{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1152","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Athletic Task Force Report Findings","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-05-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Curricula","Athletics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Athletic Task Force Report Findings"],"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/1152"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLRSD ATHLETIC TASK FORCE REPORT FINDINGS Committee Members Junious Babbs Sandy Becker Rett Tucker Skip Rutherford May 25, 2001 Taking into account the seriousness of recent allegations related to the LRSD Athletic Program, Task Force Committee Members were assigned with the following charge: 1. Address issues that have come to the forefront that relate to LRCH athletic program/ player eligibility. 2. Investigate eligibility issues and/ or concerns at LRCH. 3. Provide a detailed report of findings. 4. Availability to investigate activities and finding of LRSD school allegations. 5. Report to the Superintendent and Board in an expeditious timeline. Introduction Since Thursday, May 17, we have reviewed questions raised about the Little Rock Central High Varsity Boys Basketball team and specifically player eligibility. In this process we have met with Associate Superintendent for Instruction Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssistant Superintendent for Secondary School Services Dr. Marian Lacey\nAthletic Director Ray Gillespie\nCentral Principal Rudolph Howard\nCentral Assistant Principal John Kelly\nCentral Assistant Principal Dr. Dan Whitehorn\nCentral Head Basketball Coach Oliver Fitzpatrick\nand Central Registrar Jane Welch. All were very cooperative. Chris Heller, the Little Rock School District Attorney, served as our legal advisor. We reviewed the policies of the Arkansas Department of Education, the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA) and the Little Rock School District. When records were examined, committee members Rett Tucker and Skip Rutherford--since they are not employees of the school district--did not see individual names. In order to protect student confidentiality, each player was assigned a number. When records containing student names were examined, the student names were redacted. Committee members Junious Babbs and Sandy Becker, because they are school district employees, did see names. The committee examined several issues and looked at both the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year and the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year. The second semester of 1999-2000 was a determining factor for eligibility during the first semester of 2000-2001. The first semester of 2000-2001 was a determining factor for eligibility during the second semester of this year. Basketball season included both semesters during the 2000-2001 school year. All Central basketball players consent forms and physicals were complete and on file. The Student Registration Office reviewed its records and confirmed that all Central basketball players were properly enrolled in Central High School. While Central's consent forms, physicals and school assignment records were in order, a lesson learned is the importance of updated eligibility data collection through the use of technology and monitoring systems. - 1 - Eligibility Eligibility requirements are different for those who make a 2.0 grade point average or better than for those who make less than a 2.0 grade point average. For those who make less than a 2.0 grade point average, the AAA Rule 10 B applies. It can be found on pages 33-34 of the 2001 AAA Handbook. (Attachment A) During the 1999-2000 second semester, the average grade point for the Central basketball team was 2.785. Eleven of the 16 players made a 2.0 or better. Six of those made a 3.0 or better and two of the six made a 4.0 or better. Of the five players who made less than 2.0, two were not eligible and did not play during the first semester. Three players who made less than 2.0 participated under Rule 10 B. During the 1999-2000 second semester, none of the Central players had a grade change. During the 2000-2001 first semester, the average grade point for the Central basketball team was 2.780. Fifteen of the 16 players made a 2.0 or better. Six of those made a 3.0 or better, and one of the six made a 4.0. One player made less than a 2.0 and did participate in the Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) under AAA Rule 10 B. Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) The schedule for SIP at Central is: Monday/Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday/Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Two sessions each week are required to meet the minimum of 100 minutes per week required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (Attachment B) Students may also attend either or both of the other two sessions to make up absences. There are two SIP coordinators at Central: one responsible for the morning session and one responsible for the afternoon session. Coaches are assigned to monitor student athlete participation in SIP. The athletic department handbook contains a notification form to be sent by the SIP coordinator to the coach in the event an athlete misses a required SIP class. - 2 - These safeguards are important because if an athlete misses only one unexcused SIP class and does not make it up within the same week, he or she then becomes ineligible. According to a detailed report from Dr. Lacey, the one Central player participating in SIP did not meet the eligibility requirements. (Attachment C) During the week of January 8-12, the student did not meet the 100-minute requirement because of an unexcused absence from his SIP class. At that time--according to the Little Rock School District's SIP Plan (Attachment D) and confirmed by the Arkansas Activities Association, the student became ineligible. Under SIP guidelines once a student becomes ineligible at any time during the semester, he or she is ineligible for the remainder of the semester. According to Dr. Lacey's report, the student in question also did not meet the SIP eligibility attendance requirements during the weeks of January 15-19, February 26-March 2 and March 5-9. Coach Fitzpatrick said he was not aware of the player's January SIP absences until he was informed by the committee on May 23. The committee also reviewed the AAA Rule 15, which is found on pages 35-36 of the AAA 2001 handbook. (Attachment E) This is the hardship exemption rule. The committee was informed by the principal and the head basketball coach that neither knew of a basis for the application of a hardship exemption in this case. Therefore, we believe the student athlete was ineligible beginning January 12, 2001. Students enrolled in SIP are required to have no unexcused absences in order to remain eligible for athletics. The student's attendance records also indicate he had unexcused absences during the first semester of 2000-2001 school year. It is therefore possible that the student became ineligible before January 12. The Little Rock School District administration learned about this on April 27. Dr. Lacey immediately began to research this matter. During the time period between the week of January 8 and April 27, timely attendance checking and monitoring did not occur. For three months, there apparently was no supervisory safety net for the only Central basketball player in SIP. The system in place broke down. We find this regrettable, even though it was the student's responsibility to attend the class. After reviewing this very unfortunate example, we believe it could have and should have been prevented. - 3 - One lesson learned is that there should be documented and mandatory 24-hour notification from the SIP coordinator to the coach, principal, school athletic administrator, athletic director and assistant superintendent for secondary school services of each unexcused absence by an athlete who is attending for eligibility. We also endorse what the Little Rock School Board said in its May 17 statement: that it plans to meet with the incoming superintendent to clearly state policies and procedures and to confirm lines of authority, responsibility and accountability to ensure compliance. (Attachment F). In addition, the district should clearly define who will be doing the required reporting to the Arkansas Department of Education and the AAA. Grades During the first semester 2000-2001, 13 of the 16 Central players had no grade changes. Changes made for two players had no impact on eligibility at all. One player had changes made in four subjects and also received credit for a Plato course. According to the registrar at Central, \"the Plato program is offered to all students who have failed or are failing a course or courses in the mainstream curriculum. It allows each student to progress at his or her own pace so those students complete the coursework at different times. There are no quarter grades or exam grades--only final grades. The teacher or facilitator gives the registrar the grade upon each student's completion of the work.\" In addition to the Accelerated Learning Center and the Alternative Leaming Center, the Plato program is offered at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan. The schools view it as an alternative education program. In 1999-2000, there were 123 students in the program at Central and no varsity basketball players. In 2000-2001 there were 144 students in the program at Central and one varsity basketball player. The one Central varsity basketball player who was in the Plato course in the first semester 2000-2001 received a \"B\" in Algebra I. He registered for the program on August 9, 2000 and began class on August 23, 2000. His grade was turned in on January 26, 2001 and was posted on January 30, 2001. The course subject and the grade were posted manually by the registrar because the course had been listed in the computer as Plato and not Algebra. The student athlete did not participate in any varsity basketball games prior to January 30, 2001. - 4 - Questions have arisen about whether Plato course credit should count in the grade point average. According to the Little Rock School District Curriculum publication, if it is an alternative education program, it should be counted as part of the grade point average. (Attachment G) If it is a credit by examination program, it should not. (Attachment H) While we think there needs to be an official district interpretation, Plato has been treated as an alternative education program at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan since its inception. It has been counted in the grade point averages of all students who participated at these schools. The athlete in question was treated just like everyone else. Along with the \"B\" Plato Algebra credit, grade changes in four subjects resulted in the student's athletic eligibility. (Attachment I) With all the grade changes and with the \"B\" in Plato Algebra, he made a 2.0. Letters from each of the teachers who changed the grades are enclosed with the report. The student and teacher names are redacted. (Attachments J, K, Land M) Grade changes are not uncommon in LRSD high schools and grades are often changed for good reasons. The discretion of teachers and administrators to change grades is broad. The committee found no evidence that athletes were the primary beneficiaries of grade changes. According to the documentation, in one course this student received extra credit for purchasing and donating two novels to the class. In another class the student's first semester grade changed due to improved performance in the early part of the second semester. We seriously question whether or not these changes comply with the District's grading policy. (Attachment N) We believe procedures should be implemented which include time limitations on both grade changes and make-up work. In cases of multiple grade changes involving one student, we believe central office administrative oversight should be required. Even though teachers and administrators currently have wide discretion in making grade changes and while the student became eligible as a result of these four changes, we find them troubling. Central's registrar said when she learned of them she notified the school's principal. We think her notification was appropriate. However, we also conclude, notwithstanding this one very unique case, that grade changes for other players on the Central basketball team have been justified, rare and unrelated to eligibility. The schools should monitor student athlete grades not only because of eligibility but to make certain that academics are stressed as well as athletics. - 5 - Recruiting On the matter of recruiting, the Little Rock School District is one of only three school districts in Arkansas which have more than one high school. The AAA rules are written primarily with the other 307 districts in mind. The AAA rules do not specifically address the unique issues of intra-district recruiting. LRSD is unique in Arkansas because recruiting of students is an essential element of the district's voluntary desegregation plan. LRSD has established a number of school choice options, including magnet schools and specialty programs to attract students. The problem comes when students are recruited by high school coaches solely for athletics. There is presently no LRSD board policy differentiating between the expected recruiting for desegregation purposes and recruiting solely for athletic purposes. The AAA rules, which prohibit recruiting but do not define it, have not served as a significant deterrent. The District should take steps to define and prohibit impermissible recruiting of student athletes. This recommendation is not intended to limit a school's ability to inform students about all programs and extra-curricular activities available to them. Attendance Attendance is another issue of immediate concern. In our review, we have concluded that computerized attendance records do not necessarily correspond with teacher recorded attendance records. For example, in Central's block scheduling system, there is a first period \"A\" course and a first period \"B\" course. When the report cards are issued, the period one absences for both \"A\" and \"B\" are combined rather than listed separately. Parents, therefore, do not have an accurate accounting of the first period \"A\" absences or the first period \"B\" absences. This in itself makes monitoring and compliance more difficult. It also justifiably subjects attendance records to questions about accuracy. - 6 - For example, according to computerized attendance records received just yesterday afternoon, three students exceeded the maximum number of allowable unexcused absences during the first semester 2000-2001. (Attachment 0) They, nevertheless, received credit for the courses. One of the lessons learned is there needs to be an additional procedure in place by which each coach receives regular and accurate attendance reports for his or her athletes to verify their eligibility. Currently, the procedure appears to be 'hit and miss.' Conclusion In summary, we believe the issues and problems with Central basketball eligibility for the most part are reflective of district-wide issues. Throughout this report, we've attempted to make it clear that the lessons learned are lessons for the entire district, not just for Central High School. The vast majority of these problems were the result of inadequate procedures, benign neglect and poor organization - all of which can be fixed in a timely manner. We believe the board will do just that and, along with a new superintendent and new athletic director, put the mechanisms in place to get it done. Without diminishing the significance of the findings in this report, it is important to note that the committee found no evidence of an intent to knowingly use an ineligible player. The facts, to the best of our ability, are now before you. We have completed our task within the 10-day time frame. Following any questions you might have, the committee will have concluded its assignment. - 7 - nsas Activities Asso 3 920 Ric-hards ~oad. North Little Rock,. AR' 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955-2521 Building Citizenship Through Activities Partlcipation ATTACHME TA t ' t \\   : .  Amateur- Tryouts Scholarship (Academics) Rule 8. AMATEUR. A. The amateur rule for eligibility in interscholastic athletics requires the student to engage in sport solely for the pleasure and physical, mental, or social benefit derived from participation in sports and to whom sport is nothing more than an avocation. B. The junior high or senior high student who violates the amateur rule in any of the AAA-sponsored sports may lose eligiblility in that sport for up to one full year (365 days). C. Violations. A student may not: 1. Compete under an assumed name. 2. Accept monetary awards or compensation. This includes: cash\ngift certificates\nexpenses for a trip or any other of this type award. 3. Accept gifts or awards exceeding $100.00 in value unless the gifts or awards are given under the auspices of the school\nhowever, the student may receive awards of equipment in golf, tennis and road races as permitted in the amateur rules of the USGA, the USTA, and USATF. 4. Receive remuneration for coaching, instructing, or preparing any person for competition\nexcept, he may receive from an organization offering instruction in sport skills to youth, monetary compensation on an hourly basis or as a salary for teaching basic skills. 5. A student who has participated interscholastically may not permit his name, picture, or person to be used to advertise, recommend, or promote a firm or a product. NOTE: An athlete may be named a player of the week or game and be presented a certificate or plaque provided there is no advertising connected with the pie-ture or announcement. NOTE: A team picture may appear on a calendar or poster. This indicates support for the school. 6. Compete with or against a professional except in: a. Pro-Am golf meets\nwhen the scores of the professional and the amateur are not combined for a team score\n7. Appear in a competition before or during a professional event except as approved by the Arkansas Activities Association. NOTE: Since it is impossible to cover all instances of possible violations to the amateur rule, it is suggested that the Executive Director be consulted in any questionable case. Rule 9. TRYOUTS. A. A student may not play with a college or a professional team without losing eligibility for up to one year in the sport played. B. A student may not try out for a college or professional team during the school year without losing eligibility for up to one year in that sport. NOTE: A tryout consists of athletic demonstrations relative to a specific sport in the presence of a coach, scout, or official representing an institution or club. Rule 10. SCHOLARSHIP. (Academics) A. Junior high. A student promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade automatically meets the academic eligibility (scholarship) requirements. A student promoted from the seventh to the eighth grade automatically meets the academic eligibility requirements for the first semester. The second semester eighth grade student and the first semester ninth grade student meet the academic eligi bility requirements for junior high by successfully passing four (4) academic courses the previous semester, three of which shall be in the core curriculum areas specified by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools. Ninth grade students must meet the senior high academic eligibility by the end of second semester in order to be eligible to participate the fall of their tenth grade year. \"'8. Senior high. A student who does not meet the Arkansas Department of Education's requirement of a 2.00 GPA or has not met the proficiency standard defined by the State Board of Education on the state criterion-referenced tests or achieved at or above the fiftieth percentile on the basic battery on the normreferenced test may continue to participate by meeting the following requirements: b. Semi-professional baseball games\nhowever, the stu- / dent must compete within the definition of ama- V 1. The student must have passed four academic courses teurism . in the previous semester. Any of these four courses for 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 33 which concurrent high school credit is earned may be from an institution of higher learning recognized by the Arkansas Department of Education. 2. The student must be enrolled in and attending a supplemental instruction program approved by the Arkansas Department of Education, or a supplemental instruction program meeting ADE guidelines as approved by AAA. 3. The student must have no unexcused absences for the current semester or its equivalent. 4. The student must have no school disciplinary action for the current semester. School disciplinary action may be defined by the school but, as a minimum, the policy shall state that a student has been disciplined when being placed on suspension where the student is out of school for a period of time. 5. The student must have no known criminal convictions. Academic Course: An academic course is one for which class time is scheduled and which can be credited to meet minimum requirements for graduation\nwhich is taught by a teacher required to have state certification in the course, and which has a course content guide approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. NOTE: P.E. may be considered an academic course for one full credit within the 21 minimum credits. The first time a P.E. grade appears on the transcript in grades 9-12 is when it will be considered an academic course. C. ALTERNATE COURSE CREDIT. A student may satisfy the requirement by successfully completing a course(s) failed or courses(s) needed or an equivalent course(s) in a summer term(s) or a correspondence course(s) approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for granting credit for graduation requirements. Such credit shall be applied to the previous semester. NOTE: When the same course is repeated, the former grade may be replaced. When a substitute course is completed, the grade shall be added to the courses for the previous semesters and the GPA recomputed. D. SPECIAL EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED). A student must have earned passing grades in four academic courses of the I.E.P. for the previous semester. In junior high three of the four courses must be in the core curriculum areas (Math, Science, English, Social Studies). E. CHANGING ELIGIBILITY STATUS. A student may Page 34 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook regain or lose academic eligibility the first day of classes in a new semester. Eligibility shall be determined twice per year, once at the beginning of the fall semester (August/September) and once at mid-term (December /January). Rationale - An athlete must first be a student and must meet certain minimum academic requirements. R.!!k..11. INELIGIBLE IN ANOTHER STATE. A student who is ineligible in any sport under the rules of the state association in the state of the student's residence will, upon transfer to any AAA member school be ineligible for interscholastic competition. If Arkansas' rules are less restricitive than the rules of the state where the student has been attending, the student may become eligible to participate in interscholastic competition in Arkansas upon the approval of the Executive Director. Rationale - To prevent parents from shopping for a school in Arkansas when their child is ineligible in their home state. Rule 12. PARTICIPATION ON NON-SCHOOL TEAMS. A. TEAM SPORTS 1. A student who is a member of a school's athletic team and who has engaged in interscholastic competition may not try out for, practice with, or otherwise participate with, or be a member of a non-school athletic team in the same sport, in season, without losing eligibility for up to a full year (365 days) from the date of such participation with the non-school team. This limitation shall apply to the team sports of football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, softball, and soccer, except that in baseball, softball and soccer, a member of an interscholastic baseball, softball or soccer team may try out for or practice with a non-school team on days when the school team does not practice or play\nhowever, this exception for baseball, softball and soccer shall not apply in weeks the school team is i!)volved in AAA-sponsored championship tournaments. 2. Participation on a non-school athletic team in the same sport, in season, shall define in season as the AAA established beginning date until the end of the state tournament in that sport for grades 9-12 in the sports of football, volleyball and basketball. 3. Students in grades 7-9 shall have end of seasor, defined as, when their high school team has been eliminated from qualifying competition for anJ conference, region or state championship for the sports of baseball, softball and soccer.\n, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS FOR STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES Revised September 2000 ===-== =-=================--~=== l[oo J\\!'E~LATORY AUTHORlT~'.---~ 7 i-01 \\ These regulations shall be known as Arkansas \\ \\ Department of Education Regulations Governing \\ School DistJict Academic Requirements for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities. [ l.02\\ These regulations a,e enacted pmsuant to the State \\ \\ Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code 1 ___ Annotated 6-11-l OS and 6-15-202 (1999 Repl.). \\[!i(i_]j:uRPOSE ] 1 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to set forth for \\ school districts the Standard for Academic Requirements for Competitive Interscholastic Activity 1 \\ Partici~ation which schools must meet in order to be \\ i accredited.  the acadermc standards for public school competitive \\ The further _Purpose of these regulations is to est~b_llsh interscholastic activities. [ooJ DEFl l ITIO s 3.01 \"Competitive Interscholastic Activities\" as used in these regulations mean those school-sponsored 1 activities in which students from two or more schools are competing for the purpose of receiving an award, 1 rating, recognition, or criticism, or qualification for additional competition. These regulations apply to 1 r competitive interscholastic activities only. 3.021\"Supplemental Instruction Program\" as used in these I regulations means an additional instructional o_ppo:1unity for identified students_ outside of their ume m the regular classroom and 1s further defined as: \\ \\ 3 .02. l a program verified and certified by the. \\ \\ administration of the local scho_o~ distnct 1 and the sponsors of the compet1 tl ve \\ interscholastic activities in which the school I district participates, and r--T 3.02.2\\' a program directed by a state-certified 1\\[L - -_,1. \\ classroom teacher, and 3 .02 .3\\ a program z-\ni\nd\n, an assessment of \\ the factors contributing to the student's TT CHM TTB \\ \\ l__JI !!inadequate academic performance, and I 1:====:~=== 3.02.41 a program designed to provide instruction I specific to the needs of the student in subject 1 areas where he is experiencing inadequate performance by providing assistance to the student by teachers, volunteers, or other I students who are proficient in the identified I J subject areas and that the instruction is focused on improving the student's skills in I the identified subject(s), and =-:==3=.0=2=_==:5 a program which requires identified school J personnel to contact the student's parent(s) 1\n====\n====, or guardian(s) to explain the supplemental instrnctional program to discuss the recommended course of action to meet the needs of their student, and the identified school personnel is required to keep a record of the contact made and the responses of the parent(s) or guardian(s), and 3.02.6 a program with procedures defined by the local district for monitoring student progress that includes requiring a progress report to be filed each grading period from the classroom teacher(s) in the subject a.rea(s) where the student's inadequate perfonnance has occuned with t11e report(s) sent to and held by the district's appointed director of the program. ~ ,========================== 3.03 \"Academic courses\" as used in these regulations means ==== those courses that are identified in the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for !Accreditation of Arkansas Public Sclzools as one of the 38 course offe1ings or is a definable course for which class time is scheduled and which can be credited to meet the minimum requirements for graduation and is taught by a teacher required to have State certification in the course, and has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. Any of these courses for which concurrent high school credit is earned may be from an institution of higher education recognized by the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.03 .1 Physical education (PE) may be considered an academic course for one full credit within the 21 minimum credits required for graduation by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of !Arkansas Public Sclzools, and for eligibility I purposes, the first time the PE ~a.de app_ears on the transcript in grades 9-12 1s when 11  r-  - ............. ~ .............. .:wvv 1.ltlll L.JI llwill be considered an academic course. I 3.03.2 A student may satisfy an academic requirement by successfully completing academic course(s) failed which must be repeated and passed\nor academic course(s) needed\nor an equivalent course(s) in a summer term(s)\nor a correspondence course(s) approved by the local school board for granting credit for graduation requirements. If the identical course(s) is/are taken in the regular school year, in summer school, or by correspondence, the better grade(s) may be substituted for computing the Grade Point Average of the student for\n=== the previous semester. 3.03.3 If an academic course, as defined in Section 3.03, is scheduled for 90 minutes per day every day of the semester as in the case of schools set up on block schedules and the student passes the course, then that course can be counted twice toward meeting the requirement for students to pass four ( 4) academic courses as used in any following section. 1 4.00 I ST Al~DARD: COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES POLICY ,--- 4.01 Each school district shall adopt and operate by a written policy specifying the requirements for competitive interscholastic activity pru.ticipation which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the requirements set forth herein in Section 5.00. LJ ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION 5.01 The State Standard Requirements for Junior High Effective Spring Semester, 1997-98 School Year. A student promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade automatically meets scholarship requirements. A student promoted from the seventh to the eighth grade automatically meets scholarship requirements for the first semester. The second semester ei_ghi1_1-gi:_aje student meet~ the scholarship req~fre\"m~ntsf.9r:iu11.i,or 1ugh ff he has successfuliy passed-four-(4) acad~giic courses the previous semester, three (3) of which shall be in the core curriculum areas of math, science, social studies, and language arts specifi.ed by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools. I S.02 jjThe first semester ninth-grade student meets the I II scholarship requirements for junior high if he has successfully passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester, three (3) of which shall be in the core cuniculum area of math, science, social studies, and language a.tis specified by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Sclzools. :===:=========================: 5.03 The second semester ninth-grade sh1dent meets the scholarship requirements for junior high ifhe has successfully passed four (4) academic courses the previous semester which count toward his graduation ~ requirements. 5.04 Ninth-grade students must meet the requirements of the senior high scholarship rule as set forth herein in Sections 5. 0 5 and 5. 06 by the end of the second semester in the ninth grade in order to be eligible to participate the fall semester of their tenth-grade year. Student promotions at the seventh and eighth grades meet scholarship requirements for participation in competitive interscholastic activities. 5.05 The State Standard Requirements for Senior High Effective Spring Semester, 1997-98 School Year. In order to remain eligible for competitive interscholastic activity, a student must have passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester and either: 5.05.l Have earned a minimum Grade Point Average of 2.0 from all academic courses the previous semester, or Have met the \"proficiency perfo1mance standard\" as defined by the State Board of Education on the state crite1ion-referenced literacy end-of-course test in the eleventh-grade for twelfth-grade eligibility, or ' Have met the \"proficiency performance standard\" as defined by the State Board of Education on the state criterion-referenced ~lgebr~eGme-try-efi\u0026amp;- urse tests, or ~chieved at or above the 50t ( percentile on the Basic Battery on the norm-referenced test administered by the state, for tenth-and eleventh-grade eligib  ty, or 5.05.2 Loca~ds..m~1:resfa waiver from the State Standard by submitting a plan following a required fo1mat to the Department of Education to implement the procedures for a supplemental instruction program outlined in Section 5.06. The LJLJIIDep~rtment will review the pla~ and approve:! or disapprove the requested waiver. LJ If th: student has passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester but does not meet any one of the requirements in Section 5.05.1, then the student must: 5.06.1 Be enrolled and attending a supplemental instruction program of at least 100 minutes duration each week outside the regular school day in the subject areas where inadequate performance has occurred. and Have no unexcused absences for the cunent semester or its equivalent and Have no school disciplinary actions for the current semester or its equivalent or known := criminal convictions. 5.06.2 A policy statement defining \"school disciplinary action\" for purposes of imposing a sanction under Section 5.06.1 shall be adopted by the local school board and distributed to the schools prior to enforcing a sanction. As a minimum, the policy shall state that when a student has been disciplined by being placed on suspension where he is out of school for a period of time will be defined as a \"school disciplinary action\" for the pw-poses of these regulations. 5.06.3 At the end of each semester grading period (December/January or May/June) if it is detelTilined by the supplemental instruction program director that the student in the supplemental instructional program is not meeting the State Standard Requirements in Section 5.05.1 for participation in competitive interscholastic activities, the student must remain in the supplemental instructional program during the following semester grading peiiod. 5.06.4 Sanctions. At any point the student falls out of compliance with any criteria in Section 5.06.1 during the semester, he wi11 be immediately suspended from competition for the remainder of the semester and must remain in the supplemental instructional program in order for his eligibility to be reconsidered at the end of the semester. If a I student fails to participate in the supplemental instructional program during ! any semester, then eligibility can only be LJLJ regained by the student earning a Grade Point Average of2 .0 from all academic courses lhe previous semester. 5.06.5 lf a student is declared ineligible at the end I of the fall semester and only participates in interscholastic competitive activities during the fall semester, he must be placed in the supplemental instrnction program and meet the requirements in Section 5.06.1 during the spring semester in order to be considered for eligibility the following fall. The same requirement applies to a student who only participates in spring semester activities. He must be placed in the supplemental instruction program and meet the requirements in Section 5.06.1 during the next fall semester in order to be considered == for eligibility in the following spring. 5.06.6 For the purposes of meeting the supplemental instruction requirement in Section 5.06.1, a \"week\" shall be considered to begin and end with the close of the official school day on Friday. 5.06.7 Any school district which would like to submit an alternative proposal for providing the supplemental instruction program during the school day may request a waiver from the State Board of Education for this requirement. These waiver requests will be considered by the State Board of Education on a school-by-school basis. School district officials seeking this waiver may need to appear before the State Board at a regularly scheduled meeting. 5.06.8 Any school district which requested and received a waiver as described in 5.06.7 from the State Board of Education following the effective date of the 1997 revisions will not have to reapply for this waiver as of the effective date of the 2000 revisions. 5.06.9 Reporting requirement: At the end of each school year, any school with an approved supplemental instruction program must file a report with the Department of Education on fom1s provided by the Department or electronically as directed by the Department. r, Students with disabilities under IDEA function under conditions specified in their Individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to be considered eligible to Ill lp:11 arKeau.stale.ar.USIU(J 7.hlrr LJ participate in competitive interscholastic activities. In order to be considered eligible to paiticipate in these activities, students with disabilities must pass at least four ( 4) courses required by the sh1dent's IBP. LJ The regulations as set forth herein in Sections 5 .01 through 5.07 establish the minimum academic requirements for participation. Noncompetitive interscholastic activity and competitive intrascholastic activity participation are not affected by these regulations. ~\\PENALTY I 6.01 Any school which allows a_st.udent toyarticipate in _~ ~o.wpetttive interscholastic.activity w~o is ineligible as defineq by these rules and regulations must rep\u0026lt;::\u0026gt;rt such a violation inunediately upon discovery of the violation to the Director of the Department of Education. = 6.02 A school will be placed in probationary status for allowing a student who has not met the established academic requirements in Section 5 .00 to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. Such probationary status will begin with the school year in which the violation occurs. If an eligibility violation occurs during either one of the next two following academic school years, then the school will be placed in loss of accreditation status. :== 6.03 These regulations establish the minimum requirements a school district's policy on competitive interscholastic activity participation must meet in order for schools in the district to be accredited. Local school districts are not precluded from implementing higher standards in their efforts to improve student achievement. ADE Homepage OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF   TT J J GRADE BASKETBALL PLAYER CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL ~elow is the timeline, indicating dates of occurrences and actions: MAY 1 6 ?.001 pril 27 received a phone call from Mrs. Laura Flanigan, Assistant Athletic Director. A returned call to Ms. lanigan indicated that she had information that had not attended SIP since January, yet he had played in the state tournament. (The January date proved inaccurate\nrather, March 1, 2001, was the verified date.) I called Mr. Howard, who agreed to investigate. In the meantime, Ms. Flanigan had stated that she would check the SIP logs for verification of attendance. Mr. Howard reported his findings (see Mr. Howard's message below. His April 31 e-mail, and packet are on file). I, had stopped SIP. However, he should not have been in SIP\" because of 5.05 of the Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Reaulations. Ms. Flanigan reported her findings as copied from her memo. (Her April 30 memo and accompanying packet are on file.) A section from her memo follows: After a careful check of the sign-in sheets, I found that the student in question,  did indeed stop attending the required SIP sessions on 3/1/01, as well as missed sessions on several occasions prior to that date (1/9, 1/18, 2/27)\nfrom that point on he was ineligible to participate in athletics with the Little Rock School District. However, .. participated in the 2001 AAAAA Central State Basketball Tournament and Championship for Central High School. Students are given the opportunity to make up sessions missed because an (a.m. \u0026amp; p.m.) session is offered to students. According to the records, no attempt was made for make-up. According to the rules and regulations of the program, no absences are allowed (that includes class absences) while in the program but as you can see from the enclosed attendance log, T  \u0026amp;Dwas listed absent on a daily basis. That violation in itself would disqualify a student from participation. This phase of the program should be monitored by the school administration but I realize that they are as I am, stretched to the limit and time is not always available to keep on top on all of this information so I am forced to look this up on the computer when I have the opportunity to do so. ATTACHME TC Reviewed all data from Mr. Howard and Ms. Flanigan and talked with Dr. Ed Williams in Evaluation and Testing. The findings are as follows: -1 est data provided by the school does indicate above 50 percentile on the basic battery for W\u0026amp;U, however, the data represent the results of C 10th grade testing, rather than \"previous semester\" as stipulated in SIP rules and regulations. Mrs. Flanigan's data appear accurate and complete. Dr. Williams reported that there were no test results for the previous semester because 11th graders do not take the Stan\u0026amp;rd 9 Test and the end-of-level tests are pilot tests. Therefore, had no test results for his 11th grade year, making the 5.05 invalid. Mav 7 Discussion of situation in the Superintendent's Cabinet meeting. Dr. Carnine advised legal consultation with our lawyers. Telephone conversation with Clay Fendley, who advised that I seek answers from an interview with Mr. Howard, the student, (SIP coordinator), and Coach..., NC , finding out if the coach and principal knew that the student was not in SIP. Other questions to be answered: Did someone tell the student to stop? Did talk with anyone at the school? Did we intentionally, purposefully violate policy or was this a mistake in reading the regulations, etc.? ,, ,cerviews held with Mr. Howard, John Kelly (assistant principal in charge of athletics),~, ~,and :a I- ,~ I explained my findings to Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly, informing them of the problem with the test scores and, consequently, eligibility. At this point it seemed that we played an ineligible player in some games, including the state tournament. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly both acknowledged that the first time they knew of the possibility of Ii iJeing ineligible was April 27. Neither was aware that a  Q had stopped going to SIP. Mr. Howard admitted at this point that J a did not attend SIP the week before the state tournament and the documentation does not help. eported that he \"stopped going.\" (He had no reason.) He stated that no one told him to stop. reported that she gave the coaches a copy of the attendance log after the Tuesday and Thursday sessions and that she had told tr  :while passing him in the hall), \"I haven't seen you in SIP.\" had responded \"he didn't need to go anymore.