;\u0026lt;u: JSa:* '.'Ml' 214.3(3/1) I 162.0(3/1) ' 143.3 {Zm 1 ''J.-.. ' .-r .'..\u0026lt; ys ? I rykttitsirf- I - rW vrxxYj 1 ,a3r\u0026lt;^ A..? (0/2) (0/2) 1 (0/2) 't i .oiSV- -w'5?_'\u0026lt;7li, .\"i rTS\n*r\u0026lt; '._ S?!***^* 2 5 \u0026gt; T. 9 2 n z ri P5 1 t -JT^ S ~-rrj (0/1) -.ti- ?4%a r '5,\u0026lt;5 (0/1) (0/1) _\u0026gt; 1 j~~~~' *N=Number of students tested I 516ri Hall DRA Spring , SST-S\" Benchmark ALT Reading  ALT Math ALT Language ri Grades  1 (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) 1 (N/Missingj  ri ^\u0026lt;45* 30.0 (2/17) I 226.3 (3/0) Il-General , 11-LEP 11-NAEP Ill-FEP 11-FEPE 19-LEP |9-NAEP I9-FEP 9-FEPE l9-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 110-FEP 110-FEPE lO-General 12-LEP 1I2-NAEP 12-FEP 112-FEPE 12-General I I I (0/1) (0/12) ?. (0/6) lox I EC M ' 163.2(9/12) H85.9 (9/12) i 213 6 (9^^^^^^ \u0026gt; s OB\u0026gt;i\n?5Ea.-i.r-______ _ .,. *N=Number of students tested 22^1 ^^12) \\ 2.^2.7(212) 174.2(6/13)\n241.6(5/14)1 210.2(6/13) 252.0 (3/0) 1 227.2 {3IQ) \"f- I 9nR.4(5/11) i 198.6(5/11)1 216.4(5/11) (0/1) (0/1) 107.5 (212) I 253.5 (2/2) i 222.2 {2J2) 213.0 (1/0) ! 257.0 (1/0) j 233.3 (1/0) I I (0/12) I (01^2) i (0/6) (0/6) ri ri ! 517 P5 o z5 Pl \u0026gt; 2 'S. 2 O r P3 2. Grades\nDRA Fall i DRA Spring i i (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j DRA Growth I i McClellan i . ^,.. , 'i Benchmark i ALT Reading! ALT Math ALT Language I (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) SAT-9 ALT Math I t  \u0026gt; co C  19-LEP I9-NAEP 9-FEP 19-FEPE 9-General AXeTzV^' 0-1 A /o/n\\ SsS? I 21.0(2/0) 208.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) , P*: I I 33.0 (2/0) !WjgrSTOSSS^5^^T^ 207.0(1/0) 'jW-P3 o 5z I IQ-LEP 10-NAEP llQ-FEP ~ 10-FEPE~\" tws^ lO-General 11-LEP 11-NAEP jll-FEP 11-FEPE w**** w \u0026gt;2 O o7l) I 253.6(1/1) I 214.0(1/1) T I I S 217.5(2/0) I 246.0(2/0) i 222.5(2/0) S^-x Xj J____ g 206.0(1/0) 231.7(3/2) I i 246.0(1/0) i 250.3 (3/2) , 201.0 (1/0) 212.7 (3/2) 208.0 (Vi) 256:0(1/1) j 215.0(1/1) Il-General I J I 12-FEPE 12-General i 12-LEP 12-NAEP il2-FEP  raw L _ _ *N=Number of students tested ! giA (0/1) I (0/1) 4^,^.Ki i.JTT (0/1) i*44jvqr-. 518 \u0026gt;2 -1 s z 9 CZ5 2 w z r5 75 Grades i-LEP l-NAEP 9- 9- 9-l-FEP (-FEPE 9-(-General 10-LEP 10-NAEP 10-FEP 10- FEPE 10- General 11- LEP 11- NAEP 11- FEP 11-FEPE Il-General 12-_LE^^____ 12-NAEP 12-FEP 12-FEPE 12-General Parkview I DRA Fall  DRA Spnng , DRA  SAT-9 ] Benchmark . ALT Reading j  (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) i Growth 1 (N/Missing) (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) I ! I -f I -r^,--... ...._____ . --It T ft k-tXAM* 52^ (3/0) B?'.*- iv, I I 7ji  205.0(1/0) ^.*aS!-=\nSpW n o \u0026lt;3Sii4j 1 ALT Math (N/Missing) 239.0 (1/0) ALT Language (N/Missing) 211.0 (1/0) ? 225.0(2/0)  246.5 {210) . 225.5 {2/0) A M. ' *\u0026gt; * I ,L I i :\nX\u0026lt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; 229.5 (2/1) i 257.0(2/1) 1 240.0(1/2) '^j.-1^\n.^\n^:^\"/'\" hL j- \u0026lt;?.\u0026gt;. I i X I c^ s'ii 'ii. iSI'' .Aj' i jTT *#W^5Tr, K\", 218.0(1/8) I .00 (1/8) I 217.0(1/8) I \u0026gt;03 o?e \u0026gt; q 5z fHf \u0026gt; 2 1 I i 2 \u0026gt; -1 \u0026gt; 1. O 73 n 2 n M (0/6) (0/6) 1 (0/6) ^Sag^i^ 8\nwLA*\nN=Number of students tested 1 1 I.M^. I 519 Grades rLEP i-NAEP \u0026amp; 0- ,6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General  DRA'F^\nDRA Spring WAT ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth inj I 1 Cloverdale M.S. 5AT^ , ' Be-nc hm a r--k , A-LT Reading ALT Math\n(N/Missing) \u0026lt; (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ALT Language (N/Missing) ).\u0026lt;r I I 27 183.6 (5/8) i 195.2 (5/8) i S55  7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7- General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 5-R=-r-T SkSiT J 190.4 (5/8) 201.0(1/0) ! 204.0(1/0) i 207.0 {^10} 2 \u0026gt; 03 c X H m I *.kd5zZi\nL :vsisB^.5BSSP3^x^y=fr i\"* *Sri''s,' arKSii^fsajS\n1 I 34.8(5/11) I **^ r.k2^Z2kx:\n.i )/11 202.9 (10/6) i 215.6 (10/6) i 205.9 (10/6) -X ^^1 ft 17.0 (1/1) -------- I'll 5r \"1= *N=Number of students tested 200.0(2/0) I 212.0(2/0) j 205.5(2/0) i 199.1 (14/4) I 208.1 (14/4) j 201.5 (14/4) Sifj 'Sctd 238.0 (1/0) -Tsj'ife*.\" 'V -i :n 22?-'* I i I 520 oz PHl 2 2 \u0026gt; -2 O pz5 p Ei DRA Fall I DRA Spring | DRA Grades Dunbar SAT-9 Benchmark . ALT Reading  ALT Math ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j Growth j (N/Missing) (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) : (N/Missing) . i-i. A,k a \u0026gt;\u0026gt; ri, ALT Language  (N/Missing) 0 Ifl d d d d d d d d (\u0026gt;rLEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-13s. ---------i?ii!EaS3^ Hill3 190.8(4/1) I 195.0 (4/1) 200.3(4/1) t 220.5(6/0)\n232.2 {6IQ) 222.2 (\u0026amp;IQ} 216.0(1/0) I 223.0(1/0) I 1 1 217.0 (1/0) 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 1- FEPE 7-General ?\nf* 5a * 12 3 (3/2) 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General ... 27.0 (1/1 i ...1______I. , zi 32.7 (71Q) s^i* 201.7(3/2) I 207.3 (3/2) M 223.3 (JIQ] i 201.0 (3/2) ce X\u0026gt; m s 5z n S . X' -a. 0*-\u0026lt;T z. '2ss'.ie.uisi.Esr 27.0(1/0) \u0026gt;'.*1  Ml m o~i I  \"rc it/\"'. Jt T I 256.4(7/0)\n230.4(7/0) 209.3 (3IQ) tJ.-.T-\" 222266..66 ((1100//00))1 i 225522..22 ((1100//00\n) I 230.0 (10/0) 210 0(1/0) ! 211.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) 2 \"4 X \u0026gt; 2 9 75 2 S 2 D n MI- -raw. . , .. .. - - . *N=Number of students tested I i T 521 Dl Forest Heights M.S. Iri I 2 s Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Hi Iri Bl Grades rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General (J 2  DRA Fall ' DRA Spnng CRA\" . _S.A..T -9. -B--e--n--c-h--m---a--r-k- , ALT Re- ading, , ALT Math ALT Lang- uag- e ' (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) ! Growth 1 (N/Missing) | (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) - (N/Missing) DRA Spnng I 1 1 I ! t T--j,5b3 SJ' if S^S. T-T-y t /Af - .iJ'-! 'a\u0026amp;SLi'* t T' .-ai-. i1^kC~-.i'-'\u0026lt;^'-T-4t.:\nka/^,-^-jj(i~'ifn}ai ~ltT^ - niT*-r--^- I 216.0(2/0) i 215.5(2/0) i 212.0 (2/0) 212.8(5/0) , 218.2(5/0) ! 215.8(5/0) Ai.*\u0026gt;r! I \u0026gt; ' t4Ls:**c^ t'ii r^'Lil S\n(/( 75.5 (2!^) I 39.0(1/0) n O 5S \u0026gt; II g 209.3(3/0) i 216.7(3/0) | 212.0 (3/0) P3 \u0026gt; Q z5 n 2 rt 'gi 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General :-KSAh- r V- 1 724.^ (21Q} i 226.0(2/0) i 231.5(2/0) 205.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) i 214.0 (1/0) iS \u0026gt;.1 i-.ai . \" 5SsS\u0026gt;rJSgT.^^\u0026amp;f^/^a5^4?fe\u0026lt;-2LKT-\u0026gt; 217-0(1/1) ! 214.0(1/1) 1 215.0(1/1)  ------\" yiJJ ^^ 228 3(3/0) i 225.0(3/0)  231.3(3/0) \u0026gt;z 2 Sz (-5 221.5(2/0) I 236.0(2/0) i 228.5(2/0) ff ____ .!.. MI.M eMBSS?:a*-?Yr.'WI^MWXnmJWW('JLJW *N=Number of students tested I I I 522 I ii Ifl Ifl Ifl I Itf iri Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Ifl Efl HI  DRA Pair DRA Spring j Grades i (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) j I ! 1 Henderson 6-LEP 6-NAEP rFEP i-FEPE 6- 6- (-General 6- '-LEP 7- 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General I Ar 22^ '4= * DRA Growth s\n- .'Si'SSi ------- Benchmark , ALT Reaaing ALTMaUT j (N/Missing) ' (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) i 1 Benchmark  ALl Reading ALT Language (N/Missing) 2114(5/0) i 217.0(5/0) j 222.4 (5/0) :i ^Ts  ''is 1 I JSSaStSfr\"' -\n!^ I t c * * y:S:t^-ii7i*.?xi5uaxsc^ 199 0(6/0) 1 167.8(6/0)  205.5 ^6/02^ 7\"' e?. ..r^sa^ 65.0(410) t' ^T*fc\n,V V* iS: t .u*-^ 1.^ I ! 1 __ 22) 5(410) 1 229.5 4/0) 226.5 (410) X4e\u0026gt;*.i= ***r 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General 2 \u0026gt; n O \u0026gt; \u0026lt; P5 5 5 z m \u0026gt; 2 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 2 O 7) l 200.0(2/0) ! 204.0^(2/0) *N=Number of students tested T 219 8 (610) i 224.7 (6/0) I 226.7 (610) 230.0(1/0) i 250.0(1/0) 240.0 (1/0) '2. P5 I I I 523Bri d I u d iri m iri ni iri d d d d 6- Grades i rLEP i-NAEP 6- 6- i-FEP i-FEPE (\u0026gt; 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General Mabelvale M.S. 2 DRA Fall j DRA Spring i DRA SAT-9 i Benchmark i ALT Reading j ALT Math , ALT Language i (N/Missing) i (N/Missing) j Growth (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  '-^'rS^* -.'^ir.-. -,r*^- \u0026lt; * i-'r- 3 J '4^ 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General \u0026gt; 5 \u0026gt; i I I - *2*/^'^ Vs.v.^ * 1  T5 I i 19.0 (1/0) J I 212.3(3/0) j 206.3(3/0)  .ihBBiChi. r 4 *- I 1 213.0 (3/0) P5 \u0026gt; s z -j n \u0026gt; 2 211.0(1/0) I 212.0(1/0) I 210.0(1/0) iy'-i 221.0(1/0)1251.0(1/0)1 224.0(1/0) --r .r -s-t.fiP' ----------------------------------bm 85.0(1/0) i 4 wi * *N=Number of students tested ^S'j 1 1 I r sf - - i.2urM\u0026gt;?lu. w\nI 212-2(5/0) I 20S.6(5rt)) 1 219.0(5/0) S? feafe 1 524  \u0026gt; -J \u0026gt; 2. v\u0026gt; 2 n 2 O WMann Magnet II Grades PftA Fall------DRA S^ng , DRA 5AT^5 Benchmark ALT Reading ALT Matii ATT Language 1 (N/MissIng): (N/Missing)\nGrowth , (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing)' (N/Missing) (N/Missing) (N/Missing) ! I o id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General SS V I s? jB-1 \u0026gt; 09 c X \u0026gt; H n 229.5 {2/0} 225.7 {310} wirs.5i t (210) 234.0 {210} f irA5^c-\n,f'^x KK*t .t 11^.5 '^pO-S''- 5?. 217.3(3/0) ^218.0(3/0) n -j z5 PJ \u0026gt;2\n4.