\" stated that he first found out tha  I had not attended SIP on April 27. He - [i:her stated that he had delegated the responsibility of attending the SIP class and the checking of \"1e attendance logs to his assistant. ddendum - Ma 14 2001 1:30 .m. talked with Mr. Ray Lumpkin, Arkansas Department of Education. A summary of the conversation r 11lws: ,S ,He received a call from il T I  C approximately two weeks ago, inquir~out the 5.05 section of the SIP. Mr. Lumpkin emphatically stated that this section applies to eligibility only for the 10th and 11th grade years. For the athlete to be eligible during the 12th grade year, he must either have passed the four .\\:lasic courses, with a 2.0, or attend SIP--not missing a day. If the athlete misses one day unexcused, \"he's ineligible immediately.\" He added, \"The sanctions imposed by the Arkansas Department of Education are different from those imposed by the Arkansas Activities Association: the first time - we give a warning\nsecond time - the school loses its accreditation.\" Mr. Lumpkin further mentioned that about \"three or four weeks ago, Mrs. Flanigan had invited him to a meeting with the high school coaches where he talked about SIP.\" SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION PROGRAM PLAN A. Describe how you plan to offer the required 100 minutes of supplemental instruction each week outside of the regular school day for the students, and how you will monitor attendance. The Little Rock School District will use the 1997 ADE Rules and Regulations Establishing the Academic Standards for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities as the eligibility rule-s for the District (attached), - The--Little Rock-school- District -will-operate a-supplemental instruction program outside the regular school day for students in grades nine through twelve who are participants in competitive interscholastic activities (including cheerleaders and drill team members) and who have passed four academic courses the previous semester but have failed to maintain a 2.00 grade point average during the semester preceding participation. The program will be developed in each secondary school by the principal and faculty and will be directed by a certified teacher (coordinator) at each building. The coordinator at each building will be assisted at each program session by a coach or sponsor who is working with students involved in the program. Students wishing to continue as participants in competitive interscholastic activities will attend two hours per week of supplemental instruction in those courses in which their grades fall below the required 2.00 grade average. After the roster of participants is developed by the school coordinator, attendance will be recorded for each session. B. How will the factors contributing to the inadequate academic performance by students in the Supplemental Instruction Program be assessed? Explain what assessment tools will be used. The supplemental instruction program will be based on an assessment of factors that contributed to the student's inadequate performance. Teachers of the courses wherein the student performed below the 2.00 grade level will identify the concepts that were not sufficiently mastered by the student and will provide instructional materials to be completed during the supplemental instruction program. The concepts will be identified from a review of the course objectives that were not successfully mastered and/or a profile of the concepts not mastered on standardized tests. ATTACHME TD C. Describe how the program will be designed to specifically address the needs of the students in the subject areas where assistance is needed (i.e., math, science, social studies, language arts, etc.). Include in your explanation whether or not you will use classroom teachers, volunteers, and/or students who have demonstrated knowledge in the identified subject areas. If the student tutors are used, what criteria will be used to identify these students?  Instructional materials identified by the teacher will be provided to the coordinator of the supplemental instruction program for each participating student. Those materials will be distributed to the student for completion during the program sessions. The coordinator may be assisted in the program sessions by other teachers, volunteers, ---- - - - ---- or--by---peer--tutors (students- who- have -demonstrated mastery -ef-the concepts, as evidenced by making a 3.00 grade point in the course in which assistance is being provided). D. Who will contact the student's parents or guardians to explain the supplemental  instruction program and how will this process be documented? The coach/sponsor of the student who wishes to participate in the supplemental instruction program will contact the student's parent and explain the program and the recommended course of action to reestablish the student's academic eligibility. The coach/sponsor will record the contact and any parental response to the program. E. Explain the procedures that will be used to monitor student progress while the students are in the supplemental instruction program. Be certain to include as one of the requirements a progress report to be filed each grading period by the classroom teachers in the subject areas where the students are experiencing difficulty. The supplemental instruction program director is required to keep a copy of these progress reports on file. Progress of the students participating in the supplemental instructional program will be monitored quarterly by use of the interim progress report for all students who are failing, are near failure, or who are working below capacity, Interim reports will be complet~d l\u0026gt;y the classroom teacher at the mid-point of each quarter and will be sent home to the parent, and a copy provided to the coordinator of the program. Progress will also be monitored by the distribution of quarterly grade reports by all teachers. Grade reports will be sent home to parents, and a copy will also be provided to the program coordinator. Both interim and quarterly grade reports will be retained by the program coordinator for each student who participated in the program. F. Explain the procedures you will use during the semester, and the end of each semester (December/January or May/June, to determine if the students in the Supplemental Instruction Program maintain eligibility. Include in the explanation how the requirements in Section 5.03 of the rules and regulations wlll be monitored. Students who choose to participated in the supplemental instruction program will maintain their eligibility during the semester by having passed four academic courses the previous semester (with PE counting as an academic course the first time it appears on the transcript in grades 9-12), by attending sessions of the program, having no unexcused absences or out-out-school suspensions for the current semester, and having no criminal convictions during the current semester,- -- --- - - --  - - ---- -- - - -    -   If, at the end of the semester (January/June), it is determined by the program coordinator that the student in the supplemental instruction program is not meeting the State Standard Requirements in section 5.02.1 of the ADE Rules and Regulations Establishing the Academic Standards for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities, the student must remain in the supplemental instruction program during the following semester grading period. At any point the student falls out of compliance with any criteria in Section 5.03.1 during the semester, he will be immediately suspended from competition for the remainder of the semester but remain in the supplemental instruction program in order for his eligibility to be reconsidered at the end of the semester. If a student is declared ineligible at the end of the fall semester and only participates in interscholastic competitive activities during the fall semester, he must be placed in the supplemental instruction program and meet the requirements in section 5.03.1 during the spring semester in order to be considered for eligibility the following fall. The same requirement applies to a student who only participates in the spring semester activities. He must be placed in the supplemental program and meet the requirements in section 5.03.1 during the next fall semester in order to be considered for eligibility in the following spring. Students with disabilities that have been documented under IDEA function under conditions specified in their individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to be considered eligible to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. In order to be considered eligible to participate in these activities, students with disabilities must pass at least ( 4) courses required by the student's IEP. A school will be placed in probationary status for allowing a st1.1dent who has not met the established academic requirements in Section 5.00 to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. Such probationary status will begin with the school year in which the violation occurs. If an eligibility violation occurs during either one of the next two academic school years, then the school will be placed in loss of accreditation status. Any coach/sponsor who knowingly violates the Little Rock School District plan for the supplemental instruction program, herein described, will be subject to the penalties set forth in the LRSD Policy IGD-R (1989-90). The Little Rock School District has chosen to implement a higher standard than the regulations required to improve academic -achievement by including grade nine students as a part of this program. The District Coordinator of the Supplemental Instruction Program is Ms. Laura Flanigan of the Athletic Office. Committee: Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director Laura Flanigan, Athletic Office Shirley Goodnight, J.A. Fair High School Sandra McFadden, Forest Heights Middle School Jay Pickering, Parkview Magnet High School Marcus Davis, Cloverdale Middle School Tiffany Gunn, Mcclellan High School Rashunda White, J.A. Fair-High School Nick Davis, Parkview Magnet High School rkansas Activities Associ . 3 920 Ricli.ar~s _RQa:d  North Little Rock, AR 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955--2521   ite a '131.E .A. . S.PO.RT ll Building Citizenship Through Activities Participation ATTACHME TE '. . : . Non-School Participation  Physical Exam - Hardship Exceptions 4. The definition of a non-school team includes one or more of the following: a. A team affiliated with and scheduled for participation in an organized league. b. A team participating against a team that meets criterion (1.) above. c. A team identified by a name or a uniform, and which participates in contests independent from league affiliation. NOTE: Practice is an activity involving the players of only one school's team. B. NATIONAL TEAM, OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, AND INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLSPORT FEDERATION. An exception to A. above may be granted: 1. A National Team (and the actual, direct tryouts therefore), which is defined as one selected by the national governing body (NGB) of the sport on a national qualification basis, either through a defined selective process or actual tryouts, for the purpose of international competition which requires the entries to officially represent their respective nations, although it is not necessary that there be team scoring by nation\nor 2. in an Olympic Development Program, which is defined as a training program or competition: a. conducted or sponsored by the United States Olympic Committee (USO()\nor b. directly funded and conducted by the USOC member national governing body (NGB) on a national level (e.g. NGB national championship competition and the direct qualifications therefore)\nor c. specifically authorized by a national governing body involving only athletes previously identified by the NGB as having potential for future participation in regional, national or international competition in the sport involved\nProvided in 1, 2, and 3: a. participation, if during the school year, is approved by the student's school administration, and the Arkansas Activities Association is notified in writing by the principal at least 30 days prior to the date of the program\nand b. the student makes prior arrangement to complete missed academic lessons, assignments, and tests before the last day of classes of the credit grading period in which that student's absence occurs\nand c. the student misses no AAA-sponsored athletic event involving a team in that sport. Rationale - To prevent conflicts in coaching philosophies during the school season and to prevent athletes from being exploited by over-participation. .!Mu.3.. PARTIGPATION IN INDMDUAL NON-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES. A. A student who is a member of a school's athletic program as a participant in a sport and who has engaged in interscholastic competition in that sport may enter non-school competition as an individual during or outside of the school season for that sport. These individual sports include: Cross Country, Track, Gymnastics, Tennis, Golf, and Swimming. B. If a participant is school-sponsored, the activity must be sanctioned under Article II, Section 8, Rule 6, Sanction (Approval)' of Events. Rationale - Athletes may participate on an individual basis without harm to a team since they compete by themselves. This provides opportunities for individuals to participate in a normally limited season. .!M.e.._li. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. In any year that a student engages in interscholastic competition, the student must present to the coach a physical examination verification prior to beginning practice. Rationale - The coaches and school administration must be assured that the athletes are physically fit prior to beginning practice as well as competition. ~fu!k...15.. HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY. Upon petition from a student's school administrator, the Executive Director is authorized to waive the requirements of all eligibility rules except the age rule if the school develops acceptable proof based on the stated criteria for such a waiver. A. Residence Exceptions: 1. After an investigation, a court of law has removed the student from the parents or guardians and subsequently assigned the student a place of residence. 2. The student is an orphan or there is no record of the parent's whereabouts. 3. The student's parents are out-of-state residents and the student is attending school in a school district where the parents maintain a legal residence (military, etc.). 4. The student's parents(s) have abrogated their responsibility toward the student as parents. .S. The student's parent(s) employment requires absence from home a great portion of the time the student is home and have arranged residence with relatives or friends for the purpose of supervision. 6. The student is married and living with a spouse, having a parent with residence in school district, or a spouse who had an established residence in the district one year previous to the marriage. 7. A student having lived three continuous years at any time as a bona fide member of a family may establish the family heads as substitute parents with respect to the residence rule. 8. An extreme and unusual circumstance exists that is no fault of the student or the parents. NOTE: The Executive Director is authorized to specify limitations or contingency conditions as needed when giving approvals, to ensure that such student shall not be induced to another school district or played under the pretense of being eligible should the eligibility status change. NOTE: The petition shall not be authorized if the director obtains reliable information that the student is transferring to the petitioning school primarily for athletic purposes or as a result of inducement or recruitment. B. Exception to Other Eligibility Requirements. 1. There has been an extreme and unusual circumstance that is no fault of the student, the parent, or the school that has prevented school attendance sufficient to cause that student to be in violation of the drop-out rule or the scholarship rule or the semester rule. 2. The student has been identified as being in need of special education or other special programs of study as authorized by the Arkansas Department of Education regulations, but is subsequently required by the school to participate in non-recommended courses. NOTE: If negligence or irresponsibility on the part of Page 36 - 2000-2001 MA Handbook the parent or school has a significant influence relative to the student being ineligible, such negligence or lack of responsibility may be considered. Rationale - There should be the opportunity to make exceptions to all rules, except the age rule, if the proof can be substantiated . SECTION 2  NON-ATHLETIC COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES Ru.lLl, BONA FIDE STIJDENT. (Same as athletic Rule 4.) Rule 2. SCHOLARSHIP. (Same as athletic Rule 10.) .B..u.k.]_, SEMESTERS. (Same as athletic Rule 6.) .B..l!.!u, AGE. (Senior High same as athletic Rule 7, Junior High none.) fu!.le....5.. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. A student involved in a vocational education youth organization need only be a bona fide student of a school and meet the scholarship rule. The student may not participate in an interscholastic event on or after the twenty-first birthday. ~- HARDSHIP CASES. (Same as athletic Rule 15.) SECTION 3 - CHEER AND DRILL/DANCE SQUADS .R.u.lLl. ELIGIBILITY. Students participating as a member of a school's cheer or drill/dance squad must meet eligibility requirements for interscholastic non-athletic competitive activities. lMLZ,. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. In any year that a student tries out for, or participates as a member of, the school's cheer or dance/drill squad, the student shall be required to have a physical examination prior to beginning an organized practice or workshop for  .tryouts and shall present a signed statement or verification which shall be valid for one calendar year. Rl.!.iLJ, STUDENT PARTICIPATION. Only a school's cheer squad members are authorized to participate on the sidelines, floor, or field during an athletic contest. This does not include pregame, halftime, or postgame activities if authorized by the school administration. An individual who is designated as a part of the squad to stand or perform with the squad on the sidelines, floor, or field during an athletic contest or spirit competition (ex: mascot) shall meet all eligibility requirements of cheer and dance/drill squad members. ii: 'An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" For Immediate Release May 17, 2001 For more information: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Board President 370-5255 School Board Statement Regarding LRSD Athletic Program The Little Rock School Board is aware of the seriousness of the recent allegations relative to the district's athletic program and is taking an active role in resolving the issues. First, the board has called for a thorough and intensive investigation of the allegations. The administration has assured the board that the investigation will be substantially completed in 30 days and will provide information that will allow the board to take appropriate action. Secondly, the board will meet with Dr. Kenneth James, the incoming superintendent, to clearly state policies and procedures and to confirm lines of authority, responsibility and accountability to ensure compliance. Finally, the board will institute internal audit procedures to fairly test the district's compliance to rules and regulations. The board is committed to academic excellence and achievement of all students in this district as well as the principles of fair play in athletics and other extracurricular activities. The actions of the board will substantiate its firm commitment. ATTACHME TF 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www. lrsd. org ATTACHME TG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R CLASS RA.~, GS/GRADE-POINT AVERAGES All grades, except those noted in the \"exceptions\" below, earned for high school courses, including excess elective units, shall be used in calculating the grade-point average and rankin- class. Grades included in the computation are as follows: 1. Grades earned for high school courses, whether taken in the regular day, evening school, or summer school program. ---\u0026gt;z,-,_ 2. Grades earned in alternative education programs, including those in LRSD, administered by school districts or other organizations which are accredited through their state department of education or a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges ( CA). 3. Transfer grades from accredited schools outside the Little Rock School District. 4. Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics course) and Level I foreign language (or higher-level foreign language course) taken in the eighth grade. 5. Only one (1) unit of physical education (One-halfun.it is required\none-half unit may count as an elective. Therefore, only the grades for one unit of physical education shall be computed in the grade-point average.) 6. Grades earned in approved concurrent credit college courses offered in cooperation with institutions of higher education. 7. Grades earned in summer enrichment programs conducted by institutions of higher education, if the course and credit were approved by the District. (See IKEC-Rl.) 8. Failing grades, even for those courses re-taken. 9. First grades of courses retaken to improve understandings and skills. 10. Grade earned for one semester of Driver Education taken from an accredited high school. 11. Grades earned on credit-by-examination to make up failed courses. (See IKEC-R3.) 12. Grades earned in the District's home-bound programs. 13. Grades earned in approved correspondence courses. (See IKEC-R2.) 14. Grades earned in approved on-line or distance-learning courses. 15. Courses in which a student earns an C (no credit due to excessive absences). Regardless of the student's grade in a course for which he/she earns an C, the NC, which equals O points, replaces the grade and is used in the calculation of the grade-point average. 28 HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www. lrsd. org TTACH IE TH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEP\" CODE: IKEC-R3 CREDIT BY EXAMINATION Purpose The following regulations provide guidelines for the administration of the credit-byexamination program, effective the 1999-2000 school year. Eli!!ibilitv Criteria In order to be eligible to earn credit by examination, a student must meet all the following criteria: 1. Be enrolled in grades 6-12\n2. Have been enrolled, according to a review of school records, at least 55 scholastic hours for a semester core course. Exception: Keyboarding credit may be earned through examination at either the middle school and high school levels, without prior enrollment in the course, as per a waiver granted by the Arkansas Department of Education. 3. Be recommended for the credit by examination program by a teacher or counselor and the principal of the school\nand 4. Have parent permission to take the examination for possible credit instead of retaking the course. Available Courses Credit by examination shall be available to students for the following courses: Middle School High School English 6, 7, 8 English I, II, III, IV Mathematics 6, 7, 8 Algebra I Keyboarding Geometry Achievement of Course Benchmarks Concepts of Geometry Civics World History United States History Keyboarding Examinations used to earn credit under this policy shall assess the student's achievement of course benchmarks and shall be properly evaluated by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction or designee before credit is granted. The District may develop the examinations or may purchase end-of-course examinations that are aligned with the State's curriculum frameworks. Examination Development The following procedures shall apply if examinations are developed locally for credit by examination: 1. All tests developed for credit by examination shall be written by staff in the Division of Instruction with the advice and input of classroom teachers. 2. Tests used for credit by examination shall be comparable in difficulty to semester examinations administered to students during the regular school year. 3. All tests administered for credit by examination shall be evaluated (graded) by a member of the staff of the Division of Instruction and/or a teacher in that subject area. Procedures The following procedures shall apply: 1. Credit-by-examination tests shall be administered at the end of each semester according to a schedule developed by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. 2. A student shall attain a passing grade in order to receive credit. 3. No student in grades 6-8 may earn more than one course credit each year through creditby- examination. No student in grades 9-12 may earn more than two total units through credit by examination. 4. Students are limited to one test administration per semester per course. 5. Students will be notified in writing of their examination grade and whether credit will be awarded. Such notification shall occur in time for decisions relating to summer school attendance can be made. 6. The credit-by-examination procedures shall be coordinated by the Assistant Superintendent for Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE), with input from appropriate curriculum directors and other staff. Grant and Record of Credit The grant of credit is subject to District approval. Credit obtained by this method shall be recorded on the permanent record for grades 6-8 and the high school transcript for grades 9- 12, upon written authorization by the Association Superintendent for Instruction. A student may not take the Keyboarding course for credit in both middle school and high school. Use of Credit V 1. Credit by examination shall not be used to gain eligibility for participation in extracurricular activities. 2. Credit-by-examination cannot be used by grade 12 students to earn eligibility to participate in graduation ceremonies since the administration of the tests occurs after the graduation ceremony. 3. Credit-by-examination may be used to earn promotion from one grade level to the next at the middle school and high school levels . . otice The District shall give reasonable notice of the availability of credit by examination in student handbooks and other documents made available to students and parents. 33 -LTTl_E r~~.JG:-\\ t:'CHo\n:n._ I7'15Tf:Z1GT ::E!J7-RAL '.,ifJ~ SC~0tJL 'Jl f:1PAi'iJ.8H T. J j~  FD 5.~ NVI R l : J:2  GJ:nMf.TR \\\"( r~ ,1:3 . GEfJL-EJF hC E :n wu, HJST Fi ).-'i, ENG l I I fl CJ.. Eie.'ovu ... l.'. \\ . 7.3\u0026gt; y.3) O C D (] L D ,.,,..~ t) F C .oc. --rJ) 1~101 .J)-C.. 'h.s101 C\n,,C.... Yz.C\\101 ~ ,(IC.. '/7Alo I \u0026amp; ATTACHMENT I ~-iom e roorn f=~ur11ber 3 JO 8M l cu1ren~ G. P.A. Cumu l ative G. P. A. P ER I OD ADBEf\"lT 01 3 o~, e 03   \"2. C4 8 To Whom lt May Concern: In the past few weeks there have been press reports, conjecture, and widespread speculation that a Central High student's grades were changed for unethical reasons. Namely, just so that be could play basketball. As a human being, I am hurt to have my name so recklessly and unfairly tied to such implications. As an educator, I am deeply troubled that these implications have been made without a thorough investigation into the facts at hand. I have never been offered the opportunity to explain myself. I have done nothing unethical. My true motivations for changing this student's grade have, up until now, .been my own private knowledge. That will change with this letter. In the beginning weeks of the third quarter, approached me about changing his grade \"so that [he] could play basketball.\" I was unwilling to do so. I cited . low-test grades, his behavior problems in my class, and the fact that he had never attended the after-school tutoring that I offer every school day. I told that I had no reason to believe that changing his grade would accomplish anything. After our conversation, I saw behavior and attitude changes in  that caused me to reconsider my unwillingness to change his grade. The behavior problems that I bad had with him completely disappeared. His attention span in class improved dramatically. His interest in Spanish, which had been low, began to grow. He came in for tutoring after school, and made a high score on a vocabulary quiz. Changing a student's grade in a conspiracy to maintain an advantage in athletics would not only be illegal, but it would also be unethical and immoral. That is something I would never do. However, I would also never deprive a student from participating in an activity that was a great motivator for him or her to improve academically. It was clear to me that, for , basketball was such a motivator. When I saw the difference in approach to Spanish, I realized it was due to his desire to play basketball. Consequently, I decided that a grade change was appropriate because it reinforced his academic improvement. These are the facts regarding the changes I made in grade in my class and my reasons for doing so. These reasons are rooted solely in . best interests and in nothing else. I would do the same for any one of my students, and feel good about it. And in hindsight, if I had it all to do over again, I would do nothing differently. As a teacher, I believe I have a responsibility to do everything in my power to help a student excel in academics. In this situation, as in every other situation with every one of my students, my actions were consistent with this responsibility. Sincerely, ATTACHME TT J HOWARD, RUDOLPH I, . TEACHERS OF . ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE REASON FOR GR.P..DE CHAl~lGE . ) . Fn i:: 1 ht-- 1 TEACHER Qi= 0A teacher suoject CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 3rd quarter grade _ Exam Grade _ _ 2nd quarter grade_L 4th quarter grade _ _ Final Grade __ _ for the following reason: At e. eV\\d D+ -=th~ 9 rc.{d 1n3 -:p-e\n,-: od. 1 had. hot +vr-r1ed 1n h1':s -MO al rec.tp:e., pr-dkct Lt\u0026gt;h, c1 rntt.de his average n...,(D), H-e. -tvY-Y'\\e-e~ 1n h,'.s ('C1pes,, bu+- 1Jo1 os were.. I oo hoo due.... -+o be, n\u0026lt;A 1 lo..,4e_. Q(\\d ove 1,..0L l\\ ov-o\\ec,,+. V I ~ Did you , the teacher, initiate the change? __ yes __ no Did s~~~~ni:lse in)tiate tr change1 I X yes __ no Did you, the teacher, discuss. e chang~ with anyone? )S,_yes __ no Who? Indicate the nature of the discussion: ask'e rn-e... 111hoJ--- \u0026gt; rn, ssed baJ caused h,'~ YO-de, :6 h-e Ct 11D\", I+o\\d him \\r\\,'s py oJec\ntbo Ls IJlOdb ~oo ptsi Is it \"common prac1ice\" to change students grades when warranted? yes _x__ ___ no Was any precedent set as a resu lt of your changing the grade? yes--.X_ ___ no ATTACHMENT K To: Mr. Rudolph Howard From:W .,,,... Date: May 18, 2001 Re: Grade change explanation Dear Sir: In reference to the grade that I changed on January 25, 2001 for . -, I would like to give a full explanation. On many occasions, students bring in missed or late assignments that when completed requires a change of grade. This was the case with . Because I felt he had an excusable reason for not turning in his required work, I allowed him to tum it in at a later date. The required assignment was a recipe file. The assignment was worth 200pts. Below, you will find a detailed e:i..-planation of his grades before and after his grade change. 1st 9weeks grade 20/20 100/100 80/100 75/100 25/25 40/100 0/50 425/610 possible 69.67 - 70% IC Before Grade Change 50/50 20/ 93/100 76/100 65/100 70/100 It\n80/100 0/200----(Recipe files) 454/ 750 possible= 60%/ D Semester Calculations (Before) Grade charu!e 70 - 1st nine weeks grade 70 60 - 2nd nine weeks grade 60 7 6 - Semester Test 336 divided by 5 = 67.2/ D After Grade Charu!e 50/50 20 93/100 76/100 65/100 70/100 80/100 100/200 554/750 possible= 74%/C (After) Grade Chanire 70 - 1st nine wee!G gi\"ade 70 7 4 - 2nd nine weeks grade 74 i 6 - Semester Test 36 divided by 5 = 72.8/ C  Because all students ru:e beginners in cooking, their cooking labs are not calculated and therefore, are not counted against student grades. Statement Concerning eceived a 65 percent \"D\" his first nine weeks grading period. The \"D\" was due in part to his failure to hand in four textbook assignments. He asked if he could tum in the assignments late, but my answer was no. S earned a 79 percent \"C\" the second nine weeks grading period. His semester final was a 50 percent \"F\". His semester grade calculated out to be a 68 percent \"F\" and the grade sheet was given to the registrar. S _ f asked if I would look at the grade again and consider letting him make up past assignments. I agreed to look at the entire semester again. I realized upon review that letting  turn in only two of the assignments missed from the first nine weeks would result in his grade being a \"C\"  Further calculation, based on the new information, revealed his semester grade would have been a \"C\" and not a \"D\". At this point, I felt I had been unfair to ff and informed him that I would make a grade change. I am forwarding this information with the hope that it will in no way be used to violate or compromise 1$  rights under the FERP A Act. Sincerely, ATTACH IE TL iOWARD, RUDOLPH TEACHERS OF ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE REASON FOR GRADE CHANGE EDWARDS CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 2nd quarter grade __ 3rd quarter grade __ _ Exam Grade __ _ 4th quarter grade __ _ ,/ Final Grade for the following reason: A~ Sf A+ d i/J ,A ltm7l /ILc--V!cXu. ~ _( I,{_ h /4. ~f-/F ,\u0026lt; I .=ii f fill- I L.,/ {\ntA\u0026lt;. ~::{.,\u0026lt;.,~ ~ f?l A I u dJ,1\ns ~\ns r 9 /4. cl /4 ,.-t:flr. /4.\n, a.efipi,., 1/u\nfJ ~ . IU.a.h ,4 5t!Jt(Ef,7?:Z. Did you, the teacher, initiate the change? ~es __ no :Jid someone else initiate the change? __ yes Z Who? ________ / Did you, the teacher, discuss the change with anyone? _yes __ no Who? _______ _ Indicate the nature of the discussion: !s it \"common prjCtice\" to change students grades when warranted? yes~ ___ no Was any precedent set as a result Qf--1our changing the grace? yes_ ~ HOWARD, RUDOLPH Ta: TEACHERS OF ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE ,...._ \\SON FOR GRADE CHANGE ~,\u0026amp;TEACHER OF , teache,r --/-- subject/ EDWARDS CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 3rd quarter grade __ Exam Grade / / 2nd quarter grade__L_ 4th quarter grade _ _ Final Grade / Did someone else initiate the change? __ yes / no Who? ______ _ Did you\nth  yone? /ves __ no Who?~~~~~!::::,l:.........::::l~t:.c.-t.e\n,~ Indicate the nature of the discussion: \\ /40 ~ ~ ~~v ~ 4-,y.ua ,?\n~ 'A.i, P'.e~ ~ ::::Z' -.z,, pu::zZ\n.,. Is it \"common pr,ittice\" to change students grades whepwarranted? yes -1L ___ no Was any precedent set as a result of your changing the g~ade? yes__  no ATTACHME rTM :OWARD, RUDOLPH I,~ Teachers of Eligibility Investigating Committee Reason for Grade Change ,,, teacri-,r changed his: ~check one) \u0026lt;~ mTeacherof SU ect ff-0 1st quarter grade __ 2nd quarter gradeL f -~ 3rd quarter grade __ 4th quarter grade __ Final a.... rade .,f r-- (\n. for the following reason: ' ..AHt,1/\nf z.,w .q\nk ~ 4/'-tfU/t:, d'A42Z\n:.,f(/2\n2\u0026amp;( ~ A',\u0026amp; ~A ZZ~~~ ' ,U,u?.,W ~ 44/ ,v ~.ii!hi ~ft\u0026lt;-~~~~ -i~ ~ (j:-,0'},-L,IV ..Zt70 _,,e  ~ ~ T0:J ~ ~' .,,y signature below ~ests to the fact that I wis not coeroe\"d 1n any way by anyone to make the grade cffunge and that ,. the change w..~ . s ma~ because the student's efforts in my class warranted a grade change. teacher's signature LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT NEPN CODE: I.KA. GRJ\\DING SYSTEMS The primary purpose of grading is to keep parents and students fully informed of a student's progress in meeting course standards and benchmarks and to provide teachers and principals with a continuous and accurate record of each student's achievement in order to assess the effectiveness of instruction. Grades for progress summary reports to parents are issued on a nine-week basis, semester, and/or yearly basis. While completely uniform grading criteria at and between all school levels may not be possible, the grading system is established with the intent of being fair and in having enough consistency to accomplish its purposes. The procedures for nine-week, semester, and yearly grading are set forth in the administrative regulations. It is the policy of the Board of Education that grades assigned to students for performance in a course shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed standards and benchmarks of the course. Academic grades shall not be reduced for disciplinary reasons except in the case oflate assignments or academic dishonesty. Neither shall academic grades be enhanced for disciplinary compliance or for other non-academic rewards. Variations in instruction, performance standards, and assessment strategies for students with disabilities shall be determined by the admission, review, and dismissal committee and included in the student's individual education plan. Teachers are responsible for adapting pacing, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments for students who have been identified as limited-English proficient. Revised: Septe!I_lber 23, 1999 Adopted: July 23, 1998 Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-15-902 Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation IKA-R ATTACHME T Senior High School Student Handbook ATTACHME TO ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES Penalties and Notification Procedures l. When a student has missed three or more unexcused absences in any class during one semester, the school attendance secretary shall notify the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis. Notice shall be via telephone contact by the end of the school day in which the absence occurred or sent via regular mail, with a return addressed envelope, no later than the following school day. Data from the student's Pupil Information Form will be used in this procedure. 2. When a student has six unexcused absences in any class during one semester, the school attendance secretary shall again notify the student's parent or guardian of the number of absences. Also, the student's building-level administrator shall schedule a conference with the student and his or her parent or guardian to discuss the student's absence pattern and its effects together with appropriate interventions. The administrator shall explain during the conference that course credit will be denied if the student receives seven (7) unexcused absences in a semester. 3. Course credit will not be denied if a student/parent/administrator conference is not held or if appropriate documentation of the student's absences has not been forwarded to the parent, at the student's address of record. However, a parent's failure to attend a conference or respond to notification of a conference will not circumvent the loss of course credit for the student. 4. Course credit shall be denied for each class in which a student has more than six (6) unexcused absences during one semester and when the administrative conference has been held, unless the principal or assistant principal finds there are extenuating circumstances of such that to deny credit would be unfair. 5. If the principal or assistant principal denies course credit, the student may appeal the course credit denial to the LRSD Student Hearing Officer [324-2170]. The student must request an appeal within 24 hours of the principal or assistant principal's final decision to deny course credit. 57 ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES 6. On the seventh unexcused absence, the parent/guardian shall be notified that a referral to the Pulaski County Juvenile Cour1 has been made in accordance with Act 1308, adopted by the Arkansas Legislature, March, 1997. 7. When a student who is fourteen or older has missed more thru seven (7) consecutive days without approval of the principal o assistant principal, the school attendance secretary shall notif\nthe Arkansas Department of Finance and AdministratiOJ (DF\u0026amp;A). DF\u0026amp;A may suspend the student's driver's license unti the student provides satisfactory evidence that he or she i attending school or has reached age eighteen. WARNING: The District will count three (3) or more class absences one day as a full-day absence. 58\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\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_1359","title":"Proceedings: ''Pulaski County: Plan for Implementation of Middle Schools in Pulaski County Special School District''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-05-04"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School facilities","School management and organization","Education, Secondary","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Pulaski County: Plan for Implementation of Middle Schools in Pulaski County Special School District''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1359"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1707","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision","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":["2001-05"],"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","Knight Intervenors","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS)","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School buildings","School employees","Student activities","School integration","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision"],"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/1707"],"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 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Knight intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, motion objecting to release of Little Rock School District (LRSD) from federal court supervision; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) intervenors' objections to proposed Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) conversion to middle schools; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle schools; District Court, order; District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined reply to Joshua and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and further submissions to this court; District Court, Joshua's response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve addition of an activities facility at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED EAsrM;...sN01STR1cr COURT K 01STRICT ARf\u003cANSAS MAY JC ;,nrn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 11 2001 Offliit 1:. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 8JAy M ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DESmRE6ATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion, Knight, et al. Intervenors, state: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. At the close of the hearing on Friday, May 4, 2001, the undersigned counsel for PACT and PASS requested a ten (10) day period to file objections to the 4I PCSSD plan to implement middle schools within the district. The court granted the request and gave PACT and PASS ten (10) days to file such objections. PACT/PASS intend to file objections to the PCSSD proposal. 2. Because of scheduling conflicts, the Mother's Day week-end and the absence of Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT, counsel has been unable to meet with PACT and gather information with which to file said objections. 3. Granting a seven (7) day extension of time to file said objections until close of business on Monday, May 21, 2001 will cause no prejudice to PCSSD or the other parties. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors, et al., and JJ10re specifically PACT and PASS pray that the court grant an additional seven (7) days or until close of business on ,,,, 'ft DEP CLEHK Monday, May 21, 2001 to file their objections to PCSSD's plan to implement middle schools within the district and grant them all other relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 (501) 224-1110 Richard W. Roachell (78132) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a true and correct c~y. of the foregoing document was sent by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, on this. l \\ T ~Y of May, 2001, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVEO MAY 1 6 2001 MAY 1 4 2001 VlfiCl:OF DESEGREGATION MONfflJRJNQ JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: OEP CLER~ rn THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERmEKNIGffi, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAmTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to PCSSD l\\Jotion for Approval of Middle Schools up to and including May 21, 2001. For their motion, Joshua states: 1. Additional time is needed in order to provide a response due to undersigned counsel's schedule. 2. Counsel for the Knight Interv~nors has filed a similar request. 3. Counsel for the PCS SD has been contacted and he has indicated that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time up to and including May 21, 2001 in which they may file their response to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle Schools. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50137~ By~r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 14th day of May, 2001. ~-~ \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 15 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff (s) vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED Defendant(s) MAY 21 2001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors Intervenors Pending before the Court are motions filed by the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to file responses to PCSSD's motion to approve middle schools. The Court finds that the motions should be, and they are hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including May 21, 2001, to file responses to PSCCD's motion for approval of middle schools . 11' Dated this ___ii_ day of May, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED .ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI ~ULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON - '{;..~(J/ BY er:-: 9?~~M SUAN WEBBER WRIGH~ Chief United States District Judge -FIECEl\\fEO - MAY 18 2001 MAY 1 6 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrroRING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C=S W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERI( WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension ohime to Respond to LRSD's Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases: Name of Case Date of Trial Bennett v. First National Bank May 21 , 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. v. Joe Bryant III May 29, 2001 Beverly Burkett v. USDA June 4, 2001 Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. June 4, 2001 Jamie Tims v. DHS June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judoo G. Thomas Eisele 'r!., Judge George Howard Jr. Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 4, 2001 June 6, 2001 June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 13, 2001 Judge William \"Bill\" Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the District's compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report up to and - including June 18, 2001 . Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374- 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via United States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi th day of May, 01. EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1077) ROBERT S. LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR.' ,, .... ,  ,1 ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G . LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL 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 CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER , JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O. ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: ATTORNEYS AT LAW TROY A. PRICE . ... ,..,...... -.a,. \" wlICIA SIEVERS HARRIS 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE Bl\"' e C MN !'.0 P 0 R 0 /o~R. SUITE 2200 . . .  A SOH\"oV~~ HANCOCK LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 9 KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS (501) 371-0808 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON FAX (501) 376-9442  ~ICHAEL 0 . BARNES MAY 2 i 200 TEPHEN R. LANCASTER , ~ UOY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN l\\C:j ; u\"i: C. TAO BOHANNON Ur.-lwJ;; I MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD ~TIN! M0NITQMl(tia~~'b~i;HERTY' ~ _......Ni.I M. SEAN HATCH ., PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Writer's Direct Dia I No. 501-212-1273 JANE W. DUKE mJonesCwlJ .com ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY. Pn.o .  May 18, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 l..icflnHd to practice before the Un#ed Stat Patent and Trademark Off,ce Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker lnterdistrict School, which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 255717-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP \u0026-~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION TO APPROVE ADDITION OF AN ACTIVITIES COMPLEX AT BAKER INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: RECEIVED MAY 21 200f GROF BM WN1aomNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" to this motion is a letter from the principal of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School to the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services outlining what she feels to be an opportunity to enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker Elementary. 2. Briefly stated, the principal and administration believe that the construction of the complex described in Exhibit \"A\" would present a unique opportunity not present at the District's other elementary schools. 3. While the construction of the activities complex would relieve congestion in the building regarding music, art and other activities, it would not literally expand capacity. The District would commit not to utilize any of the new construction for regular classroom space without permission of this Court. 255238-v1 4. However, the Court's approval of the District's current motion to convert to middle schools would generate space sufficient to accommodate newly recruited M to M students and intradistrict transfers to Baker, for the 2001-2002 school year. 5. Further, in a matter not mentioned in Exhibit \"A\", it is important for the Court to note that Baker and other PCSSD schools in the western part of Pulaski County compete directly with established private schools in the area. One is Walnut Valley Christian Academy located at 19010 Highway 10. Walnut Valley has a gymnasium/activity complex. Chenal Valley Montessori School is located at 15717 Taylor Loop Road, which offers preschool through middle school. Baker itself also competes directly with Hebron Christian Academy located at 18715 Kanis Road, about 1  miles from Baker. 6. Further, it is known. and has been known for some time, that Pulaski Academy plans to relocate to a site proximate to the Wildwood Performing Arts Center on Denny Road located approximately two miles from Baker Elementary. 7. The District believes that the construction of a complex as described in Exhibit \"A\" would enhance its ability to recruit additional minority students to Baker and at the same time help position it to compete more effectively with the schools described above. Three pages depicting the location design and dimensions of the proposed complex are attached as Exhibit \"B\". 8. The District will need to supplement this motion as soon as possible to outline a specific strategy and plan for the recruitment of additional minority students to Baker as well as provide the specifics of how additional students would be - accommodated as regards space. The District anticipates that this plan can be 255238-v1 2 - developed in coordination with Joshua and submitted to the Court as soon as reasonably possible. WHEREFORE, the District prays that the construction plans set forth herein be approved and for all proper relief. 255238-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ty Special 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 18, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 255238-v1 4 Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School May 18, 2001 Karl Brown Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services 15001 Kanis Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 (501) 228-3250 Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Brown: Baker Elementary is located in west Little Rock off of Chenal Parkway. In the original Desegregation Plan, because of its low minority population, Baker Elementary was identified as an lnterdistrict school with an extended day program to attract minority students. Since 1988, Baker has struggled to meet the targeted percentage of minority students. Again this year Baker's minority population is below the target range, at sixteen percent. As the new administrator of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary, I have a strong commitment to Pulaski County Special School District's Desegregation Plan. I have realized during this past year that the recruitment efforts to attract minority students to Baker have not positively impacted our racial composition. Recognizing Baker's need to increase the minority enrollment, I have established a recruitment committee that has formulated and implemented a recruitment plan. At the beginning of the year, we met with Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring to seek his guidance in our plan. The District's Director of Equity has also been involved in Baker's recruitment planning. As the year has progressed, we have made good faith efforts toward our goal of increasing minority enrollment. These include, but are not limited to, 1) participating in city wide events (World Fest and Boo at the Zoo); 2) surveying our M to M parents as to why they chose to attend Baker and what keeps them at Baker; and 3) visiting our partner Little Rock school, Romine Elementary, where our students presented Baker's economic specialty program and the extended day program (selling points identified from the survey) to this group. Information was then sent home with Romine students. To date, however, these efforts unfortunately have not yielded the results we had anticipated. While seeking to find an added incentive that will attract minority families to Baker, a unique opportunity has presented itself. Parents and an area business have approached me about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room , and an art room. While exploring this opportunity, I began to envision what this building might mean to my goal for increasing Baker's minority student population.  Baker has a strong and highly successful studio art program offered by volunteers and supported by the district with materials and training. The availability of a room designed for art would be optimal for the in-school program and extension of the after school extended day program.  Volunteers offer Baker students additional curriculum in the area of vocal music that is now held in an open space room with heavy traffic or the regular classroom. A music room would allow for school-wide music instruction as well as enrichment for the extended day program.  Just this year, volunteers have offered a high-interest curriculum teaching physical education. However, this instruction competes for available open spaces. The EXHIBIT Pulaski County Special School District I A gymnasium would optimize instruction and create opportunity for intramural sports and before and after school program use. The opportunity to acquire a facility free to the District (on the heels of voters having declined a millage that would be directed at facilities improvement) may be the blessing Baker has hoped for-a recruitment tool we have not tried. With an activities complex, our art, music, and physical education programs could be expanded during the school day and beyond to enrich our lnterdistrict Specialty after school extended day program. As parents and the lead business continue to plan, the recruitment possibilities seem to be limited only by our imagination (i.e. intramural sports, music and art lessons). Pending court approval, the District has made a \"good faith\" offer of support, approving this request and allocating a part-time certified physical education teacher that validates the program as a recruitment tool. The District has identified Crystal Hill Magnet Elementary School to share the certified physical education teacher in an effort to offer an additional program for their recruitment of minorities. With this facility, the support of a certified teacher, and strong parental and community involvement, this may just be what we need for additional incentive for increased recruitment for Baker. An important note, our district currently has schools that seek to attract white students through physical education (Bates Elementary) and music/art (Landmark Elementary) for desegregation purposes. However, there is no school that seeks to attract minority students through physical education and music/art programs. Therefore, it is our hope that it would please the court to grant our request to allow for the construction of the proposed activities complex to assist with Baker's recruitment plan. Thank you for your attention and representation of our request. M'tk -TJ!t:._, Beverly M. Ruthven Principal Baker lnterdistrict Elementary Pulaski County Special School District A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LI TTL E ROCK , ARKAN SAS FRONT ELEVATION a ~ BAINUI C0Hsu.T,HT F I'I $ P_ROPOSED SITE PLAN A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN t BAINUM CONsll.TAHt( MtPJ -f ,  .vr. I J ~?Y. .- ,};.?~~~''.( :.:;,,~,:~,?,)~'\\'~ .:-?r~itF~)f.f!~, ;~:~;;;~~j;lr~~~{ :ti~r.;f !I~t: ~~!1~.:;'fi;:l.cf*:'t .   \" ;:tf:l:-.. l! \\. ;:;y{h::ttf :-T: .. :ii{'~t ~ ~, ~-. -,:c :,.:~:t\"\\i J,i!: !,,,~., ?:fi : rJ~~~tf l!\\:~-\\1~;itfi} . .:, ,. !~ i ~.,J-:,:\\ ~_l'::;!';\\: ~  '-~:-~{~.t!:~~rr:-~~\\ -:-.~D: --- ......____..... ...... ,P. .R.O. POSED SITE PLAN- MAY 2 9 2001 FILED EAST~ifN ~i; RR/ICCTTCOURT AR/\u003cANSAS MAY 1 8 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JBy:~ A~~CL ERK vs CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all, Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. 3. 4. Jurisdiction is proper as Frankliil A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Carnine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis' employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis' termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. DEP CLERK e..r.:. 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis' job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedural due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis' character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 2 15. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3, 2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it. 'is moving swiftly and in good faith' to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today, May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School District's scandalous, whitewashing, and 'dirty linen' covered behavior covers the front page of the state's largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Carnine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DA VIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis' suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: \"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.\"  3 The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis' Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teacher's character or reputation. The Supreme Court hoJds that a teacher, even a nonprobationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her \"good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.\" See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employee's opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Vlett, 466 F.2d 113, 116 (8th Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teacher's character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to a prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilderman v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972); Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973); Buhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, \"An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident\". \"Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism.\" She also wrote, \"His leadership style and relationship is respected 4 - by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community.\" She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, \"Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel displays that Mr. Davis is a team player.\" \"Administrative policies are followed while working well with others.\" She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Carnine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School District's exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis' claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 -Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2, 1998 -Dr. Carnine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Carnine's intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 5 4 .) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendent's recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12; 1998-Dr. Carnine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Carnine's termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Carnine's recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. Afler the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 6 3.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Carnine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an \"alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recornrnendation.\"(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis' termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis' attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School District's attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principal' s job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkan "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1456","title":"\"2000-01 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":["2001-04-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","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 enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2000-01 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/1456"],"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":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_27","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":["2001-04","2001-05","2001-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/27"],"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.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \\ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ WESTERN DMSION ! RECEIVED \\t.\\~1 4 - 100\\ Qff\\ttOf lllfll6'1\\0ll tAQll{roR\\tlQ 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 April, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ~~T . HAGEMEIER # 127 Assistant Attorney =a1 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on April 26, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 ationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 - Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 INTHE 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, 2001 Based on the information available.at March 31, 2001, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available at March 31, 2001, the ADE calculated for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 On March 31, 2001 , clistributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 00/01 were as follows: LRSD - $38,391,330 NLRSD - $20,491,872 PCSSD - $41,159,823 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 00/01 at March 31 , 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28,176,324 PCSSD - $56,594,757 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, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Basea on the information availa6Ie, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to Rerioaic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 00/01 at March 31, 2001, totaled $7,753,631. Allotment calculated for FY 00/01 was $10,763,339 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Calculated for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 00701 at Marcli 31, 2001 were: LRSD - $2,620,338 NLRSD - $1,486,323 PCSSD -$5,190,668 Tfie allotments calculated for FY 00/01 at March 31, 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,816,614 NLRSD - $2,092,977 PCSSD - $7,301,748 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, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 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, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 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, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01 : LRSD- $2,197,201.00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD -$1,184,784.28 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, 2001 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. 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, 2001 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, 2001 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. T. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring . 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 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 . 9 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, 2001 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. 10 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, 2001 (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. 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, 2001 (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. 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, 2001 (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. 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. 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, 2001 (Continued) 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. 14 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, 2001 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, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 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, 2001 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, 2001 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, 2001 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, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 16 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, 2001 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. 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. 17 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, 2001 (Continued) 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. 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. 18 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, 2001 (Continued) 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. 19 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, 2001 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, 2001 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, 2001 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 20 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, 2001 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. 21 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, 2001 (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. 22 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, 2001 (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. 23 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, 2001 (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. 24 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, 2001 (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. 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, 2001 (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. 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, 2001 (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. 27 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, 2001 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. 28 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, 2001 (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. 29 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, 2001 (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. 30 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, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 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 31 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, 2001 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, 2001 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, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 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. 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. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) 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. 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. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) 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. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (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 ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 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. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coor.dinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 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. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 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. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) 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. 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. 3 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (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 SP.ecifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have 15een conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County sinye July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 me ADE fiela tne Math/Science Leadership Conference al UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to SUPROrt s~stemic retorm in matfi/scierice ana 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 workea with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On Septemoer 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purgose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administra1ors 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. 42 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. 8. 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, 2001 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, 2001 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 43 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, 2001 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 SAT-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. 44 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, 2001 (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. 45 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, 2001 (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 discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31, 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 46 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, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 47 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 48 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program . They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 49 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 50 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is provid ing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCS SD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary Mcclendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28-31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TR!\\INING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31 , 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary Mcclendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. In lieu of a regular monthly meeting, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and worked with the Teacher Center Coordinators during the Smart Start/Smart Step conferences, July 10-13, 2000, at the Little Rock Convention Center. The next meeting date has not yet been set. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will reconvene in September, with no meeting during August. LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD applied for the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Pilot Model as a collaborative effort and were awarded $445,875 for the new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year - one of many collaborative successful ventures for the districts. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee has been working with Smart Start and Smart Step Initiatives in collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators throughout the month of August. No regular meeting is scheduled for September. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Education, Room 3058, with three members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. The procedures for dissemination of information within the respective districts were discussed. Members of cabinet level administrators from LRSD and PCSSD will be included in future meetings. Other topics of discussion were the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program and topics of presentations for LRSD administrators. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with seven members present: Doug Ask, John Mccraney, and Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nDr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Dr. Herts and Dr. Lesley have been added to the committee in response to each district's request to include a member of the cabinet. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the upcoming National Staff Development Council conference and the availability of math specialists and literacy specialists. The next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with three members present: Esther Crawford, NLRSD\nSue Walls, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the ongoing Pathwise training of mentors, the writing training provided by the ADE, and the ongoing collaborative work with the Teacher Center Coordinators. The next meeting has not been scheduled. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not hold its monthly meeting in January. The next meeting will be Tuesday morning, February 6, at 8:30 a.m., in the ADE third floor conference room. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee, rather than meeting separately from the Teacher Center Coordinators in February, chose to meet during the regular monthly meeting of Teacher Coordinators, at Ferndale, on February 6. The staff development topics were Smart Start and Smart Step. John Mccraney from PCSSD and Esther Crawford from NLRSD attended. The next meeting will be on March 6, 2001 , at 8:30 a.m ., in the ADE third floor conference room. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not formally meet during the month of March. The connection and work with Teacher Center Coordinators continued through meeting informally at the conferences, i.e. , \"Smart Steps to Technology Leadership\", March 5-6, 2001 . Committee members Esther Crawford from NLRSD, and Doug Ask from PCSSD attended. The April meeting date has not been determined. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met April 3, 2001 , at the Amerisuites Hotel in Little Rock. Committee members attending were: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD. The committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators at first, then separately. The discussion included Gates training , Pathwise and Middle School training. The Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education (AAMLE) and the ADE presented the Twelfth Annual Middle Level Education Conference \"AAMLE: In Step With Smart Step\" at the Hot Springs Convention Center on April 8-10, 2001 . Dr. Neila Connors gave practical tips on improving school climate and communication skills for teachers, principals, and administrators. Dr. Charles Beaman gave dynamic strategies for coping with at-risk and marginal learners within the school and classroom setting . Dr. Howard Johnson proposed a model and action plan for refocusing middle level schools on achievement. Lucinda Johnston outlined a systematic, humane and effective school-wide productive behavior model and plan with meaningful rewards for productive behavior, and effective r\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_1728","title":"Court filings concerning NLRSD July 1998 - June 1999 status report, ODM report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion of the PCSSD to approve middle school construction modification, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools","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":["2001-04"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School buildings","School facilities","School improvement programs","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning NLRSD July 1998 - June 1999 status report, ODM report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion of the PCSSD to approve middle school construction modification, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools"],"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/1728"],"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":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing and request for scheduling order; District Court, notice of filing, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) July 1998 - June 1999 status report; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, separate motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to approve middle school construction modification; District Court, supplement to separate motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to approve middle school construction modification; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, supplemental memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - RECEIVED APR 'J 2001 OfftCEOF 111116ATIONMONITORIN6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 0 4 2001 JA~~sw. M~cc MACK, CLiRK .By. '5J- I ~k, ~ /\\f\\ 1!A DEPCLERK\"\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * * Plaintiff, * * * VS. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. * * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. * * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. * * Intervenors. * ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.1 The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A 1See docket entry 3410. Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepar~ any challenges. After having consulted the Court's own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates~ Any challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6, 2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [ docket entry 3411] is granted.2 The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. SO ORDERED this ~11\\.__day of April 2001. a;z_\u0026,,~ CHIEF JUDGE ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON . DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~1~~8 A~~/m::a) FRCP 2On February 21, 2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 \u0026 3406. 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LlTILE ROCK, .ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418~ Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD Li'ITLE RocK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 191\\ I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing, Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. ! I understand that the Court .intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle s~hool issues raised by the PCS SD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the : scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties-are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Court's reply to this letter. With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones  Y...r. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours, ) i APR 12 2001 r:11 Glf.GEif u.!.o1s~fD EASTERN DISTAi r OURT l'Bn!atll!! C AFlKAMc:~c: lllillPII~ A PR O 4 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO_MRT OOl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARK.ANSAp)i~S W ..eggRMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION  I \" ' ....   DFP.'TJt[Af LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF Tll.VIE TO RESPON~ TO LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER DEFENDANTS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for - Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsel's trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSD's Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSD's Notice of Filing Compliance Report and.Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted, John W Walker, PA. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-3 74-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE O.F SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record. \u003c)L JI/ ~~ / ~ ,JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHlLDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR1\u003c.,\\.\\S..\\S 72206 T ELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile March 26, 200 I Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 l Re: LR.SD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright : OF cou:--:SEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA .J. McHENRY 82 10 Ht::sOF.RSO~ ROAD LITTLE ROCK. :\\.JlK,\\:SS,IS i22 l 0 PHO:sf.: (501) 3i2-3-l25  F.-\\X (50l) 3i2-3-128 E~l\\lL: mchenryd'!!-swbell.nct Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March l 9-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 191\\ I am. just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing, Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more t_han two hundred (200) pages in lengJh, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCS SD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who T intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Court's reply to this letter. ,../ I -r-, ---I With due res pect to the court, 1 remain, JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger 1 Sincerely yo~urs, . ' , ~~? r.. / 1 tA'r;Jf!-(!,c v fo'hn w. Walker l JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW .. Nashville Office #11 Music Circle South Suite 202 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecop;er (615) 259-4668 3400 TCBY TOWER REce,,,EDrk ~:;:~i~~:mplex 425WESTCAPITOLAVENUE Cf~, 400SalemRd .. Suite3 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220 1-3472 Conway,Arkansas72032 (501) 375-1 122 (501) 329-1133 TELECOPIER (50 1) 375- 1.027 ! APR 5 Telecopier (501) 336-9089 April 5, 2001 200/ VIA HAND DELIVERY OffiCE Of Christopher J. Heller, Esq. fBIREsAnoN MONITliRINS FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Bank of America Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Sammye Taylor, Esq. Mark Hagemeier, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tim Gauger, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 RE: NLRSD Status Report/July 1998 - June 1999 Dear Ms. Brown and Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy of the above referenced Status Report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SWJ:tl Enclosures yours, IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RECEIVED APR 5 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF North Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the following document: 1. North Little Rock School District's July 1998 - June 1999 Status Report. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50 75-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this 5th day of April, 2001, sent one copy of the foregoing via Hand Deliv~i;y, to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Bank of America Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 172;3 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Sammye Taylor, Esq. Mark Hagemeier, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann Brown OFFIC.E OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 51 O Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Roak, Arkansas 72201  Tim Gauger, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 1. I I I I I I I 1e I I I I I I ~ I I tT  FILED 2000-01 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN 'Ufflt r/~;1i;:.~g9..i~~sAs LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APR 1 1 2001 Melissa R. Guldin Associate Monitor April 11, 2001 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor  JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: DEP CLERK Polly Ramer Office Manager !'.I I, IN THE 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEPARATE MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION The PCSSD for its separate motion states: RECEIVED APR J 4 200:li illfflCEQf 1lESl!HfEGATION1MONITORINW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved a conversion to middle schools on May 9, 2000. 2. On September 27, 2000 PCSSD submitted to this court, the ODM and the other parties its comprehensive Business Case which explains and justifies the overall middle school conversion. 3. On February 16, 2001 PCSSD filed its motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools. A copy of the business case referred to in paragraph two was appended to that motion as was a comprehensive bound set of materials explaining the work and preparation that the District had done since May of 2000 to implement the middle school conversion. 4. As part of the conversion, physical modifications to Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School were deemed necessary and were explained 248200-v1 - in the Business Case. The details of the modifications are set forth at page 57 of the booklet of materials filed February 16, 2001. For the convenience of the court and the parties, this page is re-appended to this motion as Exhibit\"!('. 5. The renovations referred to Exhibit'~' are already in progress. Because of the general oversight which this court has pursuant to the PCSSD, the PCSSD requests that this court formally approve the renovations described in Exhibit'!A!'. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests an order of this court approving the renovation activities described in Exhibit'~' and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ____ ,.-a-+-----~1-'-\"'------ M. Ill (76060 Att ski Coun ial Sch On April 13, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 248200-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 248200-v1 ~ ~ 3 EXHIBIT I A FACILITY NEEDS TO IMPLEMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL~OGRAM Robinson Hi'3h Item Amount  Construct new 2 classroom addition ... ... . ..... .. .... . $160,000  Convert Ex. CR 11 into 2 classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Convert Ex. CR 12 into 2 art labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Renovate Ex. Rm. 29 into a classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Renovate Ex. Rm. 30 into a classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Convert Ex. CR 27 ( choir room )into 2 classrooms . . . . . . . . $20.,.000 Sub-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200,000 Contingency, 10% ( +/-) . . .... . .... . ... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,000 Sub-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $210,000 Architect fee, Misc. tests, etc., 8% ( +/-) ..... . ... . : . .... . . $15,000 Total ........ . . : . .. .. . ..... . ... .'. - : -: . . .. ... ..... .. .. $225,000 Mills University Studies High  Convert existing Media Center into additional Cafeteria Space and teacher Amount work room ..... . ... . .. . . . ............. . ..... . . ....... . $85,000  Construct new Media Center  . . ..... . ... .. ... . ..... .. .. $637,500 Sub-total .... . . . . . ...... . . .. ... . ... . .. .. .. . .... . ... . $722,500 Contingency, 10% ( +/-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72,300 Total . . ....... . ........ . . . .... . .... .. ... . .. _. ...... .. $794,800 .Total of Robinson High and Mills High .... . .......... . .... . ... .. ... $1,019,800 057  . . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION R!C!JVa, APR 1 9 ZOOt ~~~OF --.vlll.1MIIUJJ IIJIJro- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAI NTI FF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I NTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO SEPARATE MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION For its supplement to its renovation motion, the PCSSD states: 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a business case in support of the renovation motion which the PCSSD respectfully requests this Court to consider as part of its submissions in this matter. 249171-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~,..::;...~----:-:-:-::::'='\"::-:~-..;;;:....---Jones Ill (76 r Pulaski C Special rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April [1, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 249171-v1 2 Executive Summary: Implementation of Middle Schools Construction Pulaski County Special School District April 2001 The Pulaski County Special School District (District) currently has 24 elementary schools, each encompassing grades kindergarten through six; one existing middle school, Jacksonville Middle School; and six junior high schools, each encompassing grades seven through nine. The six senior high schools currently contain students in grades ten through twelve. After discussions, workshops, and community meetings, the District's Board of Directors voted at its May 9, 2000, meeting to approve a district-wide conversion to middle schools, effective for the 2001-2002 school year. This decision to pursue middle school conversion included construction for the Mills University Studies High School campus and the Robinson High School campus. Staff estimated that costs for facility remodeling would total $983,734.00. Background: The implementation of the middle school concept will not change student assignments, only the configuration of the existing junior and senior high schools. Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School, Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville Junior High School and Jacksonville High School will be the exceptions to the proposed conversion. Toward this end, the District contracted a general evaluation of all of its schools. The facilities study provided the Board with a blueprint of construction needs. At this time, the District anticipates that the conversion to middle schools can be accomplished by converting the existing junior high facilities to middle school campuses and s ending ninth grade students to the senior high school facilities. Existing facilities have been examined for this movement of students. Two sites would need renovation to accomplish the conversion: Robinson High School will require classroom space conversion and renovation. Mills University Studies High School will need additional cafeteria space and a new media center. Problem Statement: Increasing the capacity at the Robinson and Mills sites is recommended for a successful conversion to 9-12 grade high schools. Without the proposed construction, student capacity would be severely limited. Recruitment within and to those areas would also be hampered. Failure to increase the student capacity at these two campuses would result in overcrowding, discipline problems and displacement of students. In turn, this would result in increased student displacement, busing and negative school-community relations. EXHIBIT 249145-v1 J II I I I I I I I I I Alternatives: The alternative to this recommendation for construction would be to keep the campuses in their current configurations. This would cripple the ability to make the complete middle school conversion and conversion to 9-12 grade high schools. Action Recommended: By its vote on May 9, 2000, the Board of Directors approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools, to become effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board chose to delay the conversion of Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School to the middle school concept at this time. On March 13, 2001, the Board decided to delay the conversion of Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville Junior High School, and Jacksonville High School as well. Once the Board authorized the middle school concept, an examination of all secondary school facilities was conducted for student capacity. As a result of this examination, it was determined that addition construction would be needed at Mills and at Robinson High Schools. At Mills University Studies High School, a new media center is being built and the old media center would be converted into addition cafeteria space. These renovations will increase the capacity of the school media center and cafeteria. At Robinson High School, two additional classrooms will be constructed, the choir room would be divided and two dressing rooms will be converted into classroom space. This construction would increase the student capacity at Robinson High School by at least 250 students, both to accommodate the addition of the 9th grade and to provide for future desegregated growth. Objectives: The implementation of middle schools works to support the District's overall goals which includes the District's commitments to desegregation. Foremost, the creation of effective learning environments for all students support the District's goal of raising student achievement and successfully raising expectations. Students in sixth grade will have intensive use of technology and more opportunities to participate in co-curricular activities than is available in elementary schools. Ninth graders will enjoy increased opportunities for advanced academic pursuits and extra-curricular activities. Impact: Increased capacity will help to improve discipline, enhance recruitment efforts, and assist in maintaining racial balance at these campuses. It will also enhance student achievement and increase the opportunity for success of these students. Ninth grade students will benefit from the challenge of high school classes, increased curriculum opportunities and extra-curricular activities. 249145-v1 2 Student population at Mills for the current school year is 587 students for grades 10 through 12. Of that total, 343 students are white and 244 students are black. Present student capacity at Mills is 780. The projected student enrollment for 2001- 2002 school year, in grades 9 through 12, is 900. Of that projection, 483 students would be white, 417 students would be black. Student population at Robinson High School for the current school year is 435 students for grades 10 through 12. Of that total, 320 students are white and 115 students are black. Present student capacity at Robinson High School is 506. Robinson's projected enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year, in grades 9 through 12, is 638. Of that projection, 458 students would be white and 180 students would be black. Resources: The conversion to middle schools can be accomplished with few facility changes. Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School have been identified as the only buildings needing immediate renovations. These costs are estimated to be $983,734. The construction at Mills will cost $766,680. Additional renovation at Robinson will cost $217,054 and will increase student capacity by about 250 students. Plan for Implementation: The Pulaski County Special School District will make the facility renovations required to accommodate a middle school conversion. At both Mills University Studies High School and Robinson High School construction started January 30, 2001. Estimated completion of construction is August 1, 2001. 249145-v1 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J, GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesCwlJ.com April 27, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SUN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph,O. LJcensad to practlca be/'orB the Unled Sla'9s Patent and Trademarl\u003c Office RECEJ.\\fED 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APR 3 0 zom CIIIE81f -lllllQfflRIIS Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed are copies of supplement to PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools and supplemental memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 251317-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~~ M. S muues, Ill IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 3 0 20m Gffll(lf De~IIJIIDJRlli LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: 1. Contemporaneously with this supplement, the PCSSD is submitting for filing additional documents numbered 17 4 through 232 for the Court's review and consideration. 2. The numbering of this submission begins with the next number of the documents submitted February 16, 2001. In large measure, the documents are sequenced chronologically and several of them are discussed in the accompanying memorandum. 251097-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 '---  \"'  (7~ B ~ ---,, \\:::  ones Ill (76Q60) Pulaski'eounty Special ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April,ZJ, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 251097-v1 M. S~el Jo~es Ill ,.  ) ~ u 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS OF PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS Work on the implementation of middle schools has continued since the District's - original filing dated February 16, 2001. The supplemental document submission covers both documents generated since the first filing as well as supplies a handful of documents that were not available to counsel in February. Documents 174. and 175 represent the memorandum of understanding between PACT and PCSSD dealing with the placement of teachers in middle schools. Documents 176 through 181 represent a presentation made by Dr. Gloria Rousseau to administrators at the PCSSD which contains useful information concerning the process since January 2001. Documents 183 through 193 represent various committee reports and activities as do Documents 195 through 196. Documents 197 through 200 explain the formal Board policies which have been adopted and Documents 201 through 204 contain information regarding the middle school curri "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1112","title":"Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School improvement programs","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1112"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPROPERTY OF O0M LIBRARY RECEIVED M.4R 1 ~ 200! OriiGEGF Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001 TABLE OF CONTE:\\'TS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... I\\\" C0:\\1PLIANCE REPORT .................................................................................. 1 I. Good Faith Section 2.1 ............................................................................... 1 Section2.l.l ............................................................................... 3 II. Facultv and Staff III. IV. V. Section 2.2 ................................................................................ 5 Section 2.2.1 ........................................................................... 5 Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................. 7 Section 2.2.3 .............................................................................. 8 Section 2.2.4 ............................................................................... 9 Section 2.2.5 ............................................................................ 9 Section 2.2.6 ............................................................................ 9 Section2.2.7 ........................................................................... 14 Student Assignment Section 2.3 ......................................................................... 15 Section 3.6 ......................................................................... 18 Special Education and Related Programs Section 2.4 ............................... .-.......................................... 20 Discipline Section 2.5 ........................................................................... 24 Section 2.5 .1 ............................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.2 ........................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.3 ......................................................................... 25 Section 2.5.4 .......................................................................... 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities Section 2.6 ......................................................................... 27 Section 2.6.3 ............................................................................... 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program Section 2.6.1 ........................................................................ 30 Section 2.6.2 ........................................................................ 30 VII. Academic Achievement A. Generally Section 2. 7 ...................................................................... 51 B. Transition to Middle Schools Section 3.4 .................................................................... 66 C. Early Childhood Education Section 5.1 ........................................................................ 72 D. Reading and Language Arts Section 5.2 ...................................................................... 75 Primary Grades Section 5.2.1 ...................................................................... 75 Section 5.2.l(a) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(b) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(c) ......................................................... 77 --------------~- Section 5.2.l(d) ........................................ ................. 78 Section 5.2.l(e) ......................................................... 78 Section 5.2.l(f) ................... . ....................... . .............. 79 Section 5 .2.1 (g) ....................... .................................. 79 Section 5.2.1 (h) .................................... : .................... 80 Section 5 .2.1 (i) .......................................................... 80 Section 5.2.l(j) .......................................................... 81 Section 5 .2.1 (k) ......................................................... 90 Section 5 .2.1 (I) .......................................................... 90 Intermediate Grades Section 5.2.2 ..................................................................... 93 Section 5.2.2(a) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(b) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(c) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(d) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(e) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2() .......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(g) ......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(h) ........................................................ 102 Secondary Schools E. Section5.2.3 ..................................................................... 105 Section 5.2.3(a) ........................................................ 107 Section 5.2.3(b) ........................................................ 108 Section 5 .2.3( c) ........................................................ 108 Section 5.2.3(d) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3(e) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3() ............................................... ...... : ... 111 Mathematics F. Section 5.3 ...................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.1 ..................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.2 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.3 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.4 ..................................................................... 126 Section 5.3.5 ..................................................................... 129 Computer Literacy G. H. Section 5.4 ....................................................................... 136 Alternative Educational Opportunities Section5.6.l ..................................................................... 145 Program Evaluation IX. Section2.7.l ...................................................................... 148 Parental Involvement Section 2.8 ................................................................................ 149 ii I ~ I I I I I I I I I I X. Equitable Allocation of Resources Section.2.9 ............................................................................ 158 Section 2.10 .......................................................................... 158 XI. Guidance and Counseling Section 2.11 ............................................................................... 160 Section 2.11.1 ......................................................................... 160 Section 5.8 ........................................................................... 162 XII. Cultural Sensitivity Section 2.12 .............................................................................. 163 Section 2.12.1 ............................................................................ 163 Section 2.12.2 ......................................................................... 165 XIII. Compliance Section 2.13 ............................................................................ 166 APPENDIX Resource Allocation Review (Three-year Comparison and 2000-01 Correlation Analysis) Dedicated Millage Projects Proposed Bond Projects iii INTRODUCTIO'.\\' The Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\" or \"'District\") submits this Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). On March 15, 2000, the District filed with the Court an Interim Compliance Report. The purpose of the Interim Compliance Report was to advise the Court, the other parties to this case, and interested persons of the status of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan and to develop a format for this report. The District asked the parties and other interested persons to provide comments or suggestions with regard to the substance and format of the Interim Compliance Report. It received none. Accordingly, this report will follow a similar format as the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report cataloged the programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District in an effort to comply with the Revised Plan. To avoid duplication, the Interim Compliance Report is hereby incorporated by reference. The programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District and identified in the Interim Compliance Report will not be repeated in this report. Where there is nothing new to report, this report will simply refer the reader to the Interim Compliance Report. This report assumes that the reader is familiar with the Interim Compliance Report. This report will vary in one significant respect from the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report included information related to every substantive section of the Revised Plan. This resulted in some redundancy within that report. This report attempts to avoid this redundancy by focusing on the core obligations contained in Section 2 of the Revised Plan. This report is divided into thirteen sections, each of which correlates to a Section 2 obligation. Other sections of the Revised Plan are discussed along with the underlying Section 2 obligation. Effort has been made to refer the reader to other related sections of the report rather than iv repeating information in multiple sections. A table of contents also has been added to assist readers in finding information based on either subject area or section number. Finally, this report was prepared for the Board of Directors (\"Board\") by the District's Compliance Committee. However, it reflects the hard work of a large group of dedicated District employees, including administrators, principals, teachers, counselors and other staff members. While that group is too large for individual acknowledgement, their efforts are greatly appreciated and should not go without mention. Thank you. Compliance Committee V COMPLIANCE REPORT I. Good Faith. Section 2.1 LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The Covenant During the term of this Revised Plan, the District attempted to demonstrate its good faith by meeting its plan obligations. As the term of the Revised Plan nears its end, the District sought a means to manifest its good faith commitment for the future. On January 11, 2001, the Board adopted a \"Covenant for the Future\" (hereinafter \"Covenant\"). In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to:  improve the academic achievement of all students,  comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and  provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending District schools. On January 12, 2001, the District brought together administrators from every school in the District to affirm the Covenant. Participants were presented with the Covenant and then asked to outline strategies to be implemented at their respective schools to fulfill the promises made in the Covenant. Participants were later required to share the Covenant with their Campus Leadership Teams (\"CL Ts\"). Campus Leadership Teams and Total Quality Management The District's success in fulfilling the promises set forth in the Covenant will in large measure depend on the continued success of the CLTs. The CLT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Since their formation in 1998, the CL Ts have provided the horsepower driving the District's efforts to improve student achievement. They derive their power from the philosophy of Total Quality Management (\"TQM\"). TQM stresses four basic principals: continuous improvement, continuous education, customer satisfaction and data-driven decisions. Training in TQM has been a top priority for the District. Training began during the 1998-99 school year. Principals meet monthly for TQM group study sessions. The CL Ts, including principals, and the Cluster Coordinating Committees conduct a monthly-\"leadership\" meeting. The Cluster Coordinating Committees also meet quarterly. Dr. Terrence Roberts has provided additional professional development to school principals and the CLTs. In October 2000, high school principals and some administrators involved in the TQM initiative attended the National Quality Conference in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. All principals have had an opportunity to receive additional TQ\n,.,.1 training thro ugh a series of four-day intensive training sessions conducted by the Arkansas Leadership Academy in the summer of 2000. This training has continued during the 2000-01 school year with two-day training sessions in November 2000 and February 2001 and with rigorous \"homework\" assignments in the interim. During the 1998-99 school year, the District sought to be formally recognized as a quality school district by the Arkansas Quality Award (\"AQA\"), a non-profit agency formed to provide opportunities for interested organizations in the state to measure their progress toward quality. AQA's team of examiners scrutinized the District using the nationally recognized Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program criteria. These criteria are considered to be organizational best practices and are the foundation for developing and integrating all processes in an organization's operation. The award criteria are divided into seven categories that reflect the major areas for organizations to develop and improve: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results. There are four quality award levels: Level 1 -- Quality Interest Award: For an organization expressing an interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Recognition is given to any organization completing the basic elements associated with quality awareness and understanding. Level 2 -- Quality Commitment Award: For an organization that has advanced from the knowledge and skills gained from initial steps and has a plan to move the organization toward total quality improvement and has progressed to a point of potential serious commitment. Level 3 -- Quality Achievement Award: For an organization that has demonstrated significant progress in building sound and notable processes through its cornmitme~t and practice of quality principles. Level 4 -- Governor's Quality Award: For an organization which is an outstanding example of a quality organization in the state of Arkansas exhibiting \"World Class\" processes which serve as a role model for others. In the fall of 1999, the District received the \"Quality Interest Award.\" In the feedback report, the examiners wrote: Overall, this applicant has established a strong initial process to achieve performance excellence . . .. Substantial planning and training have taken place and the organization is clearly committed to the process .... Significantly, the success of this particular organization will be applauded as a success for the organization and for the State as a whole. 2 Motivated by this positive feedback, the District submitted its second application to AQA in the spring of 2000. Last fall, AQA awarded the District the Quality Commitment A\\\\'ard. The A.QA. provided the following feedback: [T]he applicant has a systematic approach that is responsive to the basic purposes of Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results: The early stages of developing trends and obtaining comparative information are evident from the data that are presented .... Work systems are designed to promote cooperation and collaboration by the use of work teams, teacher teams, cluster teams, and Campus Leadership Teams. This applicant's approach to education and training balances both short and longer term goals by providing professional development for certified personnel geared toward successful implementation of new initiatives .... Currently, the District is reviewing AQA's feedback and compiling data in preparation for submitting its application for the \"Quality Achievement Award.\" A quality school district meets the needs of all students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique student population. With that autonomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. The TQM training provided by the District to principals and CL Ts represents an effort to ensure that they are equipped to meet that responsibility. Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the JoshuaIntervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. Dr. Terrence Roberts continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with teachers, counselors, and administrators\n Reviewing programs, policies and/or procedures\n Identifying areas in need of reshaping and problem solving\n Providing methods for maintaining District goals and focus\n Aiding in future projections to address the District needs and strategies for improvement\n Developing the \"Leaming to Cope With Difference\" employee training program\n Meeting with individuals and groups to rethink and/or affirm their commitment and personal development plan\n Working to establish a level of enthusiasm toward personal commitment, growth, and development\nand 3  Seeking to formulate the concept that each individual \\\\ ould be so committed to personal growth that results would be seen District-wide, resulting in the District becoming a positive model for our nation. Likewise, Dr. Steven Ross continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") and the Director of Federal Programs on the evaluation of Title I programs\n Advising PRE staff on school profiles\n Planning with PRE regarding program evaluation models\n Assisting the Superintendent and PRE in determining appropriate categories of data to present in order to determine whether there has been improvement in student achievement\n Reviewing drafts of data reports for program evaluation\n Discussing data reports with PRE staff and making suggestions for improvement\n Meeting with the Compliance Committee to discuss program evaluation issues\n Providing assistance in securing a consultant for outsourcing some program evaluation responsibilities\nand  Making a presentation to the Board on program evaluation and the formation of a research committee. 4 II. Facultv and Staff. Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Total Administrative Staff The overall percentage of African-American administrative staff increased from 48.86 percent to 50.29 percent from 1998-99 through 2000-01. While the number of African-American administrators has remained relatively constant (86, 84, 86), the number of white administrators has decreased slightly each year (90, 89, 85). There has been no change in the racial composition of assistant and associate superintendents (three African-American and four white/other). Total Administrative Staff Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A* 1998-1999 86 90 48.86% 1999-2000 84 89 48.55% 2000-2001 86 85 50.29% * African-Arnencan will be abbreviated \"A-A\" where necessary because of space Iurutat1ons. Building Level Administrators The majority of building level administrators continues to be African-American with a slight increase in the percentage of African-American administrators in the 2000-01 school year. In schools with more than one administrator, the District attempts to maintain racial diversity among administrators where practicable and consistent with other legal requirements. Building Level Administrators Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1998-1999 55 46 54.5% 1999-2000 55 46 54.5% 2000-2001 57 42 57.6% Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The District continues to aggressively and successfully recruit qualified African-American teachers. From July 1, 2000, through September 1, 2000, there were 198 full-time teachers hired, 42 percent of whom were African-American. As the table below demonstrates, this raised 5 the District 's percentage of African-American teachers to 3 percent, up from 37 percent in the 1997-98 school year. Total District Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997-1998 704 1205 37% 1998-1999 728 1192 38% 1999-2000 719 1218 37% 2000-2001 757 1208 39% Recruiting and Retaining Teachers The District's success in recruiting and retaining African-American teachers has not been matched by the other school districts in Pulaski County. Twenty-one percent of the Pulaski County Special School District's certfied staff and 18 percent of the North Little Rock School District's certified staff are African-American. Even so, all of the districts are doing a good job in this regard considering that only 8 percent of college graduates in Arkansas are AfricanAmerican. During the 2000-2001 school year, 84 percent of District recruitment binders were issued to African-Americans. Recruitment binders are advanced commitment agreements enabling applicants to be assured of employment. New recruitment and retention strategies being implemented or developed include:  Tuition assistance programs for full-time students to complete their undergraduate degree, for full-time students to complete a master's degree and for non-certified employees to obtain an undergraduate degree\n The Teachers of Tomorrow Program which provides scholarships to District high school graduates interested in becoming teachers\n Waiver of the tenure requirement for tuition reimbursement for African-American teachers willing to complete an additional certification in a critical supply area\nand  Arkansas New Teacher Mentor Program which partners first year teachers with master teachers. Desegregation of Teaching Staffs The District has also sought to ensure desegregation of the teaching staff at each school. It has measured success in this regard by looking at the number of schools whose percentage of African-American teachers is within plus or minus 15 percentage points (+/-15%) of the overall percentage of African-American teachers at that grade level. As the table below demonstrates, three schools fall outside +/- 15% measure at the elementary level. This is down from seven in 1998-99 school year. At the secondary level, only one school, Metropolitan Career Technical Center, remains outside the +/-15% measure, compared to four schools in the 1998-99 school year. 6 Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Year 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Section 2.2.2 Percentage Of Elementary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall ElementanRacial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 36 29 36 29 36 31 36 33 % Of Secondary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall Elementary Racial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 15 12 15 11 15 13 15 14 Percent Inside Range 81% 81% 86% 92% Percent Inside Range 80% 73% 87% 93% LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. The District's efforts at increasing the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers have met with modest success. While the percentage of African-Americans in these areas has increased, the increase has been small, as shown in the tables below. Media Specialists Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 8 44 14% 1998 8 I 43 16% 1999 8 43 16% 2000 9 43 17% 7 Counselors Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 36 48 43% 1998 39 49 44% 1999 39 49 44% 2000 40 49 45% Core Secondary Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 156 230 40% 1998 179 227 44% 1999 189 249 43% 2000 206 259 44% Earlv Childhood Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 40 104 28% 1998 47 116 29% 1999 47 109 30% 2000 46 107 30% Primary Grade Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 94 186 34% 1998 92 180 34% 1999 92 198 32% 2000 105 197 35% Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. 8 L Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hidng and assignment of teachers b) the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection by a school principal. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying District employees of open positions. Over the last three years, between 62 percent and 71 percent of administrative positions have been filled by promoting existing District employees. The percentage of African-Americans promoted has roughly mirrored the percentage of African-Americans in the District as a whole. Administrative Positions Filled Via Promotion Year Vacancies Promotions Percent Promotions 1998-99 15 10 67% 1999-00 1.7 12 71% 2000-01 13 8 62% Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The District decided not to require involuntary transfers in order to meet this obligation. Rather, the District compiled data on each school's average years of teaching experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees and percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience. These data are provided in the tables below. Principals were expected to take this information into account when making hiring recommendations. Average Years of Experience The average length of service of teachers by school ranges from 6.65 years (Baseline) to 16.74 (McDermott) in the elementary schools\n6.95 years (Mabelvale) to 12.96 years (Henderson) in the middle schools\nand 7.9 years (McClellan) to 13.96 years (Parkview) in the high schools. 9 Average Years of Experience Elementarv School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 11.63 10.26 8.29 Bale 11.88 12.24 10.81 Baseline 10.52 9.29 6.65 Booker 14.29 13.04 12.62 Brady 11.38 11.54 12. 71 Carver 10.85 10.10 10.12 Cloverdale 12.96 12.70 12.32 Charter NIA NIA 3.00 Chicot 11.69 10.00 9.07 Dodd 8.77 8.94 8.05 Fair Park 16.00 17.16 14.89 Franklin 10.30 8.73 10.00 Forest Park 12.44 10.95 9.95 Fulbright 15.51 13.60 13.64 Garland 9.50 Closed Closed Geyer Springs 10.60 10.47 11.36 Gibbs 12.25 12.45 12.52 Jefferson 15.06 15.42 14.08 King 11.40 11.97 10.95 McDermott 16.25 17.32 16.74 Meadowc!iff 14.80 12.95 14.68 Mitchell 7.63 6.77 7.38 Mabel vale 11.06 11.25 11 .23 Otter Creek 12.28 11.44 9.21 Pulaski Heights 10.72 11.35 9.41 Rightsell 11.33 11.04 7.38 Rockefeller 9.86 9.76 10.19 Romine 15.29 14.37 15.92 Stephens Closed Closed 6.85 Terry 13.23 11.71 12.79 Wakefield 15.80 15.17 15.61 Washington 10.47 9.32 9.31 Watson 10.39 9.95 9.45 Western Hills 14.77 13.35 12.50 Williams 16.51 16.09 14.79 Wilson 13.70 12.72 13.67 Woodruff 9.18 7.00 7.38 Secondary School 1998-99 1999-::?000 ! 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 9.84 8.62 -8.36 Dunbar 10.02 8.54 7.42 Forest Heights 12.78 10.50 10.16 Henderson 12.88 13.27 12.96 Mann 12.92 12.38 12.19 Mabelvale Middle 7.90 8.55 6.95 Pulaski Heights 14.84 10.23 9.73 Southwest 10.16 10.22 10.40 High Schools Central 14.54 11.66 12.04 Fair 12.17 9.03 8.84 Hall 14.48 11.94 11.37 McClellan 9.67 8.59 7.90 Metro 14.26 13.81 14.72 Parkview 15.36 14.38 13.96 Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees The table below provides the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees at each District school for the last three school years. Elementary schools have so few teachers that looking only at the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees can be misleading. A school's percentage can change substantially with the change of only a few teachers. At the middle and high school levels, the alternative schools and Metropolitan High School have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The alternative schools' percentages may be explained by the relative newness of those staffs. Metropolitan's percentage is low due to the nature of the vocational subjects being taught. There simply are not many advanced degrees in those areas. Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees Elementary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 57% 47% 60% Bale 56% 40% 58% Baseline 61% 52% 38% Booker 63% 54% 56% Brady 63o/cl 58% 50% Carver 55% 50% 50% Cloverdale Elem. 54% 52% 52% Chicot 49% 50% 48% 11 Dodd 50% -1-t 52% Fair Park 62% 5S 0 0 I 50~-o I Franklin 36% 36% I 41% Forest Park 47% 50% 50% Fulbright 56% 54% i 58% Garland 29% 42% Closed Geyer Springs 62% 40% 33% Gibbs 65% 59% 63% Jefferson 74% 74% 74% King 52% 41% 42% McDermott 50% 44% 48% Meadowcliff 46% 42% 40% Mitchell 57% 40% 38% Mabel vale 42% 24% 23% Otter Creek 64% 54% 64% Pulaski Heights Elem. 56% 71% 55% Rightsell 65% 54% 32% Rockefeller 49% 41% 45% Romine 41% 45% 48% Stephens Closed Closed 40% Teny 45% 50% 50% Wakefield 71% 67% 71% Washington 47% 38% 37% Watson 53% 55% 52% Wes tern Hills 52% 55% 60% Williams 80% 76% 57% Wilson 75% 70% 68% Woodruff 44% 45% 48%, Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 48% 38% 32% Dunbar 69% 56% 50% Forest Heights 55% 48% 40% Henderson 41% 48% 40% Mann 54% 54% 59% Mabelvale Middle 47% 51% 50% Pulaski Heights Middle 56% 45% 47% Southwest 56% 51% 50% ACC- Metro 67% 59% 67% ALT Agency 25% 40% 25% ALC 62% 53% 47% High Schools 12 Central 69% 62% 63% Fair 61% . 60% 5 -o , ) / 0 Hall 60% 54% 56% McClellan 50% 44% 49% Metropolitan 37% 28% 23% Parkview 75% 67% 71% Master's Plus Nine The District also compiled data on the percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience since this was the measure used in the District's resource allocation review. See Section 2.9. The percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience ranges from 19 percent (Mabelvale) to 67 percent (Wakefield) in the elementary schools\n27 percent (Cloverdale and Forest Heights) to 52 percent (Mann) in the middle schools\nand 35 percent (McClellan) to 55 percent (Parkview) in the high schools. Overall, there are 40 schools where more than 33 percent of the teachers have a master's degree and nine or more years of experience . . Master's Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience Elementary School 1998-99 ..  1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 10/28 36% 8/17 47% 8/15 53% Bale 15/36 42% 12/35 34% 11/26 42% Baseline 13/36 36% 12/27 44% 10/26 38% Booker 23/59 39% 20/52 38% 24/55 44% Brady 14/30 47% 10/26 38% 10/26 38% Carver 19/47 40% 14/44 32% 15/42 36% Cloverdale Elem. 12/37 32% 10/29 34% 9/27 33% Chicot 14/43 33% 13/42 31% 14/42 33% Dodd 9/28 32% 8/20 40% 9/21 43% Fair Park 11/26 42% 10/19 53% 10/20 50% Franklin 11/45 24% 11/45 24% 13/41 32% Forest Park 9/64 14% 7/26 27% 8/22 36% Fulbright 16/41 39% 15/35 43% 14/31 45% Garland 4/25 16% 6/26 24% Closed Geyer Springs 13/34 38% 10/25 40% 6/21 29% Gibbs 12/31 39% 14/29 48% 15/27 56% Jefferson 22/39 56% 17/27 63% 17/27 63% King 19/52 ,37% 17/46 37% 18/45 40% McDermott 12/38 32% 10/27 37% 10/27 37% Meadowcliff 11/26 42% 7/19 37% 9/25 36% Mitchell 9/28 32% 7/25 28% 7/24 29% Mabelvale 7/36 19% 5/29 17% 5/26 19% 13 Otter Creek 11/28 39% 11 26 42% 12/25 48% Pulaski Heights Elem. 13/36 36% 12 23 52~0 I I 10 22 -+) ~o Rightsell 10/23 43% 11 '2-+ 46% 5/28 18% Rockefeller 11 /43 28% 11/39 28% 12/38 32% Romine 11 /32 34% 11 /29 38% 11 /27 41% Stephens Closed Closed 9/30 30% Terry 12/31 39% 13/40 33% 14/36 39% Wakefield 17/28 61% 14/27 52% 16/24 67% Washington 18/34 53% 17/55 31% 17/51 33% Watson 12/60 20% 12/13 92% 13/31 42% W estem Hills 10/23 43% 10/20 50% 9/20 45% Williams 25/41 61% 23/34 68% 23/35 66% Wilson 17/32 53% 14/23 61% 15/25 60% Woodruff 5/27 19% 7/22 32% 8/21 38% Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 16/54 30% 15/56 27% 16/60 27% Dunbar 28/68 41% 22/63 35% 19/62 31% Forest Heights 22/64 34% 18/65 28% 17/63 27% Henderson 18/63 29% 21/61 34% 19/60 32% Mann 30/59 51% 29/61 48% 34/66 52% Mabelvale Middle 17/53 32% 18/47 38% 18/48 38% Pulaski Heights Middle 30/61 49% 25/62 40% 23/58 40% Southwest 18/54 33% 20/55 36% 21/56 38% ACC- Metro 7/12 59% 8/16 50% 10/21 48% ALT Agency 0/4 0% 1/5 20% 1/17 1% ALC NIA 4/15 27% 3/17 18% High Schools . Central 60/108 56% 60/135 44% 64/125 51% Fair 27/67 40% 28/75 37% 27/75 36% Hall 36/70 51% 39/102 38% 44/102 43% McClellan 30/78 38% 31/91 34% 32/91 35% Metropolitan 7/19 37% 5/18 28% 5/22 23% Parkview 37/67 55% 43/87 49% 45/82 55% Section 2.2. 7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight lntervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. III. Student Assignment. 14 I I I Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies Policy JC, School Attendance Zones, and JCA, Student Assignment, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. Overall Enrollment From the 1998-99 school year through the 2000-01 school year, the District's enrollment increased a total of 627 students, and the overall racial composition moved from 67 percent African-~erican to 68 percent African-American. Total Enrollment Year Total Enrollment Percent African-American 1998-99 24,898 67% 1999-2000 25,159 68% 2000-01 25,525 68% Enrollment by School The table on the following page shows the percentage of African-American students attending the District's schools for the years 1996-97 through the current school year. The District has used two measures to assess the degree of desegregation within the District. First, it has looked at the number ofracially isolated schools, defined as schools that are 90 percent or more AfricanAmerican. These schools are shaded in the table. While the number of racially isolated schools has increased from four to nine, this occurred with very little change in the racial composition at the affected schools. 15 Percentage African-American B, School Elementarv Schools School 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 84 92 94 91 93 Bale 71 73 73 74 76 Baseline 80 83 84 85 84 Booker 52 52 49 51 55 Brady 64 63 65 71 75 Carver 51 52 51 52 53 Chicot 70 69 71 67 68 Cloverdale 88 92 93 89 89 Dodd 64 65 66 64 65 Fair Park 76 76 73 72 73 Forest Park 48 48 53 44 38 Franklin 91 92 94 96 97 Fulbright 53 48 57 41 40 Garland 92 93 93 94 closed Geyer Springs 75 75 78 82 86 Gibbs 51 52 50 52 52 Jefferson 42 44 45 39 42 King 53 54 52 55 54 Mabelvale 74 73 69 73 75 McDermott 57 57 59 57 53 Meadowcliff 76 79 78 79 74 Mitchell 95 92 95 98 97 Otter Creek 42 46 46 47 51 Pulaski Heights 54 55 55 57 53 Rightsell 96 94 96 97 99 Rockefeller 61 59 56 61 61 Romine 66 63 62 65 66 Stephens closed closed closed closed 94 Terry 45 46 52 46 46 Wakefield 88 86 87 84 81 Washington 55 53 52 61 60 Watson 82 89 94 94 95 Western Hills 70 70 73 75 74 Williams 52 52 52 51 52 Wilson 81 82 85 89 90 Woodruff 69 71 78 80 85 Total Elem. 65 65 67 68 68 16 Middle Schools - Middle Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Cloverdale 86 89 89 88 -- 86 Dunbar 58 57 59 60 59 Forest Heights 77 70 64 65 65 Henderson 82 86 88 76 76 Mabelvale 74 75 76 73 79 Mann 52 52 51 52 53 Pulaski Heights 59 57 62 60 56 Southwest 78 83 85  -.,:. --~--. , ...... 