-i:v-?\u0026gt;a*'vv4y i 1 7-LEP 7-NAEP ___ , . _ _ 7-FEP J____J 7-FEPE____ 7-General ^asc:'?. \u0026lt;'..' I I I ./'** Vi \\^L- Vt. 49.0(1/0) j^a'^ 4 f^T*^-S74SSSLA \u0026gt;\u0026gt;_. n.o {2J0} f/-i y 77.3(3/0) iS ssassss ' ' e 1 \\ 210.0 (1/0) i 222.0 (1/0)  - 226.5 (2/0)\n230.0 {210} 218.0 (1/0) 227.0 (2J0} 221.3(3/0) i 236.7 (3/0)\n229.7 (3/0) ffi T- 8-LEP____ 8-NAEP__ 8-FEP 8-FEPE__ 8-General i I I 1 :b!^: I r? th' 235.8 (5/0) i 259.6 (5/0) : 239.4 (5/0) N=Number of students tested 225.0(2/0) ' 252.5 {2IQ) I 234.0 (2/0) \u0026gt;2 SH \u0026gt;z 793 Q pz5 n .'5.\ni\nI I 525 I Pulaski Heights M.S. \u0026lt;1\ni I HI M l ni nl ni M d d d d DRA Fall I I i DRA Spring i 1 DRA Grades 1 (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) ! Growth i i i ! SAT-9 1 Benchmark , ALT Reading i ALT Math , ALT Language ! (N/Missing) j (N/Missing)  (N/Missing) j (N/Missing) . (N/Missing) 1 I T 2 6-LEP 6-NAEP 6-FEP 6-FEPE 6-General 7-LEP 7-NAEP 7-FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP 8-NAEP 8-FEP 8-FEPE 8-General\n\u0026gt;T**  ~ \"i\n' r?L^ T,5J.V^.^Sf^Tai '-is I t.- i\u0026gt; *  3.^ * . - 41 0 f2/oi jr O 98.0(1/0) i s\u0026lt; \u0026gt; SB \u0026gt; H ! Hi Wsi^' 2210(4/0) I 227.0(4/0) I 221.8(4/0) ! I_______ !_______\n220.5(270) 1 215.5(2/0) I 218.0(2/0) I n n\u0026gt; z5 PHJ \u0026gt; 2 SI I **V- 240.0(1/0) I 295.0(1/0) [ 249.0(1/0) 1 2\u0026gt;'. =i I I I iliBSS cz !/l hS5? L?fr -4X^ ^idPJh-ftj^ac:X^\u0026gt;4\u0026lt;\u0026amp;a^bi r^W.- 4 250.5 (2/0) j 230.0 (2/0) PJ z PJ i2^itA.d!SJ.aur-5^ j: *N=Number of students tested II 526 irii Southwest WSp^g iri Dri [ri iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri d 01 d grades ' (N/Missing) ! (N/Missing) i6-LEP 6-NAEP 6^fEP 6-FEPE 6-General '-LEP 1'--NAEP 7--FEP 7-FEPE 7-General 8-LEP S^NAE^ mp 8^FEPr~ 8-General 3K' h* t ik ------ DRASAT-9  Benchmark~ArrReading Growth , (N/Missing)\n(N/Missing) t ( --------  ALT MatFi ALT Language (N/Missing) , (N/Missing) (N/Missing) 2 i I ( TJ aX \u0026gt; I v I I 16 0(2/1) A (J  218'0(1/0) i 223.0(1/0) .. ___  kT: 221.0 (1/0) 7 1 \u0026gt;R7SfI-IeWeo  *O, *w\u0026gt; H I r 199.3 (3/0) : aoi 3 (3/01 1 210.7 (3/0) 1 I I________ !-------------------- - .w.wi5tT^\u0026lt;Fnre5saiS((i^!^ 218 0 n/O) i 220.0 (1/0)_i 222.0(1/0) - If \u0026lt; \u0026gt;f6(\u0026gt; i. 'N=Number of students tested *_ ^i_e!47 \\-^ 1! ! 1 I 1 527 n \u0026gt; Q 25 n \u0026gt; 2\nS \u0026gt;S \u0026gt;2 0 (/I 2 S 2. fnt COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MATH AND SCIENCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Z c Vi 2 Sz fnt Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the Districts Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the \"Research Design and Methodology.\" 528 I*. I wL Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment 529 ir il t t I 2 \u0026gt;z o c/) 2 S z D w g S1'1 - J? Collaborative Action Team Process: Bringing home, school, community, and students together to improve results for children and famihes I Final Research Report ] I I I a 11 Ti T  .U.'. J M iniaiaiiinil IIII Ml IIII Ml \u0026gt;2 \u0026gt; 1. o pz5 rwi Co-Authors: Zena H. Rudo Michelle Achacoso Delia Perez Contributors: Catherine Jordan Jerry Elder Amy Averett Evangelina Orozco Program for Refining Educational Partnerships Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, TX 78701-3281 (512) 476-6861 November 2000 530 I I I i\"* r a List of Tables List of Figures Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Table of Contents Collaborative Action Team Project Background Participants in the Collaborative Action Team Project Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process Research Design and Methodology Site Characteristics Collaborative Action Team Sustainability Student Outcomes iii-iv v-vii 1 4 12 16 25 34 46 80 s. \u0026gt; 2 C V) 2 S z r) Section 9: Results in the Rural Collaborative Action Team Sites I I I 111 Section 10\nImplications and Conclusions 143 References 150-152 Appendices Appendix A. Collaborative Action Team Application Forms Memorandum of Understanding 153 154-172 173-175 i 531 IAppendix B. Start-Up Training Agenda Collaborative Action Team Training Institute Agenda Facilitator Training Agenda 176 177-178 179-182 183-185 Appendix C. CAT Meeting Checklist Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #1 Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 CAT Self-Assessment Instrument and Handbook Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Resource Guide Feedback Form 186 187-188 189 190 191-223 224-225 226-227 Appendix D. Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Cohorts Significance and Probability Values for CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Representative Groups Significance and Probability Values for RD-CAT Sustainability CAT Self-Assessment Questions Across Time 228 229-234 235-240 241-246 247-250 Appendix E. Percent Student Attendance for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Individual CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Individual CAT Sites 251 252-253 254-255 256-257 i ii 532LIST OF TABLES I Table 1. Table 2. aa I Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics Timeline I: Assessing the Implementation and Sustainability of the CAT Process Timeline 11\nAssessing the Impact of the CAT Process on Student Outcomes Total Population and Poverty in CAT Surrounding Area CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 2 CAT Sites 7- 9 31 32 35 47 - 50 81 I 82 Table 8. Percent Student Attendance for Cohort 3 CAT Sites 82 ,1 a aI I Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Percent Student Attendance for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Dropout for CAT Sites Across Cohorts Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 1 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 2 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for Cohort 3 CAT Sites Percent Student Graduation for CAT Sites Across Cohorts iii 83 88 89 89 90 95 96 96 97 533 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 55 t/i 2 S z n P5 Table 18. SAT-9 Scores Below the 25\" Percentile for Arkansas CAT Sites 101 Table 19. Percentile Rankings on CAT/5 and ITBS for Louisiana CAT Sites 102 Table 20. Percent Passing CTBS5/Terra Nova Plus for New Mexico CAT Sites 103 Table 21. Percent Scoring Satisfactory on OCCT for Oklahoma CAT Sites 105 Table 22. Percent Passing the TAAS in Texas CAT Sites 108 Table 23. Free/Reduced Lunch for RD-CAT Sites 112 Table 24. RD-CAT Members Completing the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey 117 Table 25. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Dropout 136 Table 26. Comparison of RD-CAT Site and State Student Graduation 137 Table 27. CTBS5/Terra Nova Test Scores for Mora ISD and State 138 Table 28. Percent Passing New Mexico High School Competency Exam for Mora ISD and State 139 Table 29. SAT-9 Percent Passing for Marshall School District and State 139 Table 30. SAT-9 Percentile Scores for Marshall School District and State 140 Table 31. Percent Passing OCCT for Clayton School District and State 140 iv 534 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. CAT Site Start-Up and CAT Self-Assessment Data Collection 29 Figure 2. Type of School(s) Collaborative Action Teams Serve 36 Bl Figure 3. Special School Programs in CAT Sites 37 Figure 4a \u0026amp; b Team Confidence Level for Activity Accomplishment 39 rl Figure 5. Type of School Community Challenges in CAT Sites 40 Figure 6a \u0026amp; b Existence of Community Factors in CAT Sites 42 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 X 2 S z rt pj Figure 7a. PI Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 1 Sites 43 Figure 7b. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 2 Sites 44 Figure 7c. Days Between Start-Up Training and First CAT Meeting for Cohort 3 Sites 44 Figure 8. Level of Support form School Administration for Future CAT Sustainability 58 El Figure 9. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future CAT Sustainability 58 p 4! 