91 -\"J:v/ -~v\n: :. 92 Total Middle 69 69 70 69 69 High Schools High Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Central 62 59 59 57 55 Fair 79 81 82 80 80 Hall 72 71 70 71 72 McClellan 83 84 86 89 ...... _ -t ....\nf.\"l~~l:~..,--~o Parkview 52 51 51 50 51 Total H.S. 68 67 66 68 68 The District also looked at the number of schools within plus or minus 20 percentage points(+/- 20%) from the district-wide percentage African-American by organizational level. Twenty-three of the 35 elementary schools (66 percent) fall within the+/- 20%. Of the 12 remaining elementary schools, eight have an African-American population more than 20 percent above overall African-American percentage at the elementary level. The racial population at 11 of the 13 secondary schools (85 percent) remains within+/- 20% of the overall African-American percentage at the secondary level. While the number of schools outside the+/- 20% range increased under the Revised Plan, the increase occurred with very little change in the racial balance at the affected schools. Schools Outside +/- 20% Range Year Schools Outside Range 1996-97 9 1997-98 9 1998-99 I 11 1999-2000 15 2000-01 14 17 Assignment Options A significant number of the District 's students continue to take adrnntage of altcmati\\e assignment options provided by the District. In the current school year. 70 percent of high school students are attending their zone schools (80 percent if Parkview students are removed) and 75 percent of middle school students are attending their zone schools (83 percent if Mann students are removed). At the elementary level 62 percent of the students are attending their zone schools (68 percent if stipulation magnet students are removed). Not including students attending a Stipulation Magnet or attending school in another district based on an M-to-M transfer, 731 students are attending a school other than their zone school pursuant to the Revised Plan. In total, 20 percent of the District's students take advantage of an alternative assignment option available under the Revised Plan. The District's Stipulation Magnets remain a very attractive option. Enrollment has increased under the Revised Plan, as shown on the table below. Student numbers for the six Stipulation Magnets show growth and reflect a 2 percent increase over the past three years. Stipulation Magnet School Enrollment 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 3763 3787 3837 Similarly, students in Pulaski County continue to take advantage of the M-to-M Transfer program in large numbers, as shown in the table below. Although the number of incoming PCSSD students to elementary interdistrict magnets dropped, this was partly due in part to the middle school transition and grade restructuring. Summary of M-To-M Transfer Students NLR 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01. Sending 8 0 Receiving 65 27 PCSSD 0 21 Sending 482 399 366 Receiving 1310 1122 1128 LRSD Sending 1375 1149 1149 Receiving 490 399 366 Section 3.6 LRSD-shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in 18 Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek-to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. The new Stephens Elementary School held its first classes on January 8, 2001. It receives double funding in accordance with the current formula as described in the August 16, 1995, report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Plans for construction of an elementary school in west Little Rock are being developed. A site selection committee is currently investigating potential school sites. The first meeting of the West Little Rock School Site Selection Committee was held on February 5, 2001. 19 IV. Special Education and Related Programs. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Board of Education revised Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. The revision included among the diploma-earning options, \"Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (\"IEP\") team for a student identified with disabilities.\" Procedures A new \"504\" Handbook was distributed in fall 2000 to campus \"504\" coordinators and to selected central office staff to ensure greater consistency and equity in administering the \"504\" program. A group of secondary Advanced Placement (\"AP\") teachers was convened in fall 2000 to meet with the District's \"504\" supervisor in order to define reasonable accommodations for teachers of AP classes to employ in order to open access to the courses for \"504\" students. They agreed on a set of accommodations to pennit students with disabilities to participate in AP courses. A fonn was developed for the \"504\" committee to use in meeting with parents to establish agreedupon accommodations. The list of available accommodations was published in both the 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog. Department staff worked throughout spring 2000 and fall 2000 with the English-as-a-Second Language (\"ESL\") Supervisor and consultant in establishing procedures for the screening/identification of limited-English proficient students who are referred for special education testing.  Programs School-Based Day Treatment Program The Division of Exceptional Children has instituted a school-based day treatment program consisting of two elementary classrooms at Romine Elementary staffed by two certified teachers and two paraprofessionals. The program is coordinated by a school psychology specialist and receives support services from a clinical therapist and psychiatrist provided by The Centers for Youth and Family. The purpose of the program is to provide a school-based placement option that is less restrictive than an off-campus day treatment program. The program addresses academic and social skills individually identified for each student. Students obtain the skills necessary to return to their home campuses and are afforded the opportunity to strengthen those skills by participating in regular classrooms at Romine. Language Arts In order to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs and to provide consistent and balanced literacy instruction for special education students, District reading materials and 20 curriculum implementation training were provided to all elementary special education teachers. along with general education teachers. Additionally, special education teachers have participated in the middle and high school teacher training on the implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop in grades 6-9. Mathematics and Science All special education teachers have been trained in the implementation of both the mathematics and science curricula. Special education teachers share materials with the general education teachers in their building. Inclusion The Director for Exceptional Children was on the agenda for all three of the curriculum orientation workshops for counselors in January 2001. In his presentation he emphasized the importance of reducing the number of hours in which middle school special education students are served in the resource room to assure equitable exposure to the general education curriculum. He advised counselors to be prepared to place virtually all students who might formerly have been placed in resource room programs in the regular levels of Reading/Writing Workshop based on the IEP team's recommendations during annual reviews. He and the Director of Secondary Language Arts collaborated on the design of that curriculum and on professional development and determined that appropriate modifications could be made in the regular classroom for most special education students. Special education teachers have been informed of the curricular modifications and have been strongly encouraged to have IEP teams place students in regular Reading/Writing Workshop. School Psychology Specialists In 2000-01 the Department of Exceptional Children relocated to school sites the school psychology specialists. By placing school psychology specialists at school sites, they now:  participate on individual schools' Pupil Service Teams to provide technical assistance in pre-referral interventions to the general classroom teachers\n participate in pre-referral and referral conferences to assure students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services\nand  are available to meet and confer with parents and staff regarding behavioral interventions for all students. In addition, the Department redistributed school assignments to school psychology specialists, assuring that no school psychology specialist serves more than three school sites. During fall 2000 the Department assigned three school psychology specialists specifically to middle schools to conduct activities outlined in the Safe School/Healthy Students grant proposal. Compliance Staff The Department recruited and hired compliance personnel to ensure that due process documentation is monitored and corrected for compliance and equity. 21 \"504\" Coordination A new District-level \"504\" supervisor was designated to provide technical assistance and training to school-based \"504\" coordinators, principals, and teachers to ensure that students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services. Identified Students The following three tables are reports of ( 1) the numbers of identified students with disabilities for 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 by race and gender\n(2) the numbers of identified students with mental retardation and learning disabilities, again by race and gender, for the same three years\nand (3) the numbers of special education students according to free/reduced lunch eligibility in 2000-01. Numbers ofldentified Students with Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Total Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 1239 547 383 220 28 13 2430 Percents 51% 23% 16% 9% 1% 1% 1999-2000 1233 536 362 199 30 13 2373 Percents 52% 23% 15% 8% 1% 1% 2000-01 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 Percents 51% 24% 15% 8% 2% 1% Percents add up to more than I 00% due to roundmg. Numbers ofldentified Students with Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 842 360 165 96 14 7 1484 Percents 57% 24% 11% 7% 1% 1% 1999-2000 839 369 160 87 14 7 1476 Percents 57% 25% 11% 6% 1% 1% 2000-01 873 399 144 74 21 12 1523 Percents 57% 26% 10% 5% 1% 1% Percents add up to more than JOO% due to rounding. Students Identified with Disabilities A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Percents Status Males Females Males Females Males Females Free 855 399 63 33 15 12 1377 61% Reduced 79 32 23 15 0 2 151 1% Total ldent. 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 100% Free/Reduced 74% 74% 23% 25% 38% 64% Percent of Total Interpretations of this data are difficult since African-American students with disabilities are more likely to be enrolled in public education than are their white peers with disabilities. For instance, according to the December 2000 Child Count, there were 44 white students identified 22 with disabilities who were being educated either in private or home schools as compared to zero African-American children. Other factors impacting the relative percentage of AfricanAmerican students with disabilities are the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who live in poverty and lower levels of pre-natal care among African-Americans. 23 V. Discipline. Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Overall, the number of disciplinary sanctions issued decreased by 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year, as shown in the table below. For that same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer students are committing offenses, and those that do commit an offense are less likely to commit a second offense. Moreover, fewer than 2 percent of the students enrolled in the District were involved in violent offenses. Violent offenses are considered by the Arkansas Department of Education as incidents involving drugs, alcohol, student assaults, knives, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs, and gang activity. Overall Disciplinary Sanctions 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Short Term 5486 5664 4865 4588 Suspensions Long Term 453 474 446 335 Suspensions Expulsions 82 109 1 3 TOTALS 6021 6247 5312 4926 Number of Students 3585 3672 3237 3011 Committing Offenses The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. Suspensions By Race 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Suspensions issued to African-American 5341 4470 4274 students Suspensions issued to White/ Other 906 842 652 students Total Suspensions 6247 5312 4926 The decrease in discipline sanctions has had a positive impact on parents' and teachers' perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999- 2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents that expressed on opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninetyone percent of both African-American and white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed 24 that their child has a feeling of belonging at schools. Ninety-seven percent of African-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. Section 2.5.1 LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. Policy JBA, Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities, and Regulation JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. The policy and related regulations affirmed the District's ongoing commitment to make decisions involving students based on individual merit and free from discrimination in all its forms. Section 2.5.2 LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. Building administrators purge students' discipline records at the end of each school year unless the student has been disciplined for an identified offense. In that case, the Student Hearing Office determines if it is in the best interest of the student for the records to be purged. Section 2.5.3 LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. As a new position for the District, the ombudsman needed substantial training in order to fulfill his responsibilities. Since the position was established, the ombudsman has received training in conflict resolution (Fred Pryor Seminars), mediation (Center for Dispute Resolution, Austin, Texas), the role of an ombudsman (United States Ombudsman Association) and racial diversity (Dr. Terrence Roberts, \"Learning to Cope with Differences\"). In order to increase public awareness of the services available through the ombudsman, information about the ombudsman was disseminated by way of the District's cable network and printed publications. The ombudsman's rple in the discipline process has been included in the Student Rights and Responsibility Handbook, and the ombudsman made presentations at local churches, PT A, civic, and community meetings and participated in school/community activities, e.g., the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association's Annual Fall Fest and the Magnet School Fair. 25 Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to h::iYe been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 358 parents and/or students. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are in place to expand these activities to include other schools. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Behavior modification plans are developed by the Pupil Services Team or Educational Management Team. The Team typically includes the student, his or her parent, a building administrator, a counselor and one or more of the student's teachers. Others, such as the \"504\" Coordinator or a Special Education Supervisor, may be included depending on the student's individual needs. All members of the Team share responsibility for monitoring implementation of the behavior modification plan. 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities. Section 2.6 LRSD shaH implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified AfricanAmericans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program.  Extracurricular Activities Participation of African-Americans in extracurricular and co-curricular activities showed a significant increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Extracurricular activities are activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include athletics, clubs and organizations such as Student Council, Y-Teens, and Beta Club. As the table below demonstrates, the number of AfricanAmerican students participating in extracurricular activities increased 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school year. Sixty-two percent of the District's African-American students participated in an extracurricular activity during the 1999- 2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. Extracurricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I A-A I 2335 I 393 I 4121 I 803 I 5203 I Co-Curricular Activities Extracurriclar Participation (Secondary) 4000 2000 0 African-American Participation a91.9s  98-99  99~0 W/O I 902 I African-American participation in co-curricular activities also showed an increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Co-curricular activities are activities designed to extend learning experiences through group or individual activities at school or public events, including band, orchestra, choir, or debate. As the table below demonstrates, the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-200 school year. Sixty-six percent of the District's African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. 27 Co-Curricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I 2579 I 1222 I 2806 I u 15 I CO-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION (SECONDARY) 2000 African-American Participation 11:198-99   99-00 -  00-01 A-A 3988 I W/O I I 1864 I The increased participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities is likely the result of active recruitment by activity sponsors, coaches, principals, and the athletic director. School incentives and community involvement also played a role in increasing student interest and participation in activities. Specifically in terms of athletics, implementation by the District of a \"no cut\" policy for the new middle school sixth graders has been responsible for the tremendous escalation of numbers of young African-American athletes. Finally, the adherence of the District to the Supplemental Instruction Plan (\"SIP\") has had a positive effect on growth of student participants. The SIP program allows athletes to continue to participate in sports while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. Parent and Teacher Survey The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers reflects the District's success in the area of ' extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. Activities Advisory Board At the time of the District's Interim Compliance Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advisory Board (\"AAB\") for the purpose of promoting, supporting, and enhancing extracurricular and co-curricular activities at all schools. The AAB, comprised of District staff, parents, students, and community representatives, began monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. The focus of these discussions has been on a disproportionate number of African-American students who do not have the financial resources to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and implementation include marketing, facilities, funding, accessibility, procedural process, and 28 scheduling. Each area has been discussed in connection with increasing student participation. with emphasis on assuring African-American participation. Fine Arts Director The Board has approved the position of Fine Arts Director. One of the basic responsibili.Hes of the Fine Arts Director is to provide leadership in improving student participation and success in fine arts courses, perfonnances, and competitions. In addition, the Fine Arts Director will be responsible for ensuring equitable opportunities are available to qualified African-American students. Section 2.6.3 LRSD shall provide transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extracurricular activity. The District provides transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to allow those students to participate in after-school extracurricular activities. Through December 7, 2000, the District averaged 74.3 extracurricular activity runs per day, 29.1 for high schools and 45.2 for the middle schools. No records are kept of the students taking advantage of this service because the number and type of activities vary so greatly day to day. However, no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied. 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program. Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Policies The Board approved the revision of Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. This revision included enhancements of the recommended curriculum. Effective for the class of 2004, students taking the recommended Curriculum must complete a total of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-AP or AP courses. The University Studies courses offered at Hall High School may substitute, as well as any other approved dual-credit courses taken by District students. To receive an Honors Seal on their diploma, students must complete the recommended curriculum and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5. Criteria for earning the new Arkansas Scholars Seal and a Magnet Program Seal were also included. These changes provide incentives and recognition for more students to take the most challenging courses. Procedures With the revision of Policy IKF, the Board also revised the related regulations. The new regulations include new career focus areas for Teachers of Tomorrow, Computer Technology, and International Studies at Central High School, as well as new programs in Career and Technical Education, such as the new Aviation Technology courses. New courses were also added to the list of courses that will satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. See Section 2.4 for a discussion of procedures for participation of students with disabiliti~s in AP courses. The 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog included the following language in bold print: \"Schools are encouraged to allow open admission to all Pre-AP and AP courses and then to require attendance, good behavior, and acceptable performance (including effort, not just a minimum grade) to stay in the course, rather than to deny admission to any motivated student who wishes to try a more challenging curriculum.\" The curriculum catalogs also contained language making it clear that ESL students must have access to AP courses. All this information was presented to counselors, registrars, and principals during the January 2001 curriculum orientation workshops conducted by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. She emphasized the importance of increasing the participation and performance of African-American students in advanced programs and in extracurricular activities. 30 The middle school and high school Student/Parent Guides to Course Selection for 2001-02 also included extensive information about Pre-AP and AP courses. as well as strong encouragement to students to take the courses. The District's Quality Index continues to include indicators that the District is achieving_!he goals of improved access and success in AP courses among all students, especially AfricanAmerican students. These indicators include the enrollment and completion rates in advanced courses, including Pre-AP and AP, as well as University Studies courses at Hall High School\nthe percent of seniors who graduate earning the Honors Seal\nthe percent of grade 8 students who have completed Algebra I\nand the percent of students scoring at a \"3\" or above on the Advanced Placement examinations. Data with regard to some of these indicators are presented below. Programs Gifted and Talented Program The Gifted and Talented (\"GT\") Program specialists and facilitators (teachers) are responsible for being resources in their respective schools to aid in the academic achievement of identified gifted students as well as aiding teachers in providing enrichment for all students. The teachers are, therefore, encouraged to participate in all professional activities that would help them to be more effective in their jobs. The teachers are provided opportunities for professional growth through various inservice sessions and conferences. GT facilitators representing each secondary school (middle and high) meet each month to share ideas, develop materials, receive new information regarding gifted programs, and learn new ideas to enhance their schools. Facilitators share curricular and co-curricular activities at their respective schools through a publication called \"Sharing the Good News.\" This publication is published six times per year. GT specialists provide a connection between the regular curriculum and the gifted curriculum\ntherefore, they must be well informed of both curricula. The professional development activities that they receive must connect to all of the curriculum departments because they are the advocates and resources in their schools for high achievement. They in turn become resources to the various departments because of their expertise. The table on the following page outlines the professional development growth opportunities for and by the GT Department. 31 Gifted and Talented Program Professional Development Date Title I Number Participating 1/30/98 Tn-District GT Specialists lnserv1ce (Pulaski Co, NLR and 66 LRSD) 3/19/98 Kingore Observauon Inventory Traimng (Designed to 32 observe gifted behaviors of students in grades K-2 whole group enrichment) 9/3/99 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 16 Ponfolios) Cluster B 9/10/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 17 Ponfolios) Cluster C 9/28/98 Office for Civil Rights Visit - Identification of Gifted 7 Students 10/15/98 AVID Awareness (Advancement Via Individual 24 Determination - Program designed to help underachieving and underrepresented students in advanced classes/programs)(lncluded principals, community persons, counselors and teachers) 10/9/98 GT Curriculum Writing Workshop 5 11/17/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster A 10 11 / 18/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster B 7 11 /19/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster C II 12/4/98 Testing Procedures and Research Development 35 515-5/7/99 Implementation of the Research Guide 35 6/2/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/3/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/4/99 Curriculum Development 33 9/29/99 Introduction to Windows 95 (Technology Course- This 3 course was provided according to the skills and needs of the specialists) I 0/1/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) 8 10/5/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 10 Assessment- Cluster A 10/6199 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment- Cluster B 10/7/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment - Cluster C 10/8/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) JO 10/ 14/99 Senior High Counselors- Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Curriculum 11 /9/11 Using E-Mail and the Internet (Technology Course) 12 32 Date Title - Number Participating 12/3/99 Curriculum Mappmg and Portfolios, ESL Students and 33 Refrigerator Curriculum 2/22/00 PowerPoint Productions 8 2/24/00 PowerPoint Productions 7 3/9/00 PowerPoint Productions 10 3/6/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster A 11 3/21/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster B 7 3/23/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster C 13 3/16/00 PowerPoint Productions 12 4/6/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) l* 4/7/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 2* 4/10/00 Effective Literacy Training 35 4/11/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 17 4/17/00 ELLA Training 33 4/18/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 11 4/20/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 10 4/25/00 ESL Students (LEP) in Gifted Programs and Pre-AP and AP 10 Programs (GT Facilitators) 4/27/00 Science Program - Hands On 32 5/30/00 Math Program - Hands On 32 9/11/00 Middle School Research - 6w Grade Teachers  24 9/11/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 19 9/12/00 Middle School Research- 7w Grade Teachers** 23 9/13/00 Middle School Research- 8w Grade Teachers 25 9/18/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 17 10/3 and Instructional Strategics of GIT Unit Design 31 10/5/00 10/27/00 ESL Strategies for GT Specialists (ESL Designated Schools) 6 11/10/00 ESL Strategics for GT Specialists 8 12/09/00 GT Instructional Strategies and Assessment 31  Teachers mcluded ma larger group  GT Staff Provided Instruction for Classroom Teachers New AP and Pre-AP Courses Two new AP courses, Human Geography and Economics, were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. An additional two new AP courses, World History and Physics II, were added to the curriculum for 2001-2002. One new science Pre-AP course, Advanced Science/Theoretical Research II, was added to the curriculum for 2001-02. Proposed International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School The magnet school grant proposal submitted by the District to the U.S. Department of Education in December 2000 included the proposed implementation of the International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School. This plan includes the introduction of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme in grades 6-8, integrated with three other curricula themes: Economics, Multimedia, and Engineering. The planning team stated that they see this approach as necessary to ensure academic rigor at their 33 school. The Middle Years Programme will continue at McClel lan High School in grades 9-1 0. and then the International Baccalaureate Diploma program \\\\ill be implemented in grades 11 -12. At McClellan the International Baccalaureate courses will be integrated with that school 's themes -- Business and Finance, Multimedia and Graphic Design, and Engineering Design and Fabrication -- creating a continuity of curricula purpose throughout the high school and from its feeder middle school. If this grant is funded (notification is expected in April 2001), then the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students, and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed, along with the AP, PreAP, and University Studies courses. Middle School Research and Writing Pre-AP The English department for secondary schools worked with teachers, librarians/media specialists, and gifted/talented teachers during summer 2000 to write a new curriculum guide for Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP, 7 Pre-AP, and 8 Pre-AP. Then teachers were trained in how to use the guide in fall 2000. This work grew out of the Middle School Curriculum Refinement Plan that was developed in summer 2000 and included an activity to create qualitatively differentiated courses at the Pre-AP level. High School Reading and Writing Workshop I Three high schools (Fair, Hall, and McClellan) opted to include the two-period English I Workshop and English I Workshop Pre-AP in their master schedules for 2000-01. As of January 2001, all three of those schools plan to continue the program in 2001-02, plus Parkview High School and, perhaps, Central High School. Additionally, effective fall 2001, the Fair, Hall and McClellan have plans to implement the two-period English II Workshop and English II Workshop Pre-AP. This program incorporates some of the characteristics of the Project A YID support class for students so that they can be more successful in their advanced courses. The course was also created to improve student performance on the End-of-Level Literacy test. that all students must take in grade 11 as a part of the State Benchmark examinations, as well as performance on the SAT/ACT necessary for college admission. Teacher and Counselor Training The District has committed to providing teachers with the appropriate training to ensure that all students are successful in upper-level courses. Teachers are involved in the training offered through the College Board. The District has provided the funds to participate though a reimbursement program provided by the State. During summer 2000, 28 teachers participated in Advanced Placement Summer Institutes in Hot Springs and Fayetteville. The subject areas were science, mathematics, social studies, art, and foreign language. During fall 2000, 53 teachers in English, social studies and foreign language attended an AP workshop. The number of teachers attending is lower this fall because Pre-AP training in social studies was not available. 34 Forty-four teachers participated in the Gifted Programs Secondary Content Workshop on August 4, 2000. This training is designed to help teachers work more effectively with identified students in their classes. All counselors and registrars participated in training on January 9-11, 2001, during the ammal curriculum orientations conducted by the Division oflnstruction on the importance of student access to and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Results of Policies/Procedures/Programs Implementation Identified GT Students The following table displays the number of identified GT students at the elementary school level for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 ( as of January 2001 ). There was a significant reduction in elementary school numbers in 1999-2000 when grade 6 students moved from the elementary schools to the middle schools. Then there was an increase of 131 students identified and served from 1999-2000 to 2000-01. Eighty-nine of those were African-American (or 68 percent of the increase). The percentage of African-American students in the elementary program has remained steady at 45 percent. White student participation has declined slightly over three years from 50 percent to 48 percent, with \"other\" students improving from 5 percent to 7 percent. The total number of identified students at the elementary level in 2000-01 was 1516. A-A White Other Total Little Rock School District Gifted Program Elementary Participants 1998-99 Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 883 45% 599 43% 688 986 50% 708 51% 723 106 5% 78 6% 105 1975 1385 1516 Percent 45% 48% 7% Secondary students include those in middle schools (grades 6-8) and in high schools (grades 9- 12). At the secondary level GT students are served primarily through the Pre-AP and AP courses. The only school that serves GT students in courses separate from Pre-AP and AP courses is Dunbar Magnet Middle Schoolj which is a GT magnet. GT courses are offered at Dunbar in all three grade levels and in all the core subject areas. In addition, a GT Seminar course is available to students at all three grade levels. The following table displays secondary student enrollment over three school years: 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Although the numbers of African-American students participating in the gifted/talented program have increased from 1224 to 1333 (an increase of 109), the percentage of the total enrollment has declined slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent. White student enrollment went up only one percentage point over the three-year period, as did \"other\" student enrollment. The total number of identified students at the secondary level in 2000-01 was 2758. 35 1998-99 A-A 1224 Whne 1136 Other 93 Total 2453 Little Rock School District Gifted Program Secondary Participants Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 50% 1468 49% 1333 46% 1404 47% 1298 4% 124 4% 127 2996 2758 Advanced Placement Courses Percent 48% 47% 5% Great effort has been expended in improving student, especially African-American student, access to AP courses. In summary, the following strategies were implemented:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment\n Added several new AP courses to the curriculum in 1999-2000 and again in 2000- 01\n Authorized all AP courses to be available in all five high schools\n Included enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators\n Changed regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a \"C\" in the previous course\n Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development for teachers, counselors, and principals\n Published in the curriculum catalogs the guidelines for ensuring access of students to the AP and Pre-AP courses, including those with disabilities, those identified as \"504,\" ESL students, and those who are non-traditional students\n Ensured equal access to the professional development courses for teachers oy advancing the funds so that teachers could participate in the AP and Pre-AP conferences and Institute, thereby ensuring more equity for students at all schools\n Conducted parent night meetings at secondary schools to provide infonnation to parents about AP and Pre-AP programs, the importance of enrollment in courses, and the need for parental support in keeping students in courses\nand  Increased communication with parents through direct conferences and through the High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. 36 Enrollment in AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in each of the AP courses offered by the College Board for African-American students as compared to .. other\" students for school years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01. Important findings are as follows: Improvements in Total Enrollments in AP Courses  The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses increased from 4 71 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-0 I-an increase of 326 students or 69 percent.  The total enrollment of \"other\" students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01-an increase of 53 I students or 55 percent.  The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01-an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. Changes in Enrollments in Specific AP Courses  In 1997-98 the District had students enrolled in 16 AP courses. The number of courses taught in 1998-99 increased to 18, in 1999-2000 to 20, and remained at 20 in 2000-01. According to the College Board's 1998 Advanced Placement Yearbook, \"the average participating high school offers six AP courses.\" A greater variety of courses in the District contributed to the attraction of more diverse students to the program. (Note: Spanish IV-VI was counted as one course, as were the multiple levels of French, German, and Latin, so the total number of courses may be higher than the numbers provided.)  The most popular AP course in 1997-98 was American History, with 284 students enrolled, followed closely by English IV with 277 students. These two AP courses substituted for graduation requirements, which, no doubt, contributed to the high enrollment. A similar pattern in course taking occurred in 1998-99, with 287 students enrolled in English IV and 260 in American History. With the addition of AP English ill in fall 1999, the enrollment shifted somewhat: 320 students enrolled in American History, 246 in English IV, and 186 in English III. English IV was the most popular course in 2000-01, with 359 students enrolled. American History had 299 students, and English III had 261.  Over the three-year period the biggest enrollment increases among AfricanAmerican students were in American History-an increase of 60 students\nEnvironmental Science-an increase of 57 students\nEnglish IV--an increase of 49 students\nand Statistics-an increase of 42 students. Also, 75 African-American students were enrolled in AP English ill in 2000-01 (that course was not offered in 1997-98).  The biggest improvements over the three-year period in AP enrollment were in English III (increase of 261), Environmental Science (increase of 174), in English IV (increase of 82)\nPsychology (increase of 63)\nin Art History (increase of 58)\nand Statistics (increase of 53). Some of the improvement in English III AP comes from a reduced number of students taking English ill Pre-AP\nand some of the improvement in Statistics AP is the result of fewer students taking Algebra II PreAP. 37 Enrollment in Advanced Placement Courses APCoune 1997-98 19~8-99 1999-2000 2 Yr. Change 2000--01 3 Yr. Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total English Ill 0 0 0 22 13 3S 70 116 186 +70 +116 186 7S 186 261 +7S +186 261 English IV 93 184 277 98 189 287 I0S 141 246 +12 -43 -31 142 217 3S9 +49 +33 82 Caltulus AB 55 96 ISi 53 79 132 50 66 116 -5 -30 -35 58 122 180 +3 +26 29 Caltulus BC 2 IS 17 4 10 14 0 8 8 -2 -7 -9 0 10 10 -2 -5 -7 Slalislits 8 46 54 10 40 50 36 36 72 +28 -10 18 so S7 107 +42 +II 53 Biology JI 42 52 94 31 59 90 58 66 124 +16 +14 30 42 116 128 0 +34 34 Chemistry II s 27 32 13 43 56 20 42 62 +IS +15 30 2S 311 63 +20 +II 31 Physits II 2 25 27 0 14 14 8 25 33 +6 0 6 3 30 33 +I +5 6 Env. Stitncr 2 s 7 16 42 58 41 42 83 +39 +37 76 59 122 181 +57 +117 174 Eur. History 88 114 202 90 90 180 so 79 129 -38 -35 -73 54 90 144 -34 -24 -SIi Amtr. llislory 107 177 284 115 145 260 127 193 320 +20 +16 36 167 132 299 +60 -45 15 Psythology 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 36 +10 +26 36 18 4S 63 +18 +45 63 Gov. \u0026amp; Polilits 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 +4 +3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etonomits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Human Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 9 14 +5 +9 14 Frtnth IV-VI 12 56 68 10 24 34 18 31 49 +6 -25 -19 16 56 72 +4 0 4 Gtrman IV-VI I 27 28 0 15 IS 0 16 16 -I -II -12 0 17 17 -I -10 -11 Spanish IV-VI 32 96 128 27 57 84 so 74 124 +18 -22 -4 38 128 166 +6 +32 311 Lalin 111-V I 3 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 -1 -I -2 2 32 34 +I +29 30 Art llislory 0 0 0 29 70 99 18 67 85 +18 +67 85 6 52 58 +6 +52 58 Studio Art 9 16 25 14 21 3S 12 30 42 +3 +14 17 18 37 ss +9 +21 ~o Mus. Theory 12 2S 37 9 23 32 18 33 51 +6 +8 14 19 29 48 +7 +4 ~ Comp. Stitnte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 471 964 1435 541 936 1477 695 1096 1791 +224 +132 356 797 1495 2292 +326 +531 857 Ptrttnt or Total 33 67 100 37 63 100 39 61 .,,. 100% 35% 65% 100%  I Yr.lncreast IS -3 3% 28 17% 21% IS 36% 28%  2 Yr.lntrtan 48 14 25% 47% 60% 55%  3 Yr. Increase 69% 5S - 60% The ltst of co11rses above mc/11des all AP courses ava,lable through Jhe College Board.  The greatest decline in enrollment over the three-year period has been in AP European History. Enrollment has declined 58 students-from 202 to 144. The major reason for this decline is that under the former graduation policy, students could substitute this course for the requirement of World History. Effectiye fall 1998, the State Board of Education changed their rules and stated that European History could no longer substitute for World History-thus reducing student interest in the course, especially among African-American students who accounted for 34 of the 58-student decline.  The District also experienced a drop in German IV-V-VI enrollment over the three-year period-from 28 students in 1997-98 to only 17 in 2000-01, a decrease of 11 students. Ten of the I I-student decrease in enrollment were \"other\" students. The District sees increased student interest in Spanish and the difficulty of staffing German classes as contributing to the change in this area. Pre-Advanced Placement Courses In December 1998 the Board approved a major revision of the high school curriculum. Among the changes were the elimination of all former courses labeled \"honors,\" \"advanced,\" or \"enriched.