1 Figure 10. Level of Support from Community-at-Large for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 11. II Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future CAT Sustainability 59 Figure 12. Level of Support from Students for Future CAT Sustainability 60 . Figure 13. Future Goal Accomplishment Across Cohorts 66 V 535I tv Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Perceived Changes in CAT Recognition/Importance in the Community by Representative Groups Importance of Taking Action on Planned Goals for CAT Sustainability Annual Percent Student Attendance Across Cohorts Site, District, and State Student Attendance Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Attendance Site, District, and State Student Dropout Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Louisiana CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Dropout Site, District, and State Student Graduation Comparisons Across Cohorts Arkansas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation New Mexico CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation vi 70 72 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 90 91 92 92 93 94 97 98 98 3 i K B B B 536Section 1: Collaborative Action Team Project Background Recognizing that childrens problems are increasingly horizontal, but government is organized vertically (Kirst, 1991, p. 617), those concerned with the well-being of children and families have sought ways to overcome the compartmentalization and fragmentation characterizing traditional delivery systems. Efforts to integrate and coordinate services for children and families across multiple agencies have been promulgated since the mid-1970s, however often than not at the behest of local social service agencies (Kagan \u0026amp; I I more Pritchard, 1996). It has only been in the past decade that federal support has influenced and hastened the development of collaborative partnerships. The result has been a broad variety of approaches to collaborative work. Models, strategies, and pilot programs accompanied by an abundant literature of opinion, guidelines, theory, survey and case study research, and anecdotal experience have p' erated. The role of public education in these collaborative efforts has also varied and, in some circles, schools are deliberately avoided. For example. Heath and McLaughlin (1996) note that partnership with community organizations seldom extends to education (p. 70), because many individuals working in youth organizations find schools the most difficult partner among the many social agencies with which they have contact (p. 85). Schools, on the other hand, have attributed the lack of collaboration with community organizations to the inflexible schedules and frequent turnover of agency staff, as well as to what schools perceive as competitive attitudes (Kagel \u0026amp; Routh, 1993). ( \u0026gt;  t I ) 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; z o p5 z PI In addition to the difficulties schools encounter developing successful collaborative partnerships with community agencies, their relationship with the families of students is also a source of conflict. The development and perpetuation of a stereotypical view that many families are uncaring of their children and their childrens success in school has been seen in educational practice (Corbett, Wilson, \u0026amp; Webb, 1996). As families experience this attitude, a self-fulfilling prophecy is set into motion in which families feel uncomfortable coming to the school and as a result, professionals continue to see parents as the problem. Additional reasons for why collaborative partnerships have not necessarily been successful, or even initiated, may include:  Family and school schedules are often difficult to mesh  Security issues sometimes take precedence over visitors on school grounds  Parents past experiences as students themselves may have been negative and they lack trust in the educational system. 1 537Figure 32. Oklahoma CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 33. Texas CAT Site vs. State Student Graduation 99 Figure 34. Level of Support form School Administration for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 35. Level of Support from Campus Staff for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 121 Figure 36. Level of Support from Community at Large for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 37. Level of Support from Parents/Other Family Members for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 122 Figure 38. Level of Support from Students for Future RD-CAT Sustainability 123 Figure 39. RD-CAT Site Student Attendance Comparisons Across Time 134 Figure 40. RD-CAT Site Student Dropout Comparisons Across Time 135 Figure 41. RD-CAT Site Student Graduation Comparisons Across Time 137 vii 538. iW, ii!* Although these barriers exist, it is believed that strengthening the involvement of families and communities in education is critical for enablinq schools to function more effectively and respond to the complex needs of students and their families. Fulfilling the needs that affect a students development takes a system of interrelated, interdependent parts, of which the school is just one. The students home and family life, and the community and society in which the student lives, are other necessary parts of the system. Yet, it is understood that schools play a particularly crucial role for several  Students spend many hours of their day at school reasons: 1 a  School s explicit mission is to guide student development  Important relationships develop between students, their peers, their teachers, and other adults in the school environment. As a result of this systemic shift in thinking, connections between schools, families, and communities are more prevalent today than ever. Increasingly, schools have taken the lead in establishing collaborative links (Kritek, 1996\nPayzant, 1992). Often these efforts are part of an overall plan for systemic school reform in an attempt to improve educational outcomes for children (Fox \u0026amp; Williams, 1991\nLourie, 1994). For example, increased academic achievement, motivaUon and interest in school, and behavioral and adaptive functioning are only just beginning to be assessed in relation to the impact of these collaborative partnerships (Eber \u0026amp; Rolf, 1998). Although on the increase, the establishment of collaborative partnerships among the school, home, and community has been slow in achieving wide spread adoption in the field. This is due, in part, to the existing limited and largely non-empirical knowledge base on school-based collaboration and the absence of a clear specification of the needed skills that promote such an intervention model (Pryor \u0026amp; Church, 1995\nU.S. Department of Education, 1996). Purpose of Current Project to 2 S \u0026gt; 2. 3 (fi 2 S 2 rj P5 As part of a federal grant initiated in December 1995, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) developed and implemented a school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to address the need t enhance family and community involvement in education. The intervention was designed to be self-sustaining over time and improve results for students and their families. This research project, based in communities across a five state Southwestern region of the United States, tested the sustainability of the collaborative partnerships developed among families, community members, 2 539h I  I school personnel, and students and the efficacy of this intervention to improve student success. Training for Collaborative Action Team participants was developed and implemented. The training consisted of activities to improve their knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward collaboration and shared leadership. These activities were used to enhance the partners abilities to collaborate on plans and take action to address issues and concerns facing their school community. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate and continually refine the Collaborative Action Team process and capture a holistic picture of student success. Data collected in each site provided information on site characteristics, the implementation and sustainability of the process, and student outcomes. The research also provided CAT sites with descriptive and empirical data on their successes and areas of continued need while increasing their general knowledge base on the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and their impact on student success. Purpose of this Report This report serves two functions: first, as a technical manual detailing the methods and procedures of the study\nsecond, as a final, summative report, describing the activities accomplished and the research results obtained from this project. The Collaborative Action Team project was first implemented in the Fall of 1996 in five sites (Cohort 1), then expanded to another ten sites in the Fall of 1998 (Cohort 2), and to another eight sites in the Fall of 1999 (Cohort 3). Of these 23 sites, four were designated as Rural Development Collaborative Action Team (RD-CAT) sites to connect school improvement with community development through the implementation of the collaborative process linked to service learning and school entrepreneurship activities. This report will discuss individual and across site results from the research conducted in all 23 CAT sites as well as results specific to the RD-CAT sites.  This report contains sections describing the characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team process and the CAT sites, the implementation of the partnership process at the sites, the project research methodology, the sustainability of team collaboration, and student outcomes over time. Implications from the research results and what lies ahead for collaboration among schools, families, communities, and students are also discussed in this report. I 3 540J I Section 2: Participants in the Collaborative Action I Team Project The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's emphasis is on ensuring educational equality for children and youth in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas who live in poverty\nwho are Hispanic, African-American, or other minorities\nor who have mental or physical exceptionalities. Within these states, SEDL identified the following five critical concentrations on which to focus its research and development projects\nrural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. Site Selection I I Recognizing the need for the research demonstration sites to be representative of the five state Southwestern region SEDL serves and the critical concentration areas established by the Board of Directors, SEDL project staff solicited applications in 1996 (Year 1), 1998 (Year 3), and 1999 (Year 4). Each Collaborative Action Team (CAT) site is independent and serves one or more schools or an entire school district. 