\" The District made a decision to label all such courses as Pre-AP so that the alignment behind the AP courses was more evident for everyone and for greater consistency and ease of communication. Another change was the establishment of Pre-AP courses in the core subject areas, beginning in grade 6, with the transition to middle school. Data were collected in 1999-2000 and again in 2000-01 on the enrollment in the Pre-AP program since this is the pipeline through which the District plans to develop the talent already in the District. Through these courses teachers can build the students' capacity to perform at higher and higher levels and, thus, to succeed in the AP courses in grades 11 and 12. Improvements in Enrollments in High School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the high school level for both school years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 39 Enrollment in High School Pre-AP Courses Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other English I 267 293 560 340 346 686 73 53 English II 253 284 537 298 316 614 45 32 English III 149 187 336 208 155 363 59 -32 Algebra II 169 330 499 168 257 425 -1 -73 Geometry 152 184 336 200 291 491 48 107 Trig/Adv. 92 168 260 79 222 301 -13 54 Biology I 280 277 557 289 332 621 9 55 Chemistry I 189 234 423 247 269 516 58 35 Physics I 171 191 362 177 274 451 6 83 Sci. Rsrch. 10 10 20 2 14 16 -8 4 Civics 283 282 565 333 347 680 50 65 World Hist. 326 284 610 374 415 789 48 131 World Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 2341 2724 5065 2715 3238 5953 374 514 Percents 46% 54% 100% 46% 54% 100% 1-Yr. Growth 16% 15% 15% Key findings are as follows:  The total number of high school students who enrolled in Pre-AP courses improved in 2000-2001 from 5065 to 5953-an increase of 888 students or a 15 percent improvement.  African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher rate-from 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01, an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. \"Other\" student enrollment also improved-from 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01 for an increase of 514 students or 15 percent.  The percentage of African-American students in the total high school Pre-AP enrollment remained the same- 46 percent in 1999-2000 and in 2000-2001.  The most popular high school Pre-AP course in 1999-2000 was World History . Pre-AP with 610 students enrolled and the only course with more than 600 students. In 2000-01 five courses surpassed 600, but World History remained the favorite: English II Pre-AP with 614, Biology I Pre-AP with 621, Civics Pre-AP with 680, English I Pre-AP with 686, and World History Pre-AP with 789.  African-American student enrollment improved in English III Pre-AP by 59 students\n\"other\" student enrollment, however, declined by 32. Seventy AfricanAmerican students chose English III AP at this level, rather than the Pre-AP option, and 116 \"other\" students made this decision, which most likely accounts for the decline in \"other\" enrollment in the Pre-AP course.  African-American enrollment in Pre-AP Algebra II declined by one student, and \"other\" student enrollment declined by 73. A partial explanation for this situation is that Statistics AP, which is an alternative course to Algebra II Pre-AP, increased by 22 students in 2000-01.  The largest one-year improvement in enrollment was in World History Pre-AP with 179. Close behind were Geometry with a 155 improvement, English I with 40 Total 126 77 27 -74 155 41 64 93 89 -4 115 179 0 888 126, and Civics with 115. The largest grm~'th for African-American students was in English I Pre-AP (73), and the largest gtowth for \"other\" students was in \\\\'orld History Pre-AP ( 131).  Freshman and sophomore-level course enrollments were generally much higher than those at the junior level. Just as in middle school, it is important to keep these students in the pipeline toward talcing the AP courses. If the District is successful in doing so, AP English enrollment, as an example, could potentially increase a great deal in just two years. Improvements in Enrollments in Middle School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the middle school level for both years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-0 I. Key findings are as follows:  Even though some feared that students were over-enrolled in the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level in 1999-2000, even more students stepped up to the challenge in 2000-01. The African-American student enrollment grew 937 in one year for an improvement of 19 percent\n\"other\" students grew by 1076 for an improvement of 24 percent. The District as a whole grew by 2013 students or 22 percent.  In contrast to enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total.  If students currently in the middle school pipeline continue through high school in the Pre-AP courses and then take AP courses in grades 11-12, the District can project significant improvements in the AP course enrollments as the current middle school students move into grade 11. As an example, there are currently 828 students enrolled in English 6 Pre-AP and 80 additional students enrolled in English 6 GT for a total of 908 students taking an advanced English course in grade 6 during 2000-01. At the high school level there are only 261 students talcing AP English III in 2000-01. If AP English III enrollment increased to 908, the District would have almost a 250 percent improvement. Enrollment in Specific Middle School Pre-AP Courses   The most popular Pre-AP courses at any grade level in middle schools are the English courses. For example, 908 grade 6 students are enrolled in a Pre-AP or GT English course. Enrollment in other core areas is less: 742 in Pre-AP/GT mathematics\n792 in Pre-AP/GT science\nand 754 in Pre-AP/GT social studies. Algebra I enrollment in middle school made a big jump in 2000-01-from 300 students in 1999-2000 to 426 in 2000-01, a 42 percent increase. In addition, four students were enrolled in 2000-01 in Algebra II and another 19 in Geometry for a total of 449 students enrolled in high school mathematics courses in 2000-01 , as compared to 308 in 1999-2000. That is an increase of 46 percent in one year. 41 - - II - \n1 I I I 111 I Enrollment in Middle School Pre-AP Courses I Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change 1~ 1 A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total i- Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 370 299 669 438 390 828 68 91 159 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 391 305 696 411 318 729 20 13 33 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 321 241 562 365 322 687 44 81 125 Read/Write 6 GT 14 37 51 21 59 80 7 22 29 Read/Wnte 7 GT 17 58 75 14 48 62 -3 -10 -13 I-Read/ Write 8 GT 18 41 59 15 59 74 -3 18 15 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 187 152 339 302 208 510 115 56 171 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 156 107 263 309 196 505 153 89 242  Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 118 65 183 243 132 375 125 67 192 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 2 14 16 21 59 80 19 45 64 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 7 22 29 14 48 62 7 26 33  Rsrch/Write 8 GT 4 6 10 15 59 74 11 53 64 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 313 266 579 363 314 677 50 48 98 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 287 322 609 345 290 635 58 -32 26 - '\\ Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 261 142 403 233 104 337 -28 -38 -66 Algebra I Pre-AP 124 176 300 130 296 426 6 120 126 Algebra II Pre-AP 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 Geometry Pre-AP 0 8 8 I 18 19 I 10 11 II Mathematics 6 GT 13 32 45 12 53 65 -1 21 20 Mathematics 7 GT 9 28 37 9 28 37 Science 6 Pre-AP 330 291 621 381 339 720 51 48 99 II I! Science 7 Pre-AP 365 320 685 399 339 738 34 19 53 Science 8 Pre-AP 299 256 555 379 341 720 80 85 165 Science 6 GT 19 39 58 19 53 72 0 14 14 I 11 Science 7 GT 15 54 69 16 48 64 1 -6 -5 Science 8 GT 15 43 58 14 61 75 -1 18 17 Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 31 17 48 30 24 54 -1 7 6 Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 18 30 48 32 22 54 14 -8 6 - Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 12 17 29 18 30 48 6 13 19 Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 22 28 50 25 37 62 3 9 12 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 23 32 55 27 31 58 4 -1 3 II Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 24 26 50 28 39 67 4 13 17 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 337 291 628 359 323 682 22 32 54 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 344 303 647 374 324 698 30 21 51 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 322 241 563 347 316 663 25 75 100 I Soc. Studies 6 GT 11 36 47 19 53 72 8 17 25 Soc. Studies 7 GT 16 56 72 16 45 61 0 -11 -11 Soc. Studies 8 GT 14 44 58 13 63 76 -1 19 18 II Totals 4820 4417 9237 5757 5493 11,250 937 1076 2013 Percents 52% 48% 100% 51% 49% 100% One-Year Change 19% 24% 22% I 11 I\\ I II 42  -  Enrollment in Pre-AP courses predictably declines at each grade level as students drop out of the program. Interestingly, ho\\vever, in 1999-2000 there were 720 students enrolled in grade 6 Pre-AP/GT English. In 2000-01 those students enrolled in Pre-AP/GT English 7 in even greater numbers: 791-an increase of 71 students in one grade level and a trend that runs counter to what usually h_appens.  There were large increases of enrollment in 2000-01 in the Research and Writing Pre-AP/GT course -- 171 in grade 6,242 in grade 7, and 192 in grade 8. This change reflects a change in the schools' policy. In 1999-2000 Pre-AP/GT students were enrolled in only one period of the Reading/Writing Workshop, and they were free to choose the second period as an elective-Research and Writing. Given the importance of this course, most schools decided to register all PreAP/ GT students into both periods in 2000-01. AP Examination The District's major emphasis in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 has been on encouraging enrollment in the advanced courses so that increasing numbers of students experience a more rigorous curriculum and begin to see themselves as college-bound. College Board research shows that students talcing an AP course and earning even a \"2\" on the test (\"3\" is the minimum score required to earn college credit) do better in college courses than those who did not talce the course. Although the District's priority during 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was not in increasing the number of students talcing AP examinations or in improving the percent who earned college credit on the examinations (but rather on improvements in enrollment), some notable improvements did occur in the number of examinations talcen. AP Examination Participation 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Change Number of candidates 249 298 251 1% Number of exams 427 508 489 15% The District also recognized that when the numbers of students talcing any test increase, average scores generally decline since the test was formerly reserved for a more select group of students. The trade-off is worthwhile, since in the long run greater participation in the AP program will reap more benefits for greater numbers of students than simply meeting the goal of raising the average scores of a small group. The following table displays the percentage of District students earning a score of \"3\" or above on AP examinations over the past three years, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. The District anticipates that the percentage of students earning college credit will continue to be stagnant until the increased numbers of students talcing the AP examinations are those who have been in the Pre-AP courses for several years. Many of the new students currently talcing the tests are in their first advanced course and have simply not had enough years of preparation to do well. For now, the celebration is that more students took the examination in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 than in the baseline year, 1997-98, and more students are earning a \"3\" or more on the examinations than in 43 the baseline year. Fifty-five percent of 489 (or 268) is, therefore, better than 59 percent of 427 (or252). Number and Percent of Students Earning a '3\" or More on AP Examinations 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 252 (59%) 273 (54%) 268 (55%) Grades in Advanced Placement Courses The table on the following page displays the percentage of students, by race, earning a grade of \"C\" or above in AP courses in 1999-2000, spring semester. Data for earlier years could not be retrieved for comparison purposes due to changes in the course numbers and titles that occurred in fall 1999. Final grades for 2000-01 will not be available until June 2001. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in AP, 1999-2000 Spring Semester AP Course A-A White Other Total English III 87 96 95 93 English IV 82 93 93 89 Calculus AB 77 87 100 85 Calculus BC -- 88 100 89 Statistics 89 83 92 87 Biology II 80 97 86 89 Chemistry II 85 90 100 91 Physics II 88 95 91 92 Env. Science 91 90 100 90 Eur. History 86 88 90 88 Amer. History 72 88 81 81 Psychology 80 96 100 92 Gov. \u0026amp; Politics -- -- -- -- Economics -- - -- -- Human Geog. -- -- -- -- French IV 73 85 100 81 French V 75 100 -- 91 French VI -- 100 -- 100 German IV -- 100 -- 100 German V -- 100 -- 100 German VI -- 100 -- 100 Spanish IV 75 96 92 88 Spanish V 100 86 86 91 Spamsh VI 89 92 100 92 Laun III 100 96 100 97 Latin IV -- -- -- -- Latin V -- -- -- -- Art History 83 90 89 89 Studio Art 91 82 100 86 Mus. Theory 100 97 100 98 Comp. Science -- -- -- -- -- denotes no enrollment m course m spnng 2000. 44 Grades in High School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table provides information relating to the p-ercentage of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in Pre-AP courses at the high school level in spring 2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in High School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total English I 74 90 97 83 English II 64 81 91 74 English III 74 77 90 76 Algebra II 77 89 96 85 Geometry 68 87 89 79 Trig/Adv. 78 90 93 86 Biology I 73 85 79 79 Chemistry I 67 81 87 76 Physics I 71 84 93 80 Sci. Research 70 100 - 85 Civics 90 94 93 92 World History 81 88 87 85 Grades in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table displays the percent of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in middle school Pre-AP courses in spring, 1999-2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 92 96 100 94 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 80 89 92 85 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 83 91 94 87 Read/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Read/Write 7 GT 88 98 88 95 Read/Write 8 GT 39 78 100 70 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 93 95 100 94 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 89 97 100 92 Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 82 92 100 87 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 8 GT 75 83 100 83 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 88 95 100 92 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 74 90 86 83 Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 67 75 69 70 Algebra I Pre-AP 76 85 81 81 Algebra II Pre-AP - -- 100 100 Geometry Pre-AP .. 100 100 100 Mathematics 6 GT 100 94 100 96 Science 6 Pre-AP 96 99 100 97 Science 7 Pre-AP 79 91 89 85 Science 8 Pre-AP 91 91 94 91 45 Science 6 GT 95 100 100 : 98 I Science 7 GT 80 100 - 89 95 I Science 8 GT 67 82 I 100 I Sl Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 84 77 S.3 s::: I Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 63 46 100 57 Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 92 88 88 89 ' Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 95 100 100 98 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 83 90 100 88 Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 78 85 86 82 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 89 96 96 92 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 87 94 100 91 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 87 92 94 89 Soc. Studies 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Soc. Studies 7 GT 94 100 100 99 Soc. Studies 8 GT 79 90 100 89 -- denotes no enrollment m course dunng spnng 2000. Enrollment in University Studies Courses at Hall High School Another category of advanced-level courses is the University Studies program at Hall High School, made available through a collaboration with UALR. The program began in 1999-2000 and continued in 2000-01. The following table displays the enrollment of students by race in these courses, where students earn concurrently both high school and university credit. Each course listed is a one-semester course, earning the student one-half high school credit and three semester hours of university credit. Course A-A Composition I 23 Composition II 19 Communications 6 Biology 8 Inrroduction to 14 Sociology Introduction to 9 Psychology Physics I Physics II College Algebra U.S. History I U. S. History II Totals 79 Percents 58% Enrollment in Universitv Studies Courses Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 1999-2000 2000-01 Other Total A-A Other 16 39 7 9 13 32 7 7 7 13 2 3 5 13 2 9 10 24 8 12 6 15 9 10 4 7 2 6 4 6 6 18 6 18 57 136 57 105 42% 100% 35% 65% Key observations are as follows: Total 16 14 5 11 20 19 11 8 10 24 24 162 100%  Enrollment in University Studies courses increased 26 students in 2000-01 over the initial year enrollment in 1999-2000 (from 136 to 162), representing an increase of 19 percent. 46  African-American student enrollment declined in 2000-01 from 79 the first year to 57-a decrease of22 students. \"Other\"srudent enrollment increased from 57 to 105 for an increase of 48. Numbers of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in University Studies The following table shows the number and percent of students earning a grade of \"C\" or above in the University Studies courses at Hall High School. ACT Results Students Earning a Grade of \"C\" or Above University Studies, Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 Course 1999-2000 A-A Other Total Composition I 22/23 12/ 16 34/39 96% 75% 87% Composition II 16/19 12/13 28/32 84% 92% 88% Communications 5/6 7/7 12/13 83% 100% 92% Biology 6/8 4/5 10/13 75% 80% 77% Introduction to 10/14 519 15/23 Sociology 71% 56% 65% Introduction to 6/9 4/6 10/15 Psychology 67% 67% 67% Totals 65/79 44/56 109/122 82% 79% 89% The District has two quality indicators in its accountability system that relate to performance on the ACT, the college admission examination that most District students take. The first goal is to improve the numbers of students who take the ACT, and the second goal is to improve the performance of students on the ACT. Just as with the Advanced Placement examinations, the emphasis during the first few years is on encouraging students to take the test, to see themselves as college-bound, and to use the results for post-secondary planning. At the same time, a number of initiatives has been undertaken to improve student performance. They include:  Enhancing graduation requirements so that all students take the courses that are recommended in ACT preparation materials\n Including at least eight advanced courses to the recommended curriculum so that students are encouraged to take the most rigorous curriculum possible\n Revising ACT preparation courses for both English and mathematics and offering these courses in all five high schools\n Providing comprehensive Pre-AP and AP courses for students who see themselves going to college\n Aligning the Pre-AP curriculum, not only with the AP course requirements, but also with the ACT expectations\n47  Providing a series of pre-test workshops in each of the subject areas through the Community Education Department\nand. -  Better communicating with students and parents about ACT test dates, advantages of taking the test, financial aid, how to make scholarship applications, and how to apply to college. The following table includes the ACT results for school years 1997-98 through 1999-2000, disaggregated by race. The results are provided for each sub-test, as well as the composite (average) score. Students are required to earn a composite score ofat least a \"19\" to qualify for an Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. Year Total 1997-98 ' No:_ofTest\"s ~~-91 ~ ,-..:~~ akers.,,_'!i~ -~ - English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1998-99 l\n\\~~2,.,.0~st~ ,.,. 929  .\n~alcers~ ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1999-00 ~ 9\n-ofJpt?f. e~- ,,_:_'Takers.~ ~ --- ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite ACT Results by Race and Gender 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000 Male Female A-A All White Mex./ Alsk. Chicano Ntv.\nJ:-,  ,1 .5,.\" '_ \"'=4.1ll\n-,,410~ -,,. -. 6- ---~-. -?268irj il~~JJ:~ ~ , ~ -a!:\",g~ : - ~ - .! it. -~ ~~'l-R )~i,..--.W. '- ,~. ~~~- 18.8 19.9 17.2 25.2 22.5 17 19.2 18 16.5 23 20.7 16.5 19.5 20.4 17.4 26.2 23.4 18.3 19.8 18.9 17.2 23.2 21.8 17.3 19.4 19.4 17.2 24.7 22.2 17.5 ~ ~5fb\"\"' ,~_ 55~4 \n\u0026gt;480 '.t? ,  .r1, ,. ' ' 3414 1\n'\n\".t: _~6\n\"l ~ ~ ' ,,_ ~ ~ :.\u0026lt;, - ~ .. ,\nl~ ~ t ... ~. ~ - ~~.: :?i! '_\n,..\",\"~'~ ~ -''. ''ii.-_ C .. ~- ., 19 20.3 17.1 20 23.2 16 18.6 18.3 16.5 20 20.6 15.5 19.6 20.2 17.2 24 23 .6 14.8 19.3 19.4 17.3 26 22 17 19.2 19.7 17.2 23 22.5 16.2 ~ .4.1'1.~- ~,.609,~ - ,, 111,,., 3 ... l,\nl t'.:-3~5t' rf6'1\u0026lt;,.~l? m~ ~~ -~1~$,.f~ \u0026amp;'ttil ~it ~ !) .. ~ :-..-, . .. ~~ 18.2 20 17.4 12.3 22.2 18.3 18.l 17.6 16.4 13.7 19.6 16.8 18.6 19.9 17.4 14 22.2 21.5 19.l 19 17.4 15.7 21.4 17.7 18.6 19.2 17.3 14 21.5 18.7 Asian/ P.R./ Mean PL Hispanic ~ 24,\n.\n,-~.:. s irs ' :~- ~~ -~:~~-1~~~tl ~. ~~ ~ .. ~- e ,,, .. l( 23.4 24.3 19.4 24.4 21.6 18.3 24.2 24.8 20.3 23 .6 21.1 19.5 24 23 19.5\n.i:.19~\n~ {,.\n~ ~:-ti... * ~\n,\n,.,..'lj ~-:f~::.8 .\ni: )~].,: cl'\"'.}, ~'\\IF,~~\n,.., .. - ~. 20.1 24.3 19.8 21.8 21.6 18.4 20.2 24.8 19.9 20.7 21.1 19.3 20.8 23 19.5 ., 20 \" ' ~:If ' 6 \\#1, 1 ..\n.~f~ ~j}\n. ff::i~ft ~.i'-'i~ l1,i1, . ,1::\"\n.'.,,c,\n~ .\n-'if.. . \u0026amp;i 21.6 16 19.3 23 .3 16.3 17.8 21.3 18.8 19.3 21.8 19.2 19 22.1 17.7 19 Key observations are as follows:  The number oftest-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or a 31 percent improvement. The number of AfricanAmerican test-takers improved from 410 to 570--an increase of 160 students or a 39 percent improvement. The number of white test-takers also increased-from 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000--an improvement of77 students or a 29 percent improvement. 48  Only 40 percent of the test-takers in 1997-98 were male. This percentage remained at 40 percent in 1998-99 and went up slightly to 41 percent in 1999- 2000. These figures suggest the need for initiatives to increase the percentage of male test-takers.  African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000. White students' scores declined from 22.5 to 22.2 in the same period. The District's average scores in English went down from 19 .4 to 19 .3.  African-American students' mathematics scores over the three years declined from 16.5 to 16.4, and white students' scores went down from 20.7 to 19.6. The average for the District went down from 18.3 to 17.8 between 1997-98 and 1999- 2000.  Reading scores for African-American students stayed at 17.4 from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, even though many more students were taking the test in 1999-2000. White students' scores went down from 23.4 to 22.2, and the District average declined in reading from 20.3 to 19.3.  African-American students improved their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000-again with many more students taking the test. During the same period white students' scores declined from 21.8 to 21.4. The District's average score declined from 19.5 to 19.  African-American students improved their average composite score from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17 .3 in 1999-2000, again with many more students taking the test. During the same period, white students' composite scores declined from 22.2 to 21.5. The District average declined from 19.5 to 19. That African-American participation in taking the ACT has improved so dramatically over three years (39 percent) while at the same time achievement has generally gone up is evidence that the initiatives to enroll these students in advanced courses are paying off already. It is very difficult for any group to increase its numbers and at the same time to improve their average scores. Parent Survey African-American students' willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. Summary and Next Steps Continued improvements are necessary for full equity of access to Pre-AP, AP, and other advanced courses, but the District is clearly on the right track in making these improvements, with large percentages of African-American students now taking advantage of the opportunity to participate. District and school-level staff members will continue to seek additional funding to 49 improve the program, especially for enhancements in student recruitment, parent involvement, and student support systems, as well as for curriculum development and staff development. 50 VIII. Academic Achievement. A. Generally. 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. Policies On August 24, 2000, the Board approved a new policy on Home Schooling (IKED). This policy reflects state law and State Board of Education regulations, as well as District views. In December 2000 the Board approved a revision to Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements. The new policy moved much of the detail about required courses that was formerly in regulations into policy. Changes included the following:  Increasing for the Class of 2004 the number of required units from 24 to 26 and the number of units in the recommended curriculum from 27 to 28\n Modifying the recommended curriculum to include eight Pre-AP/AP or University Studies courses\n Establishing criteria for the Magnet Program Seal\n Establishing criteria for the Arkansas Scholars Seal\n Modifying slightly the requirements for the Honors Diploma Seal\nand  Changing the one unit requirement in oral communications to one-half unit in oral communications and an additional one-half unit in any English, communications, or journalism course. A new course in Modem Grammar is recommended. The Board adopted in February 2001 Policy lAA on Professional Development. This new policy states that the Board will \"commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students.\" Procedures The regulations for Policy ID on the School Day were revised on May 25, 2000. Formerly, grade 12 students were not required to take more than four units of credit if that was all they needed to complete graduation requirements. The regulations were changed to require seniors to take eight courses, one of which could be a study hall or enrollment as a student monitor/assistant. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances, which are defined. The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the new regulations for the policy on Remedial Instruction, 1HBDA-R2. These regulations establish the Student Academic Improvement Plan (\"SAIP\"). Effective fall 2000, a SAIP is to be developed for all students who are (1) not performing on grade level (K-4)\n(2) not proficient on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations -primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 51 6), middle (grade 8)\nand (3) not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. An electronic form was de\\eloped for teacher use, and all schools received a reference text and software to use in writing the SAIPs. During fall 2000 the Board amended regulations IK.f--R. They eliminated the former procedures that had been established to provide for semester test exemptions for students with good grades, attendance, and behavior I This change was in response to the expressed concerns of many parents and teachers that such exemptions were not in the best interests of students. The exception was reinstated in February 2001 for seniors only. The Board reviewed on October 21, 1999, and then reviewed proposed revisions on May 25, 2000, the regulations on Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages, IKC-R. These regulations delineate the kinds of grades that will be included in the calculations for class rankings/grade-point averages\nthe kinds of grades that will not be included\nprocedures to be used when students re-enroll for a course to make up a failing grade or to improve a low grade\nhow to calculate transfer grades\nthe grade points of regular-level and AP course grades\nprocedures for determining rank-inclass\nprocedures to be used in determining senior honors\nand definitions of key terms. The May revisions included a new provision that allows a student who earns a grade of \"C\" or \"D\" to retake a course to improve the grade. Both the first and second grades will be included in the calculation of the grade-point average. A new set of regulations, IKEC-R, Credit for Courses Taken Through Distance Learning, was reviewed by the Board on September 14, 2000. These regulations allow District students to take certain high school courses through the Arkansas Virtual High School. Such opportunities open doors to meet more students' needs. The regulations note that these courses might especially be appropriate for \"students who need to make up failed courses, for the resolution of scheduling conflicts, for students transferring in from other high schools, to provide courses where there is a lack of certified teachers available, for home-bound students, for returning home school students who lack credits, for pregnant teens and teen parents, and others with extenuating circumstances.\" The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the proposed regulations IKED-R on Home Schooling. The procedures that were established include how to place home school students in grade levels or courses upon their entry or re-entry into the District. The Board reviewed in December 2000 new regulations for General Education Graduation Requirements, IKF-R. The new regulations delineate the procedures for placing students in English and social studies courses\nadded new technology courses that c.an satisfy the requirements for Technology Applications\nand added new Career Focus areas, including one for Teachers of Tomorrow, one in Aviation Technology, and another for the out-of-zone students transferring into Central High School. 52 The Board reviewed on January 11, 2001, proposed new Professional Development regulations, IAA-R. These regulations defined the required professional development hours\nthe necessity of a professional development individual improvement plan\nthe use of the school day for professional development\nprocedures for awarding salary credit\nprocedures for paying stipends\nprocedures for tuition reimbursement\nprocedures for earning time off on Turkey Day (the Wednesday before Thanksgiving)\nencouragement to teachers to become National Board certified\nthe status of AEA Days\na definition of the District's induction program for beginning teachers\nthe importance of professional development in school improvement plans\nand the requirement for program evaluation. On May 1, 2000, a new Administrative Directive ID was issued on the Length of the Instructional Day. Administrative Directive IIB on Minimum Class Enrollment was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKA(2) on Grading Procedures was issued on January 21, 2000. Administrative Directive IKAB on Reporting Pupil Progress was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKC on Implementation of Policy IKC was issued on May 1,2000. Administrative Directive IKF A on Scheduling High School Students was issued on May5,2000. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The High School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The Middle School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. The High School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. Priority Intervention Procedures In early September 2000 the District adopted a set of Priority Intervention Procedures (\"PIP\"). PIP is the system for providing support, corrective actions, and sanctions for schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education for improvement. This 53 system includes both a set of supportive interventions to help schools improve and a set of corrective actions if schools fail to improve. The procedures include a variety of interventions for schools identified for improvement: I  Accessible data for principals, Campus Leadership Teams, and others involved in school improvement\n Professional development for teachers, principals, and instructional support personnel\n School Improvement Plan coaching for principals and Campus Leadership Teams\n School Improvement Audits and/or Curriculum Audits conducted by District staff and then shared with the principal, Campus Leadership Team, and the faculty\n Technical assistance, on demand, for all schools.  Equitable resources to all schools\nprovision for extra resources for schools in need\nand  Principal evaluation system that is aligned with the accountability system. The PIP also includes a list of possible corrective actions for schools that are identified for improvement:  Diminished autonomy\n Required professional development for the principal and/or other staff.  Negative impact on evaluations for the principal and/or other staff\n Removal of the principal after two consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement\nand  Removal of 50 percent of more of a school's teachers after three consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement. At the September 2000 Leadership Team meeting (principals and central office brokers), the PIP was presented, and a meeting schedule with clusters of principals was distributed. During early October representatives of the School Services and the Instruction Divisions met with each group of four to five principals to talk with them about what is available to support school improvement, to listen to a presentation on their School Improvement Plans, and to listen to their needs for assistance and support. Staff members took notes at these meetings so that follow-up could occur. Subsequent meetings with the same groups of principals were conducted to discuss the results of assessments as they became available. Additionally, the School Services staff conducted monthly follow-up meetings with principals, and two of the PIP gr_oups of principals are meeting to plan together for improvement. Mid-year conferences have been scheduled to follow up on recommendations made as a result of the group pre-conferences conducted in October. 54 Another planned follow-up is to provide training for the Di,ision oflnstruction staff, as well as principals and assistant principals, in the use of the School Observation Measure developed by Dr. Steve Ross and his associates at the University of Memphis. This instrument allows observers to visit classrooms and then to construct a school profile of the instructional program. These data will be used as a part of the Curriculum Audits proposed as a possible intervention in the PIP. The training will be conducted for fall 2001 implementation. Programs Assessments Achievement Level Tests The District's Achievement Level Tests (\"ALTs\") in reading, language, and mathematics are administered in grades 3-11. The ALT is administered early each fall and again in late spring so that the year's growth can be measured. These tests are criterion-referenced in that they are closely aligned with the District's curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The scores are on a continuum that allows parents, teachers, students, and others to determine a student's growth during a given year, as well as over time. Also, the scoring software allows the staff to compare a student's performance with that of all the students in the nation who also take the ALTs, and a percentile score is derived. This percentile is not the same as the one used to score the SAT9 tests. The ALT national sample is inclusive of all students who take the test, and there has been no attempt to establish a norm based on representative students acc'0rding to region, poverty, race/ethnicity, gender, and so forth. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Also, second and third quarter criterion referenced tests are administered to third, fourth and fifth grade students. These tests are designed by the District's teacher leaders with input from classroom teachers. They are closely aligned with the District's elementary curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks so that they give the school and parents good information about the status of a student's performance in terms of achieving the standards. They are also intended to be predictive of how a student will perfonn on more formal measures unless appropriate interventions are made to improve perfonnance. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 To measure students' growth against the District and State benchmarks, criterion referenced tests (\"CRTs\") were developed by the English curriculum staff in the areas ofreading, writing, and grammar. These tests are used by each classroom teacher to measure students' growth and to plan instruction. Tests were carefully written to model form and procedure of the SAT9, the State Benchmark Exam, End of Course Literacy Test, and the AL Ts. Items are annotated to reflect benchmark(s) tested. The CRT's are designed to be given during the second and third quarters, but teachers have the prerogative1to administer tests during a period of several weeks for maximum value and individual needs. 55 Criterion Referenced Test (End ofUnit/Module Exams), Mathematics and Science CRTs were also developed by the District's Mathematics-and Science Departments in collaboration with PRE. This CRT measures performance at critical junctures in the new math and science curricula: specifically at the end of each mathematics \"module\" and each science \"unit.\" The test directly assesses student performance on District benchmarks in math and science. Each benchmark includes 4 test items. Stu~ents are expected to answer at least 3 of those items correctly to be proficient on the benchmark. In addition the test includes openended, free-response items that are formatted like the open-ended items on the Siate Benchmark Exam. Results on the CRT inform teachers, principals, and the District about how students are achieving the District benchmarks. A process is being implemented to efficiently convey test results to teachers, parents, and principals in order to achieve the CRT goal of identifying student performance in relation to our own curriculum and to identify students in need of additional instruction. To facilitate administration of the math and science multi-module CRTs, a systematic approach is being used for scanning, scoring, and the generation of reports for teacher, parents, and principals. The reports will include an \"item analysis\" that reveals how students performed on the test question by question. This will give the teacher detailed information about the content and skil\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\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_308","title":"Compliance correspondence","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":["2001-03/2001-07"],"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","School administrators","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance correspondence"],"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/308"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\ne  *- GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent\nTo: Subject: CARMINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY. BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nSTEWART DONALD M  GADBERRY. BRADY L.\nMITCHELL. SADIE ' FW: Mathematics program evaluation Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subjecfc LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, Mardl 01, 2001 1:25 PM CA^NE^ LEtS V ^bBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. r^athematics program evaluation We have yet another sflrifiUfi problem concerning program evaluation, Ooew^w^ contains numarous erws of facf and anerpretetion-ao many that i1 is going to taxa me a tot of ame to 2- The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF and what Nunnprv hac \"T? '1 fVirginia has done and submitted to NSK We ^n Mt Into a l o^M^usion Interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticisr^ we say two ^^reri? . .dP Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's reoort is submitted and It dMsn't Jive with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools again submitted and 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally It devoid of context\nit is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interoretations are nor infnr wrtten is nt^at all aligned with the reports that Virginia NSF 3. etc. is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interpretations are not mform^^bniTiatwTare District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? esoeciallv t. neversuppos^ Bdo. .epaU evaluallop cTmSae^S hare or jS rSrSnSS Sb? iteTOF rfp^lL *iaveh,ent as b a,adoral cdor, information in one place. Why in the world are we allowina to continue decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing w^i^hdtoi^TT ''D' xpensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled absolutely could not attenrf-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross I do not t that all these inci'dents are ^incidento^^ s=bdulS mtrngsStevl R^^  indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we don't just have one oroblem have multiple problems. I am VERY wearv of trvino to clean un the mecc uuhen we rriHrr4 r -------iP*i__ __ place. Itiple weary trying toclean up mess ^rn w^didn^ to hav?one in toe^t It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeino the orooram evaluation reouirements for this riiKthrt That le ,h., i h,o _______r-rZ J.l Z  2.\" Program I ra w *M wiiww ixaoiy bcci3w Lw wUliUllUC UVciScG e^luation requirements district. is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE OFTI^A VA/lfn \\/in A* A A a.Uikt! I U.^. _______a a.*.. . * 'uL , , mar is wny i nave removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanwsa. ^d that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year At least StSoffier^oS SpoS accePteble quality and do not contradict what we havi SvI%Tre,!^mmeX'inn \u0026lt;his. Otherwise, I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You I lavo iiiy I owi III I loriQowOn. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through 1. First sentence\nThe grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98 not'2?^Athynn^?dL^^^^^ ?.''o,^''''' performance in mathematics and science\" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation iak?hoS,tot\u0026amp;oS \" 854. Lots Of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis dra^l uses 190 as ike baseline for SATS ficopss. Tho cdhipliancs reporf used f 55T-Sfisince il was iln year before we began to implement changes 6. Disaggregation is unclear, is it \"white\" or is it \"non-black\" scores that are reported'? a M??nDDDnDT?I ' ' * sutints themselves changel n^'^mcSr WAroHid,r science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the 12 Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark Al-sn iftr..i \u0026amp; aS science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph ' -----------------  . A? 'J? -^Sebra I in Sth grade faifed the cou'rse.\" Our very'high^t achievinqVfadente are wha?so'^vll^] \" tt^at concYusion ^thouf a^^^ rVi laloU9Var 1 we have so far any is a gross error. He states that \"relatively large \"district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1.\" Well thats true but it is n or S^atiS ***  GeomeS and either 4ai!?LVonSis^j^he'Co''4 \"\"\" The f\u0026lt;evise\u0026lt;i Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper f 5,  G^I'Sation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses^e programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrongX Sm and rSpTfanceWpoS\"^ achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are outlinXthe '?  