2 \u0026gt;X \u0026gt; z o s z n PI Five sites, one in each state in SEDLs region, were selected in 1996 to comprise Cohort 1. These sites are:  L. R. Jackson Elementary School (West Memphis, Arkansas)  P.G.T. Beauregard Middle School (St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana)  Rio Grande High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Jackson Middle School (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)  Fabens Independent School District (Fabens, Texas). I In 1998, ten sites throughout the region were selected for Cohort 2. These sites are:  Dollarway School District (Pine Bluff, Arkansas)  Barbara Jordan Elementary School (New Orleans, Louisiana)  Albuquerque High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Highland High School Cluster (Albuquerque, New Mexico)  Ann Parish Elementary School (Los Lunas, New Mexico)  Mora Independent Schools (Mora, New Mexico)  Ponca City East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma)  Balmorhea Independent School District (Balmorhea, Texas)  Del Valle High School (Del Valle, Texas)  Rio Hondo Independent School District (Rio Hondo, Texas). 4 \u0026gt; 541 I In 1999, eight sites were selected from four of the five states in SEDLs region for Cohort 3. These sites are:  Little Rock School District (Little Rock, Arkansas)  Lee County School District (Marianna, Arkansas)  Marshall School District (Marshall, Arkansas)  Polk Elementary School (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)  Clayton Independent School District (Clayton, Oklahoma)  Clinton Independent School District (Clinton, Oklahoma)  Geraldine Palmer Elementary (Pharr, Texas)  Terrell Independent School District (Terrell, Texas). Four of the 23 sites selected were designated Rural Development CAT (RD-CAT) sites. These sites were required to have a community population below 3,000 persons and be geographically isolated from larger cities or towns in the surrounding region. Additionally, these sites had to be committed to connecting school improvement with economic and community development. Although a number of Collaborative Action Team sites are geographically rural, they did not meet the qualifications to be designated as RD-CAT sites. All sites, including the Rural Development sites, were selected to be Collaborative Action Team sites based on the following criteria:  Fits within SEDLs critical concentration areas  Evidence of low academic performance in student population  High percentage of low-income students (i.e.. Title 1 programs: free/reduced lunch)  History of ongoing and under-served needs in school community  Willingness to engage home, school, and community partners in collaboration  Willingness to commit to long-term project efforts.  SEDL project staff developed and implemented a process to finalize Collaborative Action Team site selections. First, all potential sites were required to submit a Collaborative Action Team Application Form (see Appendix A for a copy of the CAT applications used). Once the application was received, project staff reviewed it for completeness and, if incomplete, provided one opportunity for the site to resubmit. Project staff then reviewed all of the applications to determine if the potential site met the criteria established to become a CAT. To further determine site appropriateness, project staff conducted discussions, onsite and/or by phone, with members of each school community applying. All information obtained about the potential sites was then discussed among the 5 I  542 project staff and, as a final step, all sites were notified as to whether they had or had not been selected as a CAT site. In Year 1, sites that received SEDL services from 1990-1995 through the Home, School, and Community Partnerships (HSCP) project were first contacted to see if they were interested in continuing with SEDL to implement the Collaborative Action Team process. Four of the HSCP sites (West Memphis, AR\nAlbuquerque, NM\nOklahoma City, OK\nand Fabens, TX) submitted applications to become CAT sites. The fifth Cohort 1 site in St. Bernard, LA learned about the project through a community member previously involved with another of SEDLs projects. The five Cohort 1 Collaborative Action Team sites represent three individual schools, one cluster of feeder schools, and one school district, i.e., serving a total of 20 schools (see Table 1). None of the Cohort 1 sites were designated as Rural Development CAT sites.  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 75 2 55 z n PI In Year 3, SEDL project staff used several mechanisms to solicit Collaborative Action Team site applications. These included conference presentations, phone contacts, third-person referrals, and visits to SEDLs website. Cohort 1 CAT sites were also asked to recommend potential sites. Additionally, applicants who were not selected for Cohort 1, but met the eligibility requirements were also encouraged to reapply. The second cohort of 10 sites represents four individual schools, two clusters of feeder schools, and four school districts, i.e., serving a total of 42 schools (see Table 1). Two of these 10 sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Mora, NM, and Balmorhea, TX. r In Year 4, the Collaborative Action Team site solicitation methods used were similar to those used in the year prior\nhowever, one particular venue was the primary source for applications. This was a presentation by SEDL project staff at a federal Department of Education 21  Century Community Learning Center Bidders Conference held in the Southwestern region. For Cohort 3, project staff selected eight sites in four of the five SEDL region states (no new site was established in New Mexico). The Cohort 3 Collaborative Action Team sites represent two individual schools and six school districts, i.e., serving a total of 70 schools (see Table 1). Two of these eight sites were designated Rural Development CAT sites: Marshall, AR, and Clayton, OK. I 6 543I Table 1 Collaborative Action Team Site Demographics CAT site Cohort 1 West Memphis, AR St. Bernard Parish, LA Rio Grande Cluster, NM Oklahoma City, OK Fabens, TX Cohort 2 Pine Bluff, AR New Orleans, LA Albuquerque Cluster, NM Established Region 08/14/96 10/19/96 09/05/96 10/04/96 09/11/96 09/16/98 08/17/98 10/29/98 Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity UI lU Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Urban Border/ Rural Rural Urban Urban 1 elementary school 1 middle school 1 high\n4 middle and 7 elementary schools 1 middle school 1 high\n1 junior high\n1 elementary\n1 primary school\nand 1 early childhood center 1 high\n1 junior high and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n2 middle and 10 elementary schools 7 100% 88% 76% 100% 95% 66% 100% 69% 99% African-American\n1% other 63% White\n33% African-American\n4% other 83% Hispanic\n11% White\n6% other 65% Hispanic\n18% White\n10% African-American\n7% Native American 97% Hispanic\n3% other 80% African-American\n20% White 100% African-American 66% Hispanic\n22% White\n12% other_____ (continued on next page)fit li. KA Tabic 1 (continued) CAT site Established Region Schools served by CAT Free/reduced lunch Student ethnic ity Highland Cluster, NM 10/29/98 Urban 1 high\n2 middle and 8 elementary schools 62% 40% Hispanic\n36% White\n10% Native American\n14% other Los Lunas, NM 10/21/98 Rural 1 elementary school 100% 63% Hispanic\n31% White\n6% other I Mora, NM 11/14/98 Rural 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 89% 78% Hispanic\n21% White\n1% other Ponca City, OK 09/12/98 Rural 1 mid-high school 44% 82% White\n12% Native American\n6% other Balmorhea, TX 06/30/98 Border/ Rural 1 school all grades (K - 12) 71% 80% Hispanic\n19% White\n1 % other Del Valle, TX 10/03/98 Urban I high school 48% 53% Hispanic\n32% White\n14% African-American\n1% other i Rio Hondo, TX 10/24/98 Border/ Rural I high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 81% 94% Hispanic\n6% White (continued on next page) 8 cn \u0026gt;i UI aoNaios ONV iiiviv I I I UI 4k 9) Table 1 (continued) CAT site Cohort 3 Little Rock, AR Marianna, AR Marshall, AR East Baton Rouge, LA Clayton, OK Clinton, OK Pharr, TX Terrell, TX Established Region 09/23/99 09/01/99 08/17/99 08/18/99 08/30/99 09/09/99 10/14/99 08/26/99 Urban Delta/ Rural Rural Urban Rural Rural Border/ Rural Rural Schools served by CAT 5 high\n8 junior high and 35 elementary schools 1 high\n1 middle and 2 elementary schools 1 junior/senior high and 1 elementary school 1 elementary school 1 high and 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 3 elementary schools 1 elementary school 1 high\n1 middle and 4 elementary schools\nand 1 pre- K to K center 9 Free/reduced lunch Student ethnicity 50% 89% 60% 98% 73% 73% 88% 51% 68% African-American\n28% White\n4% other 91% African-American\n8% White\n1% other 98% White\n2% other 99% African-American\n1% White 75% White\n25% Native American 55% White\n23% Hispanic\n11% Native American\n10% African-American\n1% other 2% White\n98% Hispanic 49% White\n34% African-American\n16% Hispanic\n1% other Team Composition The entire school community, consisting of all the people and organizations that either affect or are affected by the school, are the pool from which Collaborative Action Team members were initially identified in site applications. A school community goes beyond those who work and study inside the school. School communities include families, businesses, agencies, organizations, and individuals in the immediate neighborhood. A school community might include residents who have no children attending the school but whose property values are affected by the quality of education the school provides. A human service, health, or mental health agency that serves students families may be part of a school community even if it is not located in direct proximity to the school. The school board and district or state administrators that affect a schools work are also a part of the school community. 