rekrence t^olicy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHOTA and WCDA- writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best examole of the PP\u0026lt;^\u0026lt;jnity to earn coIImc credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. *2 2.6.1. which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to ao will  ff*' fond in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here Pf 'ofo fais paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. 1 he writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-hut aoain had no data and nn .which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with .rrfr,rmaHr,r, analyzc^incre^ed enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. What we have done for remediation. An w^at we have done. including most of the prMrams that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a desnrintinn nf th^ now ifhe description of the new assessments would be ap^ropnate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of ^t is 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitifulagain because the writer did not understand the wunyoMun i D. , Hio ,s piuiui-again oecause the writer did not understand the program or what we have done have1)X a^bfg failure of which have been wonderfully suc^ssful, and others of which most part, student 24. This section also falls to include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher\nUnder \"Findings and Conclusions,\" the writer states that \"For the most di outi^mes in Mathematics (sc) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 m! profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No ^nchmark data. No ALT data? No CRT date of t^he tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. VJe have paid big 'P'^' 'f'\" fo \u0026gt;0 Po whatever ho has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we tha\\1\u0026lt;wkrat/Sl^^e^ate^at we^have*^ absolutely wrong And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF reporf for LRSD students\" noi Inn^aragraph about the'implementation dip,\" one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of fim^. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementationif we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doingthe Benchmark SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the wmculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 86dLunX,'^n \"? 2?^ '\"' draining program-and the feet is that we have tons of also have an assessment of the oTamTkTImplementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. Vn dSRod Whdt wo hsd or for infinrmafion rwi fha tflOSe d3t3 tO N^^^d Kathy never analysis of what went wrong last year). One of 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallow-but then oiven what th^ writer knouu th.- ...__ . c^ld we ex^ We have some critical issJes that should ^e^ to arfo even s^ed some o^em already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last vear) One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improved^Kdafe^lh^te the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what ' P0\"ay hink about this stuff ail the tiriie, and so d\u0026lt;^ Dwn^nlj w do^Xs^ W^^va ewry right to be outraged that people without any direct Information, with giant gaps of information without observation of knowledge of what we are doing and why. without infixmation about NSF wrthout anv ^empt to find out what we kriTO would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! * coounne worn, aoomwnattne the Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski UtOe Rock, Arkansas 72206 SO1/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. I , I W I hB.y W I V vr~il \\ I , Ivll FW\nCentral High School Parking and/or Baseball Field K  3lwa^ thrTO side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger not be a good Kme to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, February 28. 2001 S\n39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN G.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nCARNINE, LESLIE V. Central High School Parking anq/or Baseball Reid We keep going \"around and around\" in an effort to avoid the issue. det^ine whethw or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field SPMifically.how mu^ was the district going to contnbute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waitmn fnr a rmuhnn Inr nu^r 9 mnr.ke 1 _____t.___r,___ . '.. y'*!) waiting fora mating for over 2 months. I receive this memo ffom DouT^O^^^^ already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. wouW give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITlOl^L SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that n^ded. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around uenvai is adequate or not. 875013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P02 JUL 24 01 11:20 GADBERRY, BRADY L From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY, BONNIE: BABBS. JUNIOUS\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nMITCHELL, SADIE FW: Mathematics program evaluation I understand your concern and there are some issues that should be discussed but this no more serious than the errors found in the NSF evaluation grant that we sent to the visiting team. I am sorry but I hope the other Associates can be objective. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE hiursaay, March 01, 2001 1:25 PM BAB8S, JUNIOUS, MITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESUE V. Mathematics program evaluation We have yet another serious problem concerning program evaluation. I received on Monday afternoon a copy of the draft of the mathematics program evaluation that Kathy has apparently asked John Nunnery to do. I have these urgent concerns\n1. The draft contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation-so many that if is going to take me a lot of time to document. 2. The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF, and what Nunnery has written is not at all aligned with the reports that Virginia has done and submitted to NSF. We can get Into a lot of confusion with such different interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticism if we say two different things. 3. The draft is not aligned with what Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's report is submitted and it doesn't \"jive\" with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools a^ain. 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally. It is based on wrong assumptions\nit is devoid of context\nit is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interpretations are not informed by what we are doing this year, etc. My question is this: Why in the world did the District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? especially when what is written is of such poor quality? PRE was never supposed to do a separate evaluation of math/science from what we are required to do for NSF. NSF is just as concerned about African American achievement as is die federal court here or Joshua. Aii the relevant information will be in the NSF reports. And again, I am the only person vi^o has all the of information in one place. Why in the world are we allowing to continue the practice of excluding from decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing problems? these very expensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled at times when I absolutely could not attend-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross. I do not believe that all these incidents are coincidental. If this first paper is any indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we dont just have one problem. We have multiple problems. I am VERY weary of trying to clean up the mess when we didn't need to have one in the first place. It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeing the program evaluation requirements for this district. That is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanessa. And that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year. At least this way I can be sure that the reports to NSF and OCR are of acceptable quality and do not contradict what we have written in other official reports. There are serious legal and financial implications in all this. Otherwise. I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You have my recommendation. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through. 1. First sentence\nThe grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98. 2. The \"drivers that he says \"ostensibly influence overall levels of student performance in mathematics and science\" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation. 3. The example given about CPMSA activities makes no sense. Everything the project has done involves ail those stakeholders, not just policy formulation.\" 855013744187 UALKEP LhU firm 050 P03 JUL 24 01 11:21 4. Lots of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis draft uses imi as Ike basalins for 8AT9 scoras. Tka ccmplianca reporl used ^95?-58-Slnce it was Ike year before we began to implement changes. 6. Disaggregation is unclear. Is it \"white\" or is it \"non-black\" scores that are reported? 7. A big problem with cohort studies is also that students themselves changel 8. MAJOR PROBLEM: Scores are reported without any context that describes where we were in program implementation. No where does the paper establish when specific grade levels were implemented-and that is the only way to look at the data in any meaningful way. Grade 10 scores, for example, could not have been impacted before f^l 2000 because we didn't have any interventions before then that could have made a difference. 9. ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM: This report excludes the all-important Benchmark data. The grade 4 data are the BEST evidence that we have so far that the project is working. The grade 8 data are the best evidence that we have so far that change is imperative. 10. It is a terrible error to assume that SATO science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the new curricula. We could use the scores, I suppose, but they surely need to be Interpreted with caution. Again, there is no context laid for making interpretations in this draft. 11. Inteipretations of the cohort data are the same problem. He looked at T-scorss for grades 5 and 7 without any explanation of when the reforms were implemented. 12. Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark. Also, if we are truly trying to figure out if black kids are gaining, we need to look at their movement from Below Basic to Basic since when we started all this, the vast majority 13. There is a section called \"A\u0026lt;  were in the Below Basic level. access to High-Level Math and Science Courses.\" The ONLY course that is examined is Algebra l~hardly a high-level course, especially now that it is required of all students. We have pre- and post-data on course enrollments for both science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report. Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph is a gross error. He states that \"relatively large proportions of students who enrolled in Algebra I in Sth grace failed the course.\" Our very highest achieving students. the ones who take Algebra I in grade 8, and almost none of them fail! He drew that conclusion without any data are whatsoever! 14. The paper states that the \"district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1.\" Well, that's true, but it is grossly understated. We are requiring ALL students now to take not only Algebra I, but also Geometry and either Algebra II or Statistics. 15. This section fails to look at any of the data on Pre-AP, and there is a note that he didn't have the AP data to examine. Again, all of this is in the Compliance Report. 16. Fulfillment of Obligations Contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper. The first topic is Obligation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses. The programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses, not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrong. Also, the section iarnores many other initiatives taken by the District to impact achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are ouBineo in the Interim and final Compliance Reports. 17. There is a reference to policy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error. Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHCDAand IHCDA- R). 18. Further, the writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best example of the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. 19. The writer attempted to write about Section 2.6.1, which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with advanced courses. He had no data-and all of that is found in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here? Why put into this paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. The writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. 21. The writer attempted to analyze Section 2.7, but he only mentioned SAIPs as what we have done for remediation. An examination of the Interim and final Compliance Reports would reveal MANY more examples of what we have done, including most of the programs that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section. 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a description of the new assessments would be appropriate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of that is here. 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitiful-again because the writer did not understand the program or what we have done to engage parents, and we've done a million things, some of which have been wonderfully successful, and others of which have been a big failure. 24. This section also fails to Include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher\nUnder \"Findings and Conclusions,\" the writer states that \"For the most part, student outcomes in Mathematics (sic) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 for LRSD students\" He based that profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No Benchmark data. No ALT data. No CRT data. No acknowledgement of the tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. We have paid big bucksto staff to write a first report, then to Ross to do whatever he has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we have failed-and for that declaration to be absolutely wrong. And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF report that looks at ALL the data that we have. 26. Then there Is a big long paragraph about the \"implementation dip,\" one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of times. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementatlon~if we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doing-the Benchmark. SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the curriculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 865013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P04 JUL 24 01 11:22 2^ The paragraph on access to higher-level courses is very disappointing. Again, he only looked at Algebra I. There is innovative freshrnan Physics course. There Is no mention of the data we already have In the NSF data reports about course completions. This section is tembly Inadequate. And again, much of it is already rn the Com^iance Report. 29. The writer states that we have no documentation about our training program-and the fact is that we have tons of documentation throughout the Compliance Report-both on advanced courses and on the curriculum Implementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. I want to note here again the arrogance of PRE in even attempting to make judgments about these programs without meeting with the program staff and me to ensure that they know what they need to know to write a report. We are collecting data everywhere, and we are analyzing those data, and we are reporting those data to NSF-and Kathy never even asked what we had or for information on the phase-in of the reforms, for documentation on training, etc., etc., etc My insistence on being included was to prevent these kinds of errors and misinterpretations. 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallowbut then given what the writer knew of the program, what else could we expect? We have some critical issues that should be addressed (and we are in fact addressing many of them and even solved some of them already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last year). One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improvement both from data analysis and from deep conversations with the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what could be done better. I personally think about this stuff all the time, and so does Dennis ano so does Vanessa. We have every right to be outraged that people without any direct information, with giant gaps of information, without observation of the program implementation, without knowledge of what we are doing and why. without information about NSF. without any attempt to find out what we know would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work, about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! Or. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fex) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. FW: Central High School Parking and/or Baseball Field As both of you know there is always three side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger pointing, would this not be a good time to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, Fetxuary 28, 2001 5:39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN 6.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nCARNtNE, LESUE V. Central Htgri School Parking and/or Baseball Reid We keep going \"around and around\" in an effort to avoid the issue. I asked for a meeting to determine whether or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field. Specifically, how much was the district going to contribute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waiting for a meeting for over 2 months. I receive this memo from Doug- 2/22/01- rehashing what has already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. Now. I have indicated and the CLT has indicated that we would give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITIONAL SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. Doug, you continue to talk about the need for additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that are going to be needed. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around Central is adequate or not. 875013744187 walker LAW FIRM 050 P01 JUL 24 01 11:20 JOHN IT. WALKER. P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-5758 Fax (501) 574-4187 TRANSMISSION COVERSHEET Date: [, To: [. ] Fax: L 1 Re: L J Sender: J YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ rmcluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 574-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, piease immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. I JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile 682-3479 March 26, 2001 388 P02Z05 MAR 26 01 13:17 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDsnsoN Road LlTn. Rock, Askans.vs 72210 Phone: (5U1) 372-3425  Fax (SOl) 372-3428 Em-aiL: inchenryd@8wboU.nrc Representative Pat arker Bond House Of Represer\natives State Capitol, Rooi i 350 Little Rock, AR 7201 Dear Ms. Bond: 1 understanc annex or detach the that your bill which is now under consideration by the Legislature to deJacksonville area from the Pulaski County Special School District has not received comments from us and possibly from other interested panics in the long stating Pulaski County Desegregat on case. 1 am writing to inform you that while the bill may be popular with some of the Jacksoj ' desegregation plan\nville constituents, it may also have negative impact upon the court approved and that any legislation being considered will have to pass muster under the 14* Amendment as kvell as the law of the case concept. As you are\nrobably aware, no one has sought input from the Joshua Intervenors with respect to the legist ition or to the charter school which was approved for the Maumelle area. While our approval resort to the Coun is not required, our lack of knowledge and input will tend to cause us to o have matters ferreted out. Rather than get into a public dispute with you and the other propc nents of your legislation, 1 respectfully request that you and the other proponent legislate s meet with possibly the ODM, school officials and myself so that you have a better under landing of why opposition from Joshua, at least, is well placed. can Would you suggest that you sp :indly get in touch with me regarding this matter as soon as possible. I also with Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in order to obtain that office s perspective regarding pending legislation. !hn W. Walker f JWjS 5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 388 P03/05 MAR 26 01 13:17 cc\nMs. Ann Marshal Dr. Gary Smith Dr. Leslie Carni Mr. James Smitj Mr. Ray Simon le Ail Counsel of I ecord5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRd 388 P05/05 MAR 26 01 13:18 With due re peci lo the court, I remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Helle Ms. ,Ajin Brown Mr, Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jone: Mr. Richard Ro / Walker Sincerely yours, .chcll Mr. Timothy Gs iger '' I^EQSIVSO ^AR 3 0 200! GrBCECf ^^SESREGfiJJQSi^^- ^JIS C\u0026gt; CF John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email\nrachenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19* I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filin\nHeller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an ig a motion, because Mr. interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does. a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW.js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours. n W. Walker ro mx JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 1 4 ZOQi. urfluE OF B^eSA'nGK5fiOtSITORIM\u0026amp; OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hender.5O.\\ Road Little Rock. Ark.a.\\s.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydSswbell.net Via Facsimile - 310-822-4824 April 9, 2001 Tr'mfl'i on g^ECESVc Dr. Terrence Roberts 932 South Oakland Pasenda, CA 91106 Re: LRSD Dear Terrence:' Joy gave me a report of your brief conversation with her on Friday. I am writing to inquire of your opinion as to whether the Little Rock School District has made it to the point where it can be established to be a unitary school system. I need a written response to this by the end of the week. The expectancy of the plan was that the Joshua consultant would be closely associated with Joshua as policies and procedures were being developed and established. In addition, the plan contemplated that we would be integrally involved in all aspects of policy devisation and promulgation. I thought we had established that during our several conversations with you. We had the same expectancy from Dr. Ross. To date, our involvement has been superficial and mostly nonexistent except for our initiative. Accordingly, when you provide your opinion regarding the readiness of the District for unitary status, would you kindly address our non involvement, i.e., in communication with you and District officials and in the reporting process in which you were involved. We believe that good faith was required of school officials in implementing the plan and that at minimal we were not to be circumvented by any persons in the process. I am sending Mr. Junious Babbs a copy of this letter because Junious has not kept us involved and, in our opinion, has actively sought to prevent our involvement, I believe, as provided for in the plan. His position seems to be that if you were invo.lved then we were involved, for you were our consultant rather than theirs. At a hearing, he, of course, will be a necessary witness regarding this point. Please let me hear from you as requested. Furthermore, if Mr. Babbs chooses to address these points with you, would you please let us know his position in your response to us. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYWith warm personal regards, 1 remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann BrownAn. O' OOXQZ.H-^Z01 L K S D Rpr 1601 10:17a RITA ROBERTS SRD 626-793-7654 PAGE 02 P-2 Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D. P.O. Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 April 16, 2001 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RE: Your April 9,2001 letter to me Dear John: As always, it was good to hear from you, and I trust the report frna Joy was useful and informative. I will schedule lime lo meet with you when I am in Little Rock in the future. The work in the School District is going well and my feeling is that the employees have found the Coping With Difference program to be challenging and substantive. You ask, in your letter, about my opinion as to whether or not the School District has marie it to the point where it can be established as a unitary school system. Briefly, in my opinion, possibly. But, it is imperative to note that there arc many factors to be weighed and my opinion is but one of many to be considered. I add this because until all interested parties can come together and the available evidence, it is simply, and only, a matter of opinion. I feel ill equipped to comment on your level of non involvement in this process since I dont have enough information about communications between you and the District When I spoke to Mr. Babbs, he was surprised to find that you were of the opinion that he has actively sought to prevent your iiivolvement. As to Uk matter of whether or not T nm a Joshua consultant or a District consultant, I must say I find this rather confusing. In one sense it bespeaks an adversarial process which seems to pit you against the District with me somewhere in the middle. On the other band, it suggests a need for me to decide where my loyalties lie. In either case, the focus appears to be on things other than those that might benefit the children of the District. John, I am in this process because I want to see positive change that will result in greater educarional opportunities for children in this school system. My commitment is to do whatever it might take to realize that goal. If that end result is best achieved by unitary Office Of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYai/ ib / zooi 14: 04 501-324-2281 Apr IG 01 10:18a RITR ROBERTS LRSD SRO 62B-793-7G54 PAGE 03 P-3 status, so be it. However, if the opposite is true, I will support non-unitary status with a vengeance. You see, for me, this effort has never been about integration per sc. Integration in the absence of changed mind sets about the worth and value of children of color is an unworthy goal Obviously, there remains much to be done io this arena. Thats why I say, possibly, the District is ready for unitary status. In any case, we will talk further. Sincerely, A Terrence J. Rober^ PhJ), Cc: Mi. Junious Babbs, Ms. Ann Brown Received John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUL 2 - 200J Off ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 June 29, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Please provide all the information that has been provided to you by District officials at any time since June 10, 1999. Our tentative list of witnesses includes your senior administrators, beginning with Dr. Carnine and going to the level of Director. I am unable to give specific names because your letter of June 29, 2001 does not give specific names of the people responsible for [the] specific section of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. These are the names that I think are responsible: Dr. Les Carnine, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Dr. Kathy Lease\nDr. Marion Lacey\nDr. Linda Watson\nDr. Richard Hurley\nDr. Ed Williams\nDr. Don Stewart\nDr. Gary Smith\nMs. Sadie Mitchell\nMr. Junious Babbs\nMs. Jo Evelyn Elston\nMr. Brady Gadberry\nMr. James Washington\nMr. Robert Robinson\nMs. Pat Price\nMr. Leon Adams\nMs. Vanessa Cleaver\nMr. Dennis Glasgow\nMs. Frances Jones: Ms. Kay Rainey\nMr. Michael Oliver\nMr. Everett Hawks\nMr. Larry Mitchell\nMs. Gayle Bradford\nMr. Lionel Ward\nMr. William Broadnax\nMr. Ray Gillespie\nMs. Levanna Wilson\nMr. Gene Parker\nMr. Michael Oliver\nMr. Larry Mitchell\nand Mr. Jim Mobsy. Other tentative witnesses include: Dr. Terrence Roberts\nDr. Steven Ross, Dr. John Fluker\nDr. Ray Simon, Dr. Charity Smith\nDr. Ken James\nand Mr. Willie Morris. I will supplement this list on Monday after receipt of all the requested information. With respect to exhibits, I intend to use some of the documents that you submit to me by the end of the day, the ODM reports, and the FOIA responses that you have received copies of as you requested those copies from the school staff. I also may find it necessary to use correspondence between us and yourself, Dr. Carnine and staff members of the Little Rock School District. I also expect that we may make reference to information provided to the District from Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts, as well as the ADE. We have asked Dr. John Fluker to look at some of your statistical data and are not certain what he has done with it at this time. I will share any reports from him as soon as I receive them. Finally, I expect to use the Monitor and Associate Monitors of the ODM as witnesses as well. Siiicerely, / ^hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Counsel of Record Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H SUTTON. P A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR , P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A. DONALD H- BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR . P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN UI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P A HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C FENDLEY. JR . P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R- CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D TAYLOR, P A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH TAMARA G. MARTIN RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870-762-2918 June 29, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyOfec.net Via Hand Delivery RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 522 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse JUN 2 9 2001 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITIM RE: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find two documents which the Little Rock School District may introduce as exhibits in the hearings beginning July 5, 2001, pertaining to Little Rock School Districts compliance with its revised desegregation and education plan. Little Rock School District will also rely on its interim Compliance Report filed March 15,2000, and its Compliance Report filed March 15,2001, which have already been filed with the Court. We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, JCF/jm Enclosures John C. Fendley, Jr. cc via hand delivery: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall The Honorable Susan Webber Wright June 29, 2001 Page 2 cc via U.S. mail: Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Sammye TaylorLittle Rock School District Pupil Services Department Scholarship Awards 2000-2001 School Year School # Scholar^ip Recipients BM BF WM WF OM OF Central 4 4% 11 10% 25 23% 64 4 1 HIS Male 0 HISF Female 1 58% 4% 1% 0 1% Total no BM J.A. Fair 6 22 4 8 0 0 1 1 42 14% 52% 10% 19% 0 0 1% Hall McClellan Parkview TOTALS 15 13 5 5 0 0 1 0 39 38% 8 21% 7 10% 40 13% 33% 26 68% 19 26% 91 30% 13% 0 0 7 10% 41 14% 13% 3 8% 31 42% 111 37% 0 0 0 2 3% 6 2% 0 0 0 4 5% 5 2% 1% 1 0 38 1% 0 3 73 0 3 1% 4% 5 302 2% SCHOLARSHIP AWARD TOTALS 5185,242 $32,600 $406,458 $91,496 $332,781 $1,048,577 BF WM WF HisM HisF OM $309396 $278,606 $284,752 $334,680 $425,881 $1,633,315 $454330 $116,640 $342,450 0 $97,610 $1,010330 $963,662 $40,072 $240,000 $46,316 $647,566 $1337,616 $74,000 0 0 0 $82,192 $156,192 $16,000 0 0 0 $195,662 $211,662 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 0 0 $80,000 deceived JW 2 9 2001 OF 0 $4,000 0 0 $500 $4300 Total Award By School $2,012330.00 $481,918 $1333,660 $472,492 $1,782,192 $6,082,792.00 ScholarshipAwards.OlHighlights of Grades K-2 Results Developmental Reading Assessment 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 2 9 25\n,I OmCEOF All three grade levels improved in spring 2001. 1999-2000 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 72.2 53.6 67.5 2000-2001 80 7 63.8 75.4 First grade showed the greatest improvement in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Change +8.5 +10.2 +7.9 More than 75 percent of the schools improved in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 # of Schools Improving 27 (77%) 29 (83%) 29 (83%) 1Both area and magnet schools did well. The five highest performing schools at each grade level for each year follow. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten McDermott* Fulbright* Rightsell* Terry * Grade 1 Grade 2 Mitchell* Woodruff* Williams Wilson* Western Hills* McDermott* Rightsell* Williams Forest Park* Western Hills* Otter Creek* Denotes area schools. McDermott* Baseline* Fulbright* Gibbs Brady* Williams Carver McDermott* Booker Forest Park* Carver Williams Western Hills* Otter Creek* McDermott* 2Many schools improved dramatically in spring 2001. Schools improving 20 or more points are as follows. All are area schools, and most are high poverty schools. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 _______2000-01 Baseline (42.9)* Badgett (28.4)* Forest Park (27.1) Cloverdale (26.1)* Stephens (25.3)* Wakefield (44.6)* Watson (41.9)* Baseline (41.2)* Stephens/Garland (27.5)* Western Hills (25.8) Chicot (24.4)* Badgett (20.6)* Dodd (31.1) Badgett (31.1)* Stephens/Gariand (30.1)* Pulaski Heights (29.3) McDermott (22.5) Denotes schools with 75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch. 3The Incentive Schools are, in general, improving. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students are performing at or above the \"readiness\" level. Kindergarten Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 64.3 90.6 92.1 75.8 40.8 2000-2001 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 Change -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Grade 1 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 2000-2001 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 Change 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Grade 2 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 2000-2001 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 Change 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 4The Newcomer Centers are improving, except for Terry at kindergarten and grade 2. Kindergarten Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 76.9 56.1 66.7 91.9 81.2 2000-2001 93.4 70.9 86.4 86.7 84.1 Change 16.5 14.8 19.7 -5.2 2.9 Grade 1 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 34.9 26.8 59.6 47.1 35.5 2000-2001 53.5 51.2 76.5 59.8 41.1 Change 18.6 24.4 16.9 12.7 5.6 Grade 2 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 70.8 38.6 68.8 81.2 63.3 2000-2001 79.6 52.1 81.6 67.1 81.4 Change 8.8 13.5 12.8 -14.1 18.1 5There are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved dramatically in spring 2001 and/or some are performing in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher). Kindergarten Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 1999-2000 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 2000-2001 50.0 58.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80.0 73.3 92.3 73.7 87.7 Change 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 6Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 1 1999-2000 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 82.9 50.8 25.0 24.7 46.8 2000-2001 26.5 58.9 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 Change 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 7Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)_____ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 2 1999-2000 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 2000-2001 42.9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86.5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 Change 31.1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 8Most of the Success for All (SFA) schools improved in spring 2001. Most are now enriching the SFA program with ELLA strategies. Kindergarten Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 76.9 51.1 56.4 68.3 77.4 66.7 69.2 2000-2001 93.4 94.0 82.5 75.6 77.1 86.4 46.2 Change 16.5 42.9 26.1 7.3 -0.3 19.7 -23.0 Grade 1 Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 34.9 29.6 28.4 62.5 70.0 59.6 84.2 2000-2001 53.5 70.8 33.9 72.7 66.6 76.5 61.5 Change 18.6 41.2 5.5 10.2 -3.4 16.9 -22.7 Grade 2 Brady______ Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 70.8 47.1 57.9 62.9 57.9 68.8 78.3 2p00E20Ql 79.6 60.5 45.1 67.7 75.0 81.6 86.5 Change 8.8 13.4 -12.8 4.8 17.1 12.8 8.2 Schools with the Reading Recovery program in grade 1 are performing well. Grade 1 Booker Chicot* 1999-2000 69.3 26.8 2000-2001 87.4 51.2 Change 18.1 24.4 9Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 58.3 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 67.7 50.0 84.1 82.9 *2000-2001 was a training year. Reading Recovery not continued in 2000-2001. Grade 2 1999-2000 73.5 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 69.6 61.7 97.1 53.8 2000-2001 15.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 1.9 11.7 13.0 -29.1 Change Booker Chicot* Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 79.8 38.6 51.7 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 87.2 45.2 81.4 52.1 82.8 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 90.5 74.5 1.6 13.5 31.1 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 3.3 29.3 89.7 60.4 92.6 61.4 2.9 1.0 The number of schools with a majority of students performing below the \"readiness\" level is declining. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 3 (9%) 13 (37%) 8 (23%) 2000-2001 1 (3%) 6 (17%) 2 (6%) 10The number of schools with at least 80 percent of the students performing at the \"readiness\" level is increasing. Kindergarten Grade 1_____ Grade 2 1999-2000 15 (43%) 5 (14%) 10 (29%) 2000-2001 21 (23%) 5 (14%) 18 (51%) The gap between the lowest and highest performing schools is decreasing. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 73.2 2000-2001 48.1 Change 25.1 78.3 82.9 72.1 50.2 6.2 32.7 11Black students are improving at every grade level and at a higher rate than Non-Black students. 1999-2000 Kindergarte n Grade 1____ Grade 2 69.3 48.3 63.8 2000-2001 77.0 57.4 69.8 Change 7.7 9.1 6.0 Non-Black students are improving at every grade level. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 84.7 71.2 81.6 2000-2001 88.8 77.3 86.8 Change 4.1 6.1 5.2 The achievement gap is much lower in grades K-3 now than in higher grade levels and is decreasing. It is lowest at kindergarten. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 15.4 2000-2001 11.8 Change -3.6 22.9 17.8 19.9 17.0 -3.0 -0.8 12John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 2001 ^Of JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile June 28, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., Case No. 4:CV82-866 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing this letter to request that you schedule an informal conference between the Little Rock School District counsel and us regarding the forthcoming hearing. The timing of the hearing appears to be insufficient for us to prepare to make our case. The District officials simply have not cooperated with us in providing information on a voluntary basis. We are now met with the inability to communicate with any District official without going through counsel and we are experiencing other problems as well. This is due to instructions and advice of counsel. Let me cite an example of the problems that we are having. We met with Chris Heller, Clay Fendley and Ms. Marshall on Monday of this week. We were informed that there were large numbers of evaluation reports regarding the many programs that have been undertaken by the District in the past three years and before that are sitting, according to Clay, in Clays office. Those reports have been requested by us many times and we were essentially informed that no such reports existed. We still have not seen the reports. Now Clay and Chris do not make them and other District data available to us as has been the normal expectation and practice. That practice has abated since Joshua filed their objections. The timing problem also involves our inability to meet the courts directive that we provide our exhibits by tomorrow. With the Districts lack of cooperation, without there being formal discovery, and with the obstruction directed by Clay and Chris, we simply need much more time to meet our burden of proof. We request that we be allowed to use the time that you have set for trial in July and August to engage in discovery and that the matter be reset for a period of time thereafter. We also note that the District is in the process of preparing reports that it intends to submit in its portion of the hearing. If they attempt to do this, it will prejudice our presentation.This is so because they were obliged, at the time of their report in March, to have fiilly met their obligations and to have that established by documentation. A conference is sorely and urgently needed so that we can address these and other concerns of the parties. May we meet with you either by telephone, or in person, either later today or tomorrow? Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Counsel of Record C  Cu/ RECEIVED JUL 2 - 7001 received JU12-2O(I1 OmCEOF desegregation MONITORING OmCEOF OESEgfGKnONIMHgm OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Attorney General Samrayc L. Taylor Chief Barrister Direct dial: (501)682-1320 E-mail: sammvet@aq.state.ar.us KL4 FACSIMILE Honorable Susan Webber Wright 302 U.S Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 604-5169 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD\nUSDC\n4:82CV866SWW Dear Judge Wright: Mark and I would like to thank you for excusing us from the hearing currently being scheduled by the court for the morning of June 29, 2001. I was not scheduled to be in the office tomorrow and Mark has a deposition scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. If we were to attend the hearing, we would object to Mr. Walkers untimely request to continue the hearing dates in July and August, as these dates have been set by court order since April 4, 2001. Again, we appreciate your granting us leave to not attend the June 29 hearing. Respectfully yours, Chief Barrister SLT/alh cc: Counsel of Record via Regular Mail 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q:\\Civil\\Sammye Taylor\\Deseg\\Judge 6-28-01 .doc 954 Peaces ju. 03 01 18:29 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.a. AitorneyAt Law 1723 Broadway Lmts Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 July 3. 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKYEa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hbjdsrson Boao Email: nwhcnrydgawbelhaet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris\nJoshua may use the following documents as exhibits during the hearings on July 5** and 6*: 1) Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999 and any subsequent plans I D n________ J - 1 _______________ *  * -2) LRSD Interim Report dated March 15. 