2 \u0026gt; X \u0026gt; 2. 9 V) 2 w z ri P3 I jA The initial composition of the Collaborative Action Teams in Cohort 1 included school, home, and community representatives. As the PGT Beauregard CAT in St. Bernard, LA developed, they were the first team to include students as equal members on their team. The SEDL project staff and the other Cohort 1 CAT sites recognized the benefit of including students. As a result, students were incorporated into the CAT process as a fourth representative group needed to comprise team membership and many sites include students on their teams. School representatives include superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other district/central office staff, principals, assistant principals, teachers, teacher aides, librarians, support staff, maintenance personnel, and other school campus staff. Family members such as parents, grandparents, foster parents, other caretakers, and siblings comprise the home representative group. Neighborhood associations, businesses, government offices, human service agencies, religious institutions, and volunteers represent the community. Students, generally from secondary schools, also serve on the CAT\nhowever, student representation is open to all age groups. Collaborative Action Teams range in size from smaller groups of 8-10 members to much larger groups of 40-50 members, with an average of approximately 15 active members per team. Additionally, although representative membership is a core principle of the Collaborative Action Team process, it should be noted that membership on the team is not static. The teams have an open door policy\", often resulting in variation in team 10 547 I i I membership at any given time. However, each team has established a group of core members that, at the least, represent the home, school, and community. Summary SEDL project staff used a variety of mechanisms to solicit potential Collaborative Action Team sites and a formal selection process was implemented. Twenty-three sites were selected to participate in the project, of which four were designated as Rural Development CAT sites. All of the sitesmet established selection criteria related to geographic location, student demographics, school and community needs, an ability and willingness to commit to implementing collaborative partnerships. Participants varied in the Collaborative Action Teams but generally consisted of home, school, community, and student representatives. t   11 548I Section 3: Characteristics of the Collaborative Action Team Process IS \u0026gt; ( I The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) designed the school-based Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process to be developed, tested, and refined over a five-year period ending in December 2000. After reviewing the literature on collaboration with an emphasis on its links to educational settings, SEDL project staff identified current collaborative practices, dimensions of successful team partnership development and maintenance, and barriers to effective collaboration upon which the CAT process was initially based. The process was continually developed over the five years to bring together local partners representing the communitys diverse points of view to increase the productive involvement of families and communities in the educational achievement and well-being of students. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 75 2 5 z ft Defining Collaboration I I Collaboration brings separate individuals or organizations into a new relationship with a joint commitment to a common purpose. As described by Mattesich and Monsey (1992), the relationship includes a commitment to: a definition of mutual relationships and goals, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards (p. 7). Such a relationship requires comprehensive planning and well-defined communication. Risk is greater because team members reputations are at stake. Participants pool their resources and share the products of their work. Collaboration is a more formal and long-term arrangement than networking, cooperation and coordination. It differs in the extent to which people share resources and use power and authority to achieve goals they cannot achieve independently (Kagan, 1991). fc- People in collaborative relationships view each other as partners, enhancing each others capacity to define excellence, set mutual goals, and use their own personal and institutional power to achieve them (Himmelman, 1992). Collaboration is a style of work and a sense of community in which members knowingly make decisions as a whole. They see themselves as complementary and mutually supportive contributors to the entire community. In other words, collaboration involves the following:  Developing win-win situations  Creating a total greater than the sum of its parts  Sharing responsibility  Sharing success. 12 549Core Principles The Collaborative Action Team process is a set of concepts, activities, and resources that individuals, school districts, and other organizations can use to develop a partnership between school, home, community, and students at the local level. It was initially based on a set of core principles and included four stages of team development. The core principles identified were representative membership, shared leadership, consensus decision-making, and networking. As the Collaborative Action Teams developed, it was seen that networking was a natural consequence of collaboration\nhowever, teams having an action focus was integral to team development. Action focus was incorporated into the CAT process as a core principle to embody the characteristics of collaboration. Based on these core principles, the Collaborative Action Team moves through a series of activities within the four stages of team development intended to support effective team partnerships that can be self-sustaining over time.  I Representative membership is when a team consists of participants from a cross-section of the school community that consistently attend meetings and are actively involved in making decisions. This includes family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students and should mirror the diversity of the community. Representative membership can help the team develop a more comprehensive response to school community needs and reinforce local control and self-reliance. Shared leadership exists when leadership roles and responsibilities are equally distributed among all team members. Team members see themselves as partners working to benefit students and their families and are equally included in representing the team, making decisions, carrying responsibilities, and sharing success. Shared leadership can enhance a teams commitment and willingness to work together and help to sustain individual energy, minimize burnouf, and expand the school communitys leadership pool. Consensus decision-making occurs when decisions are made that best reflect the viewpoints of all involved and that all members agree to support. This requires that team members develop the ability to discuss issues, listen to one another, address their differences, work to resolve them, and reach decisions based on general agreement. Consensus decisions can help to minimize conflict and maximize commitment and willingness in order for the team to take action as a whole. 13 55041 Action focus serves as the underlying purpose of a Collaborative Action Team, i.e., to improve results for students and the school community. Establishing a team vision and mission, and setting goals and forming strategies can help to prepare a team for action. As members take on roles and responsibilities and follow through on mutual decisions, they can generate momentum for further action. Stages of Team Development The four stages of team development are: Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation. These stages are intended to lead the team to maturity and success in their overall goal to improve results for children and families. Team Identification includes determining who will be on the team and how members will work together to represent the whole community, including developing a vision and mission. Team Mobilization encompasses identifying and utilizing shared leadership, broadening communication and networking opportunities, and structuring the CAT meeting. Project Development is based on creating action plans and Project Implementation on carrying out those plans and maintaining the teams focus while accomplishing its goals. Each of the four stages of team development is comprised of team building and team planning elements created to generate momentum and develop team strength relative to the core Collaborative Action Team principles. 2 \u0026gt; z 0 7) 2 n -2. W Elements of the CAT Process JI Team building elements show team members how to work together as equal partners, respect individual diversity, and build trust to help the team solve problems and create new opportunities. Getting to know one another, talking constructively from differing vantage points, and undertaking projects together help build relationships among team members. The team building activities enable mutual respect and trust to grow as personal relationships and shared experiences evolve. I Team planning elements address tools and techniques for developing a vision, mission, goals and objectives, priorities, and action steps. Finding common ground, participating in dialogues about school community issues, and reaching consensus on what needs to be accomplished are all part of planning 14 551 for collaborative action. Team planning helps to keep everyone focused and provides the structure for moving the team forward. Generating momentum produces visible results quickly by taking easily accomplished steps toward change. Teams can generate momentum by working on manageable size projects often resulting in early success. This success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Summary SEDL developed and implemented a collaborative, school-based process partnering family members, school personnel, community representatives, and students to improve results for students and their families. The Collaborative Action Team process is based on a set a core principles and is organized into stages of team development. The core principles of the Collaborative Action Team process are: Representative Membership, Shared Leadership, Consensus Decision-Making, and Action Focus. Based on these core principles, the CAT process moves teams through four stages of development: Team identification. Team Mobiiization, Project Deveiopment, and Project Impiementation. Within each of these stages, teams go through a series of elements and activities that support a balance between team building and team planning, based on the core principles. Mechanisms are incorporated throughout the process to maintain the momentum of the team as it moves through the stages. 15 552Section 4: Implementation of the Collaborative Action Team Process I I The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) process implemented across the 23 sites included several essential components. First, it was important to have the support and participation of home, school, community, and student members at each site. Second, the team members were trained in the skills, concepts, and principles of the CAT process. Third, CAT meetings were held so that a plan of action could be developed. And last, the on-going needs of the Collaborative Action Team process were assessed and technical assistance was provided. The implementation of the CAT process was continually refined over the five years of the project, reflecting Collaborative Action Team member ideas and suggestions, SEDL project staff observations, and new data that emerged. I 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 9 2 5 2. O P3 Initiating the Collaborative Action Team Process I I I 'iJ I I I SEDL project staff contacted school administrators from each site, at the local and/or district level, to discuss the mission, methodology, and goals of the project and to obtain administrative support. Although not standard practice with all Cohort 1 sites, as it was for the Cohort 2 and 3 sites, SEDL project staff met on-site with school administrators. The Cohort 1 CAT sites were not required to give SEDL written approval from their school administrators, but verbal support was attained. Over time, however, the administrative support wavered and resulted in a variety of barriers to the continuation of the Collaborative Action Team in at least one of the Cohort 1 sites. SEDL project staff recognized the need for a more formal system to obtain approval and support from school administrators in potential CAT sites. As a result, they developed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the required commitments to become a CAT site and the joint responsibilities of the site and SEDL (see Appendix A for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding). The Collaborative Action Team process was not initiated in the Cohort 2 and 3 sites until project staff received this Memorandum of Understanding with the signature of a school administrator, i.e., the school principal or assistant principal, the district superintendent, assistant superintendent, or director of curriculum, or another designated district administrator. Local school and district administration in each of the Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 CAT sites endorsed the project both verbally and by completing the Memorandum of Understanding. * In addition to school administrative support, other members of the school community spoke with SEDL project staff to discuss the implementation of the 16 I 553CAT process in their site. Many of these conversations took place at an initial on-site visit conducted by SEDL project staff during the application process. At this time, the participants representing the four core groups (home, school, community, and students) talked with project staff as a whole and separately, by representative group. This provided the participants an opportunity to experience initial collaborative dialogue and to discuss any past partnering difficulties among the groups. They were also provided brochures about the CAT project and other resource materials. Those in attendance indicated their support for the development of a CAT in their school community and their interest in participating: however, the number and diversity of representatives present at the initial visit was often greater than the core group that comprised the on-going Collaborative Action Team. General CAT Member Training Once support from the school administration and school community members in each site was evident and initial information was exchanged, the next step in implementing the Collaborative Action Team process was to train site members. A one and one-half day intensive Start-Up Training was scheduled with each site to occur shortly after they were selected. For the Cohort 1 and 2 sites, the training was conducted for home, school, and community representatives. Students from secondary schools were included as participants in the training for Cohort 3 sites. The Collaborative Action Team Start-Up Training was designed to foster shared leadership and collaboration skills to enable team members with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of skill levels and experience to participate as full partners with school leaders.  During the Start-Up Training, SEDL project staff introduced the team development activities comprising the CAT process. Project staff developed a structured agenda and provided a written copy to all participants (see Appendix B for an example of a Start-Up Training agenda). The training included an orientation session focused on a variety of factors that impact partnership development. Participants developed a site facilitation plan, designated local facilitators, and established a plan for the first full CAT meeting during the training. The experiential, interactive activities used in the training focused on increasing team members awareness and understanding of their differences and similarities while helping them become more comfortable with one another and learn the strengths and contributions each could bring to the team. For example, one activity asked each person to list things at which they are good and then posted the responses on flip charts for everyone to see. These skills 17  554 and strengths of team members were then matched with tasks needing to be completed during an action planning activity later in the training. The planning activity encouraged members to share their knowledge and skills to accomplish identified goals which demonstrated to them the value of shared responsibility and leadership. r s ) 3 I I SEDL project staff also provided training for team members through annual Collaborative Action Team Training Institutes held each fall of the five- year project (see Appendix B for an example of an Institute agenda). A representative group of team members from each CAT site were brought together for three days to share ideas, network with one another, and gain new knowledge and skills to assist them in their collaborative efforts. The specific agenda varied at each Institute\nhowever, a number of topics were pervasive throughout ali five. These included, but were not limited to:  Shared leadership  Action planning  Resource development  Assessment and evaluation  Use of technology in collaboration. The Training Institutes provided participants with information, skills, and materials for the team members at their sites who were not able to attend the training. This new knowledge was used to further the collaborative efforts of each team. 2 \u0026gt; S \u0026gt; 2 (/) 2 S 2. n P5 CAT Facilitator Training r j In relation to school change, Hord (1992) described the importance of facilitative leaders who are not necessarily positional leaders, such as superintendents or principals, but rather people who demonstrate functional leadership, help create an atmosphere and culture for change, and nurture both the vision and tangible supports necessary for effective follow through. This was the type of leadership sought to facilitate the Collaborative Action Teams. During the first few years of the project, SEDL project staff functioned in this role for the Cohort 1 sites, while informally encouraging team members to assume this role. As the CAT project developed, project staff spent less time with the Collaborative Action Teams and, as a result, team members recognized the need for local facilitation. Training local team members to act in the facilitator role and maintain their neutrality while serving in this role was seen as essential to the sustainability and expansion of the CAT process. 18 555In 1998, SEDL project staff developed a two-day curriculum to train members from each site to become facilitators and equip them to train others on their team to assume facilitation responsibilities (see Appendix B for an example of a Facilitator Training agenda). The first Facilitator Training was conducted in January 1999 at the SEDL offices at which at least two members from each Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 site attended. These trained facilitators also attended a refresher workshop in October 1999 to help them improve their skills and assess their progress. A second Facilitator Training was held in September 1999 for another 2-3 members in the Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 sites who had not been previously trained and an equal amount of members from the Cohort 3 sites. The trained CAT facilitators from all three of the cohorts participated in follow-up trainings in March 2000 and September 2000. SEDLs training for CAT facilitators had several goals. First, to thoroughly familiarize the participants taking on the facilitator role with the Collaborative Action Team process. For example, participants were asked to identify major elements of the process for a case study activity that required them to determine the most appropriate CAT process element to address typical issues and situations teams face. Second, to teach various group process techniques such as brainstorming, consensus building, force field analysis, use of affinity diagrams, and the use of T-charts. Each participant had an opportunity to facilitate either a group process technique or one of the training exercises under the observation and guidance of SEDL project staff. And last, to provide facilitators with the knowledge and skills necessary to train fellow team members in the use of the techniques taught in the training. Participants were provided a knowledge base and basic tools at the training to help them share the facilitation and team development responsibilities seen as necessary to effect change in their school community.  CAT Meetings An integral part of the project was the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team meetings at which home, school, community, and student representatives focused on issues important to their school community and action for improving results for students and their families. Collaborative Action Team members at the individual sites, especially the trained facilitators, were responsible for assuring meetings occurred. The steps needed to implement the team meetings included: 1) arranging the logistics for the meeting, 2) contacting team members and attending the meetings, 3) conducting the meeting, 4) following through on tasks and responsibilities, and 19 5565) evaluating the meetings. SEDL project staff provided CAT sites with assistance to help them implement team meetings, i.e., through on-site and telephone consultation, by providing written materials and other resources, and by encouraging networking among the CAT sites. Most of the Collaborative Action Teams met regularly, i.e., once a month. One or two of the 23 teams met more frequently, while a few met irregularly and less frequently. Some of the teams maintained a formal structure, i.e., met at the same time and place, provided an agenda, and kept within timeframes designated on the agenda. Other teams used their meetings as an open forum to discuss their needs and exchange information. Yet others focused directly on activities, events, and actions specific to a written plan they developed. A variety of techniques were used at the meetings to enhance team dialogue, some of which were modeled in the myriad of training SEDL project staff provided. The trained facilitators played a key role in ensuring diverse viewpoints were heard at the meeting and that all members participated. They also, along with other members of the team, were responsible for following through on assigned tasks and monitoring that others did as well. The team meetings were the primary setting in which collaboration took place. I I I I I I  2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z o Vi 2 S z Pl The Collaborative Action Team meetings were primarily evaluated in four ways\n Feedback provided by team members during team meetings  Informal discussions with team members outside of the team meetings  Contacts between the SEDL project staff and CAT members  Responses on evaluation tools developed by the SEDL project staff to assess the process. Several tools developed specifically to evaluate individual meetings were the CAT Meeting Checklist and the Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form ^1 and Collaborative Action Team Meeting Evaluation Form #2 (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These evaluation tools helped teams self-evaluate after each meeting regarding how the meeting progressed and how they did, or did not, use the Collaborative Action Team process. Other evaluation tools developed for the project included the CAT Self-Assessment and the Collaborative Action Team Research Exit Survey (see Appendix C for copies of these instruments). These tools, although created to collect data regarding overall CAT process implementation and sustainability, also provided information on meeting progress. A detailed description of the evaluation process for which these tools were used and the results are provided in a later section of this report. 20 557Collaborative Action Team Materials Crowson and Boyd (1996), noting the proliferation of guides to collaboration and service coordination conclude, what the handbooks and guidelines and experiential evidence to date do not adequately provide are insights into deep structure issues in cooperating institutions (p. 139). Such issues include institutional inertia, a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills, and perceived differences in power, perspective, and belief. These issues serve as barriers to collaborative work and can lead to tensions, miscommunication, and competing agendas among members of a collaborative group as well as between the group and the community it seeks to serve (Delpit, 1995\nSchorr, 1997). SEDL project staff recognized the need for team members to have written materials to guide them in their implementation of the CAT process. T In 1998, SEDL project staff developed A Guide to Building Collaborative Action Teams in Schools and Communities, detailing the CAT process to assist sites in the development of their teams. The guide included multiple small group activities mirroring the elements of the Collaborative Action Team process. Background information on each of the elements, timelines for accomplishing the activities, and audio-visual aides were also provided. This design was used to help members build their team, plan action, and generate momentum, as well as to deal with many of the barriers known to impact collaboration. Team members at the Facilitator Training in January 1999 and those at the September 1999 training were given a copy of the guide. SEDL project staff found the use of the guide was spurious\nhowever, team members acknowledged a need for guidance materials. Some of the difficulties team members described with the material included\n Terminology that was not fully understood  An academic textbook content  Too lengthy and not user friendly. Project staff sought feedback from teams to make the materials more practical and user friendly. As a result, many changes were made and a new set of resource materials was developed and provided to teams at the 2000 CAT Institute. The new materials include the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide (Guide), Toolkit, and Toolkit Masters. All of these materials are, or will soon be, available on CD-ROM and in Spanish. The Guide provides information specifically on how to start-up, facilitate, and coordinate the Collaborative 21 558r I hr I Action Team and explains the CAT process, core concepts, and terms used in the process. Much of the Guide is organized around the stages of the process and provides background information and a general overview of the different steps of the process. The Toolkit serves as a companion to the Guide and contains a variety of activities and additional resources that can be used at team meetings to help members progress through the stages and steps of the process as well as additional resources. The activities each include:  Preparation and room set-up instructions  Goals and key introductory points for the session  Step-by-step instructions and estimated time  Wrap-up points  Follow-up reminders. The Toolkit Masters contains forms, handouts, transparencies, worksheets, and ideas for presentations. 2 5 X \u0026gt;z c g S 2 P5 A companion to the Creating Collaborative Action Teams Guide was also developed for rural communities, and even more specifically for the Rural Development CAT sites. Entitled, Thriving Together: Connecting Rural School Improvement and Community Development, this guide provides practical information about how to connect school and community development through such strategies as service and work-based learning. The material describes characteristics and resources important to these and other joint efforts and incorporates activities of the Collaborative Action Team process that can be used to sustain them. 1 Consultation and Technical Assistance I In addition to the initial CAT training, SEDL project staff provided ongoing consultation and technical assistance to each site with an emphasis on basic and advanced skill development to enhance the teams use of the collaborative process. Project staff observed team meetings and provided feedback, particularly to team facilitators. They visited each site at least quarterly and had additional contact more frequently with team members (most often the trained CAT facilitators) via the telephone, postal mailings, electronic mail, and videoconferences. ) \u0026gt; Several sites specifically requested SEDL project staff assist them with additional training regarding shared leadership. A one to two hour booster training was provided individually to those sites. The training focused on the strengths, needs, and barriers of the particular team and included specific 12 559 activities they could accomplish to help them fulfill their needs. A few other sites received a recharge training after they lost much of their membership and momentum and feared they might cease to exist. This training included a four to eight hour saturation on the CAT process, use of CAT materials and resources, and discussions of strategies to sustain their team and move toward accomplishing goals. As initial research findings were obtained, SEDL project staff provided each team with verbal and written data reports on their progress and areas of need in relation to their implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process. These reports included an analysis of the data, specific suggestions for team building and action planning activities, and recommendations for areas upon which their team could focus in the future. Sites in Cohorts 1 and 2 received three of these reports while Cohort 3 sites received two. A detailed description of the findings is provided later in this report. r Project-Related Activities The implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process also involved additional activities to provide information to team participants, other members of school community in which the teams are located, professionals in education and other fields of practice, and to a broader audience of persons interested in school reform. The activities included:  Presentations - given by SEDL project staff as well as by CAT members about the Collaborative Action Team process to professionals, paraprofessionals, and family and community members  Videoconferences - three events sponsored by SEDL project staff on facilitator leadership skills, resources and training topics for 21 Century Community Learning Centers, and a resource guide for rural communities  Newsletters and articles - the CAT Connections Newsletter \\Nt\\\\ch was provided to CAT sites during the first several years of the project\nthe FaCilitATor News monthly update provided to CAT facilitators on upcoming CAT events and resources available: articles in newspapers, magazines, and professional journals written by and/or about the Collaborative Action Teams  Web-based networking and information - CAT project web pages on SEDLs website\na bulletin-board and listserves for CAT members and SEDL project staff to converse: regular e-mails to CAT members including the monthly FaCilitATor News updates\nand individual CAT site web pages available to the general public 23  560. liSi : -a**  Community involvement - attendance at school board meetings and local events and provision of training for educators in the communities in which a CAT site exists  Grant writing assistance - reading potential grants being submitted by CAT sites and providing guidance\nalerting CAT sites to grant opportunities. Summary I I I I 1 Members of the school community, including family, school personnel at the local and district level, community representatives, and students, showed broad support for the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process, verbally, in documentation, and through their participation. As has been seen in the literature, part of the empowerment of collaborative group members takes place during training (Kagan, 1991). SEDL project staff provided intensive training to team members on the CAT process and team facilitation. CAT meetings were conducted in 23 sites across the Southwestern region in which home, school, community, and student partners collaborated on issues and actions to improve results for students and their families in their school communities. CAT sites were provided on-going technical assistance and other resource assistance. SEDL project staff furnished printed and electronic materials about the Collaborative Action Team project and team development process, as well as about community development and school improvement in rural areas. Additionally, other informational activities were provided to a broader audience of persons interested in bringing about school change through the involvement of the entire school community. r I 1 2 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Z 0 oi 2 S z pi 24 561I I I I Section 5: Research Design and Methodology SEDL conducted an applied research project using descriptive and empirical approaches to assess the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process to improve outcomes for students. Purpose I The purpose of the research was twofold: 1) to determine if collaborative partnerships between the home, school, community, and students can be sustained in the demonstration sites as a result of the implementation of the Collaborative Action Team process and 2) to assess the impact of the process on student success. Sustainability of the CAT process was defined as Collaborative Action Teams meeting and working as a team throughout the CAT project and reporting they will continue to operate in the future for at least one year. The study gathered data about each team's activities in developing and sustaining their team as well as measures of student success, including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates. Comparisons across CAT sites were explored. I I I I I I I I  \u0026gt; I t t ) The research also assisted the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) sites in identifying effective practices, training, and resources useful in goal attainment as well as those in need of refinement. Further, the study served to build on the limited empirical knowledge base pertaining to the use of collaborative efforts within school settings and the impact of this partnering on student success. Research Questions The objective of the CAT process was to develop and sustain meaningful partnerships between diverse participants from a school community who would take action to improve results for students and families. In order to assess the achievement of this objective, the research answered the following questions\n1) Are collaborative partnerships between the school, home and community developed and sustained as a result of the implementation of the CAT process, i.e., as measured by team progress through elements of the four stages of the CAT process and use of shared leadership and facilitator skills taught in the CAT trainings? 25 I 1 562 t) 0 d 2} Did the Collaborative Action Team process have an impact on student success, i.e., goal accomplishment, changes in student outcomes including standardized assessment scores and attendance, graduation, and dropout rates? I'J C] Cl ft 11 Instruments SEDL project staff developed a Collaborative Action Team Application Form with questions on the demographics of the site (see Appendix A). The application sought information on the: 1) critical concentration area\n2) percentage of students in the school district according to ethnicity, socioeconomic status, head of household\n3) location within an Enterprise Zone or Empowerment Community\n4) school, district, and state standardized test score averages and designation as low performing by the State Education Agency: and 5) existence of special programs and school improvement and/or previous partnership/collaborative efforts in the school/district. Further, the application asked for a response to how confident the site was that a Collaborative Action Team in their community would accomplish eight team development activities and the extent to which nine cultural climate factors exist within their community. The responses to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":33,"next_page":34,"prev_page":32,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":384,"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}}]}}