2000\n-3) LRSD Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001\nODM Report dated June 21, 1995\n^5) ODM Repon dated October 26, 1999\n*^5) ODM Repon dated March 29, 2000\n^7) ODM Repon dated April 11, 2001\nt-^) ODM Repon dated August 11, 1999\n9) Draft Ev^uations from PRE\n10) Responses to request for information dated 6-8-01 to Mr. Babbs\n11) Responses to request for information dated 6-13-01 to Dr, Lesley 12) Documents listed in Dr, Lesleys letters dated 6-14-01 and 6-27-01 to Ms, Springer\n13) Responses to request for information dated 6-20-01 to Ms, Mitchell\n14) Responses to request for information dated 6-27-01\n15) Responses to request for information dated 6-28-01 to Mr. Heller 16) Loan requests to State of Arkansas from LRSD\n17) Responses to requests for information dated 6-27-01 to Ms, Mitchell\n18) Responses to requests for information dated 7-2-01 to Dr, James\n19) LRSD 2000-01 Recruitment and Placement Service Annual Report 20) Dept, Of Exceptional Children Strategic Plans - 1998 and 2001 21) Budget and Enrollment data for LRSD elementary schools\n22) Manpower Reports for 1998-99 through 2000-01, 23) Standardized test results (SAT, ACT, Stanford) from 1982 to present 24) Leners dated April 14, 1999, April 20, 1999, May 12, 1999 to Dr. Carnine5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 954 803/03 JUL 03 01 18:29 ----- 25) Letters dated July 8, 1999 and October to John Walker\n18, 2000 from Christopher Heller - 26) Letter dated September 13, 1999 to Mr. Larry Berkeley\nLumpkin to Junious Babbs- ^'garding equitable allocation 1-29) Settlement Agreement dated 1989 pages 15-16\n26-27\nof resources\nAgreement between State and LRSD dated 3-19-2001 321 Walker d^ed 5-11-13-99- Correspondence between Mr. Babbs and Drs. Ross and Roberts- 341 from Mr. Babbs office on 7-2-01- and -34) Dr. Camine s Pnonty Repons.   There are several requests that are still outstanding and documents as exhibitc Tf  ana we may use some of those all documents that are given to tbs XVwkh \"structed District personnel to share you. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Ms. Ann Marshall5013744187 UfiLKER LfiW FIRM 954 P01Z03 JUL 03 01 18:29 W. WALKER, P.A. Anorney at Law 5723 Broadway Tittle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX transmission COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: [. [, r 'Ll3-^0! J ] Re: L Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE S J ] - ---------(including cover sheet)]PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. TF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THEPAGES PLEASECALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-575S\u0026gt; . only for th use of the individiiBi or andconfideatial infonnationintentted ___ I entit-y- -n--a-m---e-d-- -a--b- ove. I*f t*he rea*der of' th-is mIessSage is HnOoTt tmhee iinmteenaodeedd J Wsibie to deUver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissenunation, distribution or copying of this communication is strirrlv i_____ received this communication in error, please immediate notify or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank us by telephone, and return the original message :you. a 1015744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 P02/03 JUL 03 01 06:50 JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LmtE Rock, Arkansas 72206 TELEraoNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile July 3, 2001 O' COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. Ra pONNALMcHENW 8210 Hknoceson Road Ti. . Liras Rock AaxANBAs 72210 Phons: (501) 87^3426  Faz (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcbeniydaswbellnat Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220] Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. - Case No, 4\nCV82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nnought to meet with Little Rock school officials since our  * Honor on Friday. After providing names of possible witnesses to Mr Heller nn R a u------- to them available on Monday. On yesterday 1 snnke m u n  Fnday, he agre the inteiviews and he indicated that he would ge?btk wth^me At Wn m that we will be unable to make thL Since our conference 5vith Her on Friday, agreed interviews this week, we will be unable to make them available for requesting a conference with the Court to assist us with an amicable resolution of this matter. ificerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMr Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Qffioeof OMsgregation MonRoring FILE COPYrxioAYdni.)^) H. lUTTOW. px. ,nm K. nioua. j., r.. ^AavmT.fA  uluny. C Aavtx. JAMtt C. CXaAX. JV F.A, tvomaa  Lcocxrr. zx. iotoi OCWT wanea. 7.A. FAUL X SXMXAM lU. r A. LAArrw auxxAF.A. A **cxurrpiSMr^jx..zA. MMXS C9WMP \"AAAiA. f-A. h FWUJF MaLCAM. F.A JAHJJ M. aWSAN. FJL ZAMttM. UXTAH. F.A. J siienBKo pj, H. MCON.  A. *nXlAMTTMH lAXrn. M AWY s. conm. f.a. UatAAA 0. TAVLOt. 7.A 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM iKLUAi liWKjbliGt\na CLARK 932 P03/03 JUL 03 '01 0002 06:50 Josmo. WMT. nu. i.a UZAtlTH kOMCN MUAXAt * a CttKTOnrBl Htuat F A. w/MWjunm iomTs.:RAPMu?.A vn.UAH M. oxtmw tn. f a. X noctt. ZA. iNAFCt. MACxrr r.A. OVtNA. fA. TA. A. WAPOBU. JtL. f.A. tCOTT I. a.A M.0AVVlC0V.tY..A. *O*\u0026lt;*T \u0026gt;. aCACM. flL. tjL. J. LZE BXOMr, r,A. jAMsac aAax.JK.. *y A. LWWI. F.A. rT K. rargy j fluy ALWN VAOe. FtlOSCOAMM\u0026amp;Lrx YONlA f. town. \u0026gt;.A. OAvw 0. YOMt. e.A. Friday Eldredge A Clark ATToaxeys t law * JMITSC tlAgiuTY rAfiTNBtSfllf \".friosyflrm.com 2000 AEQlONS CCNTgft 468 WZ6ST CAPITOt. ttls rock. ARKANflAa rzzovjAss TCLfPhone 501-378-4011 Fax 501-378-2,47 EAST utusAp. wire 'Avengviue. awcum \u0026gt;jj I^IEFMONE sei.AM.20lt Fax Ml.sMeMAT zM pipTM sneer eurrneviLtt. AMfA/tStit \u0026gt;ia TBLW\u0026lt;^\u0026lt; 70.m24M FAX x7eeTi.aia VIA FAZ No, 374-4187 July 2,2001 n MOOXX. ClAA F. A MO(Ar ALBteMVtA A trXAM Mtrna * CwJTOMttl tJhVSON. fJL ------------- OAlCAay a. TaVX^ Pji. WRXOX. zx. C meXMAN. r./i, tWOA K fOWiOt^ f,/c UMXX V. AMtTK r.A. msocrrr. oafju, t MtuuiiQmi XAKVatLORLOCM colbmam wunoLoox. m. AUUOKX OOwrVBU. aUXHHdWlK 'ASON 4. WN0A1N IUJC8 *. nowiu. WA.l.XAJlV OLLY ituKnrr Wttxro. woiQu nom TAMAAU MARYW ctaita. wmiAM C O'\" t T. WOBUZ ATOt s. 4AUrr \u0026lt;a\u0026lt;AAM. OITTQa XCAAXC *RiUM u. nouiT \u0026lt;r. LABxeLsix Kfk \u0026amp; COMU. F A. A\u0026gt; MGAtUlTEfc CMMstOPNCA malsx LiTTUenOCX rev Crt\u0026lt;47*tuA FAX CMeaMeMM Mr. John Walker JOHNW\nWALKER,?,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear John\nme know the order in which they will testify so that I can mnlfB time. In accordance wrth your letter. Dr. Lesley wiU not be avaailrarbalneg uenmtieln tthse t oA hauveg thuemst pSreJseSnt? at the appropriate You have said fiiat you plan to call Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith fiom Desegregation Monitoring. I have called ODM to attempt as I hear something, I will let you know. to the Of\u0026amp;ce of arrange ameetingin advance of their testimony. As soon We also discussed tfaeavailability of Steve Ross and Terrence Roberts, Itold you that we have not made any arrangements to have them present on Thunday or Friday. Lk Camine is in the process of moving to FayetteviUe. Dick Hurley has not yet remmed firm not yet returned from a trip out the available for interviews\" this week to make them Yoj Christopher J. Heller CJH/dh I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS July 3, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LnTLE Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Mr. Ray Simon Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2001 Dear Mr. Simon: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Would you please let us have access today to your correspondence files and other files regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness discussions that you have been having with Little Rock. You will recall that we asked to be included in those discussions and have not been. This is to also inform you that we expect to call you as a witness in the existing case. We may not get to you on Thursday or Friday of this week, but if we dont we, please expect to be called on either August I\" or August 2\". With best regards, I remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMs. Sammye Taylor Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller / 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P02 AUG 15 01 11:22 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective\nJuly 11,2001 CLASS INTERRUPTIONS Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to increase significantly the amount of time on task or engaged learning time without increasing the school day or school year. The organization of the school and the use of time in the allotted school day send a powerful message to teachers and students about the value of learning. Keeping instructional time sacred is respectful of both teaching and learning. Extending engaged learning time\" is a research-based strategy for improving student achievement. I Interruptions to Instruction The principal and the Campus Leadership Team of each school are directed to protect instructional time from interruptions for non-instructiona! matters to every extent possible. Schools should periodically audit the amount of potential engaged time that is being lost due to teacher absences, student absences, tardiness in beginning lessons, time lost due to discipline infractions, time lost due to assemblies or presentations unrelated to the course benchmarks, early releases, field trips not tightly correlated with the course benchmarks, and similar losses. These data collections will enable the school to find ways to increase the amount of instructional time without adding to the school day, week, or year. Some specific guidelines follow: 1. 2. 3. Principals and other office personnel should not use the intercom more than twice per day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon), except when an emergency justifies the interruption of instruction. Students should generally not be allowed to miss core instruction, especially English language arts and mathematics, for field trips, presentations on non-academic topics, health screenings, school pictures, non-academic assemblies, events to reward students, early dismissals for athletic participation, etc. Principals should generally forbid the showing of rented videos to classes, even when they are loosely connected to curriculum topics. Rather, teachers should use video that is tightly correlated to the course benchmarks or use only clips from longer videos to illustrate~a point. Entertainment videos should not be used during core instructional time. 4. Allowing students during the instructional day to play games of any kind that do not have an instructional purpose (i.e., related to the course standards and/or benchmarks) is inappropriate.I [ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P03 AUG 15 01 11:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective: July 11,2001 -continued- 5, Schools should not engage in the practice of giving students free time' at the beginning of school year, the day before holidays, days during semester examinations, the last week of school, for \"team\" days, and so forth. 6. Instruction should not be interrupted by pulling students out to take care of library business, to see the nurse, to see the counselor, to take unnecessary phone calls. Rather, the support staff should make arrangements with teachers ahead of time to send students at their convenience. These guidelines are not meant to suggest that classrooms should be devoid of joy. Rather, they are intended to communicate a climate of respect for teaching and learning, to communicate to students a consistent message that their learning is important, and to enable all of the Districts students to be successful learners. Each Campus Leadership Team shall include in its work a review of current practices that interrupt instruction and shall design strategies to eliminate or radically limit the times during any school day when teaching and learning are interrupted for unplanned, non-instructional issues.OlACutl/jy 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P01 AUG 15 01 11:22 fOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Date: Tax: Te: Sender: YOU SHOULD receive [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS CO VEE SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tliis message is not the intended recipient, or die employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall. Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 July 23, 2001 Dr. Ken James Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: My associate, Gene Jones, has been closely monitoring the districts program evaluation efforts. Gene has been able to obtain some program evaluations, but he has been unsuccessful in procuring others, so Im asking for your help. While the districts March 2001 Compliance Report reads that PRE has evaluated a number of specific programs (page 148), most of those evaluations were not available when we made our latest request for them on June 26, 2001. Below is a list of the 12 evaluations we need in order to continue our monitoring. All are for 2000-01 unless otherwise indicated. 1. NSF (We received a copy on 6-26-01, but are unsure that its a final version.) 2. Middle schools 3. Extended year schools 4. Summer schools (for 1999-00) 5. HIPPY 6. Charter school 7. Campus Leadership Teams 8. English as a Second Language 9. Lyceum Scholars Program 10. Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program 11. Watson Elementarys Onward to Excellence 12. Collaborative Action Team Please forward these program evaluations to us as soon as possible. If any are still not available, please let us know the status of their preparation and when we may expect to receive them. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. MarshallFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY {1M2-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR,, P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111. P.A. LARRY W BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S MACKEY, P.A WALTER M EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B BEACH. JR . P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P, JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER RECEIVED 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JUL 17 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 hnrg?c.rot OmCEOF DESEGREGRniianDRm July 16, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 7 ZOOl Re\nLRSD Compliance Report - March 15, 2001 OFFlGfcOl DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ann\nI will attempt to arrange a meeting among the representatives of the parties and the members of your staff in accordance with our conversation last week. In the meantime, I would like to request that you share with the parties any written information developed by your office concerning errors in LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. This would make it easier for the parties to prepare for possible meetings with the members of your staff as well as the hearing scheduled in August and November. Thank you for your consideration. very Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc\nMr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEK SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5106 July 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendekson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiuyd^wbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECESVED JUL 25 2001 Re: Case No. LR-C-82-866 OmCEOF OESEGi\u0026amp;GMlONHQWTOHifjS Dear Judge Wright: This IS to inform you that we have experienced some difSculty in obtaining documents from the Little Rock School District. We informed your office while you were away of one set of problems we were experiencing last week. We are mindful of the courts deadline to provide Mr. Heller and Mr. Pendley with a listing of our exhibits, which is tomorrow. Our FOIA requests were dated June 5, 2001, July 2, 2001 and July 11, 2001 respectively, well in advance of last Friday s deadline and we have not been given the data. As I am writing this letter, Mr. Hellers secretary is on the telephone requesting that we must come to his office, look at and copy whatever is in two boxes. That is entirely unacceptable and fhistrates our ability to be prepared I will ask the secretary to have the boxes delivered to our offices in order to see whether the matenal being provided is what we requested. We will safely keep the boxes and return them to Mr. Heller on tomorrow. The Court is being asked to schedule a conference for identification of documents and document delivery for Wednesday, assuming that we have been unable to get the information that we have requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 July 23, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Chris: Your letter of July 16, 2001 arrived while I was out of state last week, so please understand my delay in responding to your request for information about errors we identified in the LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. Enclosed is a list of the math errors we found in the pages of the Compliance Report. These are solely errors in mathematical calculations, based on figures that the district used in its report. For example, page 13 charts the Masters Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience for elementary schools. In the 1999-2000 column, the numbers for Garland are 6/26 24% when 6 is actually 23% of 26. Most of the math errors we found were minor, but some are significant. For example, page 27, last paragraph, 6' line: The report claims that 66% of the districts African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-00 school year. The correct calculation is between 46% and 48%, depending on which enrollment numbers the district used to arrive at 62% as the corresponding proportion of African-Americans who participated in extracurricular activities, which is cited in the paragraph at the top of page 27. We have not catalogued any other errors we may have found in the report, such as a chart that erroneously lists a school as closed in a year when the building was actually open, inconsistencies among charts, or discrepancies between what a chart shows and what the accompanying narrative asserts. Sincerely yours,  Ann S. Marshall Enc. cc: All Counsel of Record Dr. Ken James . ^4 Math Errors Found by ODM in LRSDs March 15, 2001 Compliance Report 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Page 7, bottom chart, 1997, Percent A-A Page 13, bottom chart. Garland, 1999-2000 Page 13, top of page. Rockefeller, 1\" column Page 13, bottom chart, ACC-Metro, 1998-99 Page 17, bottom chart, 1996-97 Page 17, bottom chart, 1998-99 Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, White Females Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, Other Females Page 22, middle chart, 1999-2000 Percents, Other Females 10. Page 22, middle chart, 2000-01 Percents, White Males 11. Page 24, 1* paragraph, 3\"* line 12. Page 27, last paragraph, 6* line 13. Page 27, last paragraph, b* line 14. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Other 15. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Total 16. Page 40, 1 bullet, second line 17. Page 40, 2\"** bullet, last line 18. Page 47, bottom row. Total 19. Page 47, bottom row. Total 20. Page 92, bottom row. Change 21. Page 93, bottom row. Change 22. Page 124, bottom row, 4\"' column 23. Page 127, 2\"* chart, 1999, Total 24. Page 129, 1 chart, 2000, Total 25. Page 129, 1* chart, Increases, Total 26. Page 129, 1* chart, % Change, Total 27. Page 132, 1 chart. All Students, % Change 28. Page 132, 1' chart. A-A Students, % Change 29. Page 145, ALC, 1999-2000, Total 30. Page 145, Totals, 1999-2000, Total 31. Page 146, ALC, 1997-98, D/0 32. Page 146, Total, 1997-98, D/0 33. Page 146, Total, 1999-2000, D/0 34. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1997-98 D/0 35. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1998-99, D/0 36. Page 146, Mann, 1998-99 D/0 37. Page 146, Pul. Hgt., 1997-98 D/0 38. Page 146, TOTAL, 1997-98 D/0 39. Page 146, TOTAL, 1999-00 Enr 40. Page 146, GRAND TOTAL, 1999-2000 Enr 41. Page 147, 1 paragraph, 4* line 42. Page 161, TOTALS, 1998-99 White 43. Page 161, 1\" paragraph, 4* line 1 /in/ 1*4 0 O-xn/ Z*4 /O 00X1/ Zo /O er\\n/  TZU 9 FL 7% -1% 1 on/ 1V / 0 1 /rn/ 1 0/0 ^on/ J V / o z-z-n/ 00 0 1 gn/ 1 3/0 . 1 gn/ 1 3/0 +5 +5 +22 ono/ oTTO 1 n ACi lo.4o F+tSO 669 1200 22 OTT 1 o 4 1 r\\ 1 n/  IvO 7% J fyv 690 oz~ *400 /in/ *4/0 6% F% 3% 339 67323 12733F YH} 3\n29e-\n46+ eight 15% 23% 26% 58% 8 9 0 0 9% 18% 42% 46% to 48% 19% 18% 18 19 135 81% 18.49 11.81 577 1282 2220 1061 92% -7% -7% 277 795 38% 600 466 5% 4% 0 0 326 5,343 12,351 173 3,290,452 nineArxwwAc -fo e.1- JOHN W. Walker, RA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydi^wbell.net Via Facsimile: 324-2146 July 24, 2001 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUL 2 5 2001 Re: FOIA Office Of OSESKKfflONMONHOfflWe Dear Dr. James: This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you provide for review, inspection, and copying the responses received to the e-mail request dated July 12, 2001 from Dr. Lesley to members of the Cabinet for : the ways that ODM has been involved in our work- committees, reviews of materials, etc. By copy of this letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, we are asking that she allow us to inspect any documents that she has related to this request. We also intend to call Ms. Marshall as a witness on the good faith issue and her knowledge of the Districts implementation activities during the next hearing, if time permits. Please make all of these responses available to me by Friday, July 27, 2001 at 1:00 p. m. Sincerely, W. Walker cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JWW:fcJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS July 24, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry pa. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little RocxAskansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.iiet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 Re: LRSD Compliance Hearings OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris\nPlease find enclosed ave been told that they did not exist, we shall ask the court for sanctions that Jumous Babbs lied, i.e., perjured himself many times. It appears that r I hope that this pattern of deception and misrepresentation does not up m your exhibit list after we It is already evident continue. it was with your advice. JWW\njs Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record EXHIBIT LIST -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Desegregation -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services -E-mails from J. Babbs desegregation folder provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/2001 -E-mails to and from Junious Babbs provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/01 -E-mails to and from Sadie Mitchell provided by Clay Pendley on 7/19/01 -Response from Dr. Bonnie Lesley dated July 20,2001 in response to POIA request dated 7/12/01 for test data and other data regarding Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -Response from Dr. Bonme Lesley dated 7/20/2001 in response to POLA request dated 7/12/01 for written instructions regarding the DRA and validation studies regarding DRA -Letter dated July 18, 2001 from Clay Pendley to Joy Springer regarding requests for information -Response to request dated June 13, 2001 requesting dis-aggregated summer school data for each of the last three years -Letter dated September 5, 2000 to Ray Simon from Brady Gadberry and Juniuos Babbs -Resource C: Standards from Programs Evaluation -Letter dated 6/26/01 from Dr. Bonme Lesley indicating that information regarding summer school should be obtained from School Services - Sadie Mitchells division -Letter dated 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell indicating that information regarding school should be obtained from Instruction - Dr. Bonnie Lesleys division summer -Letter dated November 16,2000 to Dr. Carnine from John Walker regarding Joshuas lack of participation in the development of program, policies and procedures -Memo dated 8/28/01 from Busbea and Preeman re: observation survey and DRA testing -Test results four (4) schools - Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -formats for reporting test results -Email dated 3/1/2001 from Dr. Lesley to Dr. Carnine-Letter dated 6/26/01 frora Dr. Lesley to Joy Springer -Letter dates 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell to Joy Springer -Email dated 8/23/99 from Bonnie Lesley to Associate Supts -Email dated 1/10/2000 re: Public Information Folder on compliance -Email dated 10/16/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/19/2000 from Dr. Lease to Babbs \u0026amp; Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/24/2000 from Dr. Ross to J. Babbs -Email dated 11/3/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Ross -Email dated 11/9/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/19/200 and 11/18/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/30/2000 from Dr. Camine to Babbs -Email dated 1/3/2001 from Lease to Camine -Email dated 1/11/2001 from Babbs to Lesley -Email dated 7/12/2001 from Lesley to Cabinet -Email dated 3/14/2001 from Babbs to Camine -Revised Desegregation Education Plan/Compliance Checklist -West Little Rock School -Letter dated 10/7/99 from Babbs to Compliance committee -Memo dated 4/20/99 from Babbs to Board -Parent Survey Results 1999-2000 -Letter dated 8/16/99 to Dr. Camine and othersE-mail dated 8/24/99 from Dr. Lesley to Compliance Committee members Arkansas Department of Education File regarding loan forgiveness Exhibits included by Little Rock School District on their exhibit listJOSHUA WITNESS LIST AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Leslie Camine 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 4. James Washington 5. Dr. Linda Watson Joshua also reserves the right to call the witnesses listed by Little Rock School District4 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. eiSEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL ID. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A. BARRY E. COPLIN. F.A. RICHARD D TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 5. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M GAYLE CORLEY. P A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR.. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.corn 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 HARRY LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P A. PRICE C GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P A. 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A, FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON orCOUKSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2698 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndl*yQfc.ntt Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: July 24, 2001 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 OmCEGF DESffiRESAnOHMGWnDfWS Enclosed please LRSDs Witness and Exhibit Lists for the August 1-2,2001, hearing. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/jm Enclosurescc w/enc.\nMs. Ann Marshall Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesLRSD WITNESS LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Leslie V. Camine 4. Dr. Linda Watson 5. James Washington 6. Jo Evelyn Elston LRSD would also reserve the right to call any witness listed by Joshua and to call witnesses solely for the purpose of rebuttal. H EB BQ LRSD EXHIBIT LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2,2001 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Summary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities by LRSD Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Oct. 20, 1998, providing information on Smart Start training on standards, assessments, and accountability Copy of handout from ADEs training for educators on Smart Start: Higher Student Achievement through Standards and Performance Assessment, fall 1998 Plan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement, Little Rock School District (Matrix showing relationship of various required plans to District processes), created fall 1998 Invitation to meeting on Systemic Planning Session for Assessment and Program Evaluation, May 18, 1999 Agenda for Assessment and Program Evaluation Work Session, May 18, 1999 Portfolio of Services of Division of Instruction, 1999-2000 Agenda for Division of Instruction, June 17, 1999 meeting\npresentation on the LRSD Assessment Plan Memorandum in July 28, 1999, Learning Links with attached article on Changing the Entitlement Culture -emphasis on results rather than process. 10. LRSD Assessment Plan\nUsing Assessment to Enhance Student Achievement (PowerPoint presentation slides)presented to Board of Education in August 1999 11. Reading List prepared to distribute at the summer 2000 Campus Leadership Institute\nsection on Building and Maintaining Accountability Systems is about assessment and program evaluation 12. Transparencies used in July 19, 2000, Curriculum Day for principals, assistant principals, and brokers. 13. Notebook/handouts for July 19, 2000, Curriculum Dayfocus on quality management, data-driven decisions, and LRSD assessment programs 14. Memorandum in August 23, 2000, Learning Links with attached Primer on Assessment Literacy for distribution to Campus Leadership Teams 15. District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 116. Memorandum to the Board of Education for July 26, 2001, agenda on Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials 17. Memorandum to elementary school principals, Dec. 14, 1998, on procedures for upcoming administration of the criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics 18. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Jan. 5, 1999, on the testing procedures for grades 4 and 8 ACTAAP Benchmark examinations 19. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals and counselors, Jan. 26, 1999, on inservice schedule for test coordinators for the ACTAP Benchmarks for grades 4 and 8 20. Memorandum to selected administrators on Data Quality with attached paper written by Dr. Glynn Ligon 21. Memorandum to elementary principals, Aug. 17, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 22. E-mail to curriculum staff, Aug. 23, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 23. E-mail to elementary and middle school principals, Sept. 17, 1999, inviting them to an overview session on the new pre- and post-test Achievement Level Tests developed by Northwest Evaluation Association. 24. Memorandum in Sept. 22, 1999, Learning Links to principals identifying training needs to administer the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 25. Memorandum to principals and K-2 teachers in March 15, 2000, Learning Links setting up an assessment training review for the Developmental Reading Assessment and Observation Survey 26. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley on Mar. 17, 2000, suggesting a resource on how to assess technology knowledge 27. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals and test coordinators on new information relating to ACTAAP Benchmark examinations in grades 4 and 8 and the field testing in grade 6. 28. Document entitled Description of the Assessment System prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 229. Document entitled Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 30. Document entitled Orientation to the Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science. 31. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback to proposed survey of middle school students and teachers. 32. E-mail to principals, Aug. 25, 2000, providing information on upcoming administration of the Achievement Level Tests in September. 33. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing information on new middle school report card 34. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing copy of new middle school report card report 35. Memorandum from Linda Austin to Marian Lacey providing Middle School Report Card Update 36. E-mail to middle school principals, Jan. 3, 2000, setting up training for teachers on how to administer the State Benchmark examinations 37. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, setting agenda for Feb. 2 meeting, includes information on the District Assessment Plan 38. E-mail to elementary principals, Feb. 1, 2000, providing information on the use of calculators on Benchmark examinations 39. E-mail to principals, Feb. 3, 2000, providing copy of assessment schedule/matrix to distribute to teachers 40. Document prepared in fall 1999 by PRE on Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference 41. Memorandum to all principals and test coordinators, Mar. 17, 2000, establishing training sessions for the administration of the Benchmark and end-of-course examinations 42, Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to high school principals and test coordinators providing new information from ADE on the end-of-course literacy examination 343. E-mail to Kathy Lease and Les Carnine, Apr. 7, 2000, providing rationale for adding science assessments to the Achievement Level Tests 44. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals and K-2 teachers including pre-testing instructions for the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 45. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to all principals and test coordinators establishing inservice schedule for administration of the SAT9 and ALTs 46. Memorandum in Sept. 8, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to K- 2 assessment and the importance of the language arts instructional block 47. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals relating to the administration of the end-of-module tests in mathematics and the end-of-unit tests in science 48. Memorandum in Sept. 26, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to instructions to complete the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 49. Memorandum to principals, Oct. 13, 2000, requesting feedback through a survey for consideration by the Assessment Focus Group\ncopy of survey attached 50. Memorandum to principals, Feb. 13, 2001, with information on the administration of the climate surveys for parents, teachers, students, and administrators 51. E-mail, Feb. 26, 2001, relating to administration of surveys for the Extended Year Education school evaluation 52. E-mail to curriculum directors, Feb. 27, 2001, relating to discussion of the potential purchase of an electronic curriculum/assessment management system 53. E-mail to principals and selected others on Mar. 1, 2001, relating to an information session on ALT online testing 54. E-mail to principals. Mar. 1, 2001, providing spring testing schedule for elementary, middle, and high schools 55. E-mail to Les Carnine, Mar. 8, 2001, providing outline of PRE responsibilities for Dr. James, incoming superintendent 56. Memorandum to elementary principals. Mar. 14, 2001, providing information on end- of-module mathematics criterion-referenced tests 457. E-mail between various staff. Mar. 14-15, 2001, relating to analysis of results of mathematics and science criterion-referenced tests 58. Document entitled Mathematics, Reading, and Language Achievement Tests\nAdministration Guide prepared by PRE for use in training sessions for the ALTs, 2000-01 59. Memorandum to elementary principals and teachers in Feb. 3, 1999, Learning Links. attaching the results for the second quarter reading and mathematics CRTs 60. Memorandum to Les Camine, June 1, 1999, providing status report on the development of the Quality Index and reporting on recommendations of Dr. Steve Ross relating to the assessment program 61. E-mail to Cabinet, Sept. 28, 1999, providing preview of grade 8 Benchmark examination results 62. E-mail to middle school principals, Oct. 8, 1999, relating to dissemination of Benchmark results 63. E-mail between Lucy Neal and Kathy Lease, Oct. 28-Nov. 2, 1999, relating to need for SAT9 scores to evaluate Title VI 64. Memorandum to Judy Milam, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on quarterly SFA assessments 65. Memorandum to Kathy Lease, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on DRA results for fall 66. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Dec. 3, 1999, advising her of Dr. Camines request for results of climate surveys 67. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 3, 2000, with report on Advanced Placement scores 68. Memorandum to principals in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links providing information on packets being sent to schools on ALT results 69. E-mail to John Ruflfins and Kathy Lease, Apr. 12, 2000, requesting course enrollment data for NSF report 70. Memorandum to principals and teachers in Apr. 26, 2000, Learning Links with comparisons of second quarter CRT results for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 71. E-mail to Diane Barksdale, Apr. 19, 2000, providing feedback on ALT scores 72. Memorandum to all principals in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 573. Memorandum to counselors and ALT coordinators in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 74. Memorandum to professional staff of Division of Instruction in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 75. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow and Ed Williams, May 15, 2000, requesting a special report on the middle school ALT mathematics scores 76. E-mail to SFA principals. May 23, 2000, relating to training for SFA schools for improved academic achievement 77. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, May 19-23, 2000, relating to data collections for NSF evaluations and results of middle school student survey 78. E-mail to elementary principals, June 1, 2000, relating to results of 1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment 79. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting report on Science ALTs 80. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Ed Williams, June 7, 2000, relating to data requests from Dr. Gamine 81. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting results of middle school student survey 82. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 23, 2000, requesting interpretation of DRA results 83. E-mail to Les Gamine, July 7, 2000, providing information on interpretation of DRA results 84. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Ed Williams, and Linda Austin, July 13, 2000, requesting data for Southwest Education Development Lab relating to implementation of the Collaborative Action Team 85. E-mail to Sadie Mitchell and Frances Cawthon Jones, July 14, 2000, relating to DRA interpretations 86. E-mail to Pat Busbea, Patricia Price, and Ed Williams, July 14, 2000, relating to interpretation of DRA results\nattached document defines proficient 87. E-mail to Patricia Price and Pat Busbea, July 17, 2000, requesting correlation of teacher participation in ELLA training and student achievement 688. E-mail to elementary staff, July 21, 2000, attaching copy of presentation slides to the Campus Leadership Institute on DRA results 89. E-mail to Leon Adams, July 28, 2000, providing rationale from Mitchell Academy for the abandonment of Success for All, based on data analysis 90. E-mail to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, with report on achievement of SFA schools as compared to others and with suggestions on possible abandonment of SFA based on data analysis 91. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 9, 2000, from Freddie Fields relating to possible modification of SFA and requesting ELLA training, based on data analysis 92. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Sept. 14, 2000, from Linda Austin requesting copy of LRSD Assessment Notebook 93. Memorandum to curriculum division, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark examinations 94. Memorandum to Board of Directors, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 95. Memorandum to Cabinet, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 96. Memoranda to selected principals, Nov. 3, 2000, congratulating them for achievement on grade 4 Benchmarks 97. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Nov. 6, 2000, requesting several sets of data to include in Compliance Report 98. E-mail to Patricia Price and Dennis Glasgow, Nov. 8, 2000, attaching spreadsheets on Benchmark data by SES status 99. E-mail to Kathy Lease from Tara Adams, Jan. 17, 2001, requesting information on interpretation of the ALT results 100. E-mail to principals and cabinet, Jan. 17, 2001, with attached reports on SAT9 scores, five-year comparison\nSAT9, three-year comparison\nand SAT9 quartile report. 101. E-mail to principals. May 30, 2000, with attached sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results 7102. Document entitled Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group prepared by PRE 103. Group Document entitled Assessment Window prepared with advice from Focus 104. Document entitled Assessment Advisory Committee, 2000-01 with names of advisory committee members 105. Copies of PowerPoint presentation to Board of Education, Nov. 16, 2000: A Quick Look at the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam and a Preview of the SAT-9 106. E-mail to Steve Ross, Nov. 20, 2000, including feedback to a draft plan he had written relating to Ioan forgiveness 107. E-mail to principals and Cabinet, Nov. 29, 2000, with information on how to access test data on the ADE web page 108. Memorandum to IRC Staff, Dec. 1, 2000, relating to available SAT9 and Benchmark reports 109. Memorandum to middle school principals, Dec. 11, 2000, attaching reports on assignments of eighth graders to high schools 110. E-mail to SFA principals and facilitators, Feb. 23, 2001, announcing training on the SFA Student Data Base 111. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, Mar. 14, 2001, relating to analysis of end-of-module test results 112. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 23, 2001, with attached information on the Duke Talent Search 113. E-mail to middle school principals, June 29, 2001, reminding them of information sent to them earlier about how to access test data on the ADE web site 114. E-mail to principals, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of DRA test results 115. Memorandum to Division of Instruction staff and others, Nov. 15, 1999, providing information on new requirements from the state on a personalized education plan, appointing a committee to develop a plan, and stating the committee charge 116. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information 8117. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use 118. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs 119. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 120. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 121. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAtP form for parent conferencing 122. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to middle school principals on how to use the SAIP form for middle school mathematics, how to use the ALT data to interpret need, and including a sample SAIP 123. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SALP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 124. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 125. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 126. Memorandum to Pat Price, Pat Busbea, and Ed Williams, Apr. 3, 2001, with attached document from Connecticut on interpretation of the DRA and use of that data with SAIPs 127. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting\nincludes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps 128. Memorandum to Mona Briggs, July 16, 1999, with copy of a training notebook on curriculum mapping and with charge to put together a training program on curriculum mapping 129. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Aug. 30, 1999, with agenda for Sept. 1 meeting\nincludes discussion led by Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy on Curriculum Mapping Project 130. Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article 9131. Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training 132. Memorandum in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 133. Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 134. E-mail to Mona Briggs, Eddie McCoy, and Kathy Lease, Jan. 18, 2000, requesting that they develop a plan for April inservice on curriculum mapping 135. Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 136. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 137. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 138. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on cuniculum mapping 139. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 140. E-mail, Apr. 26~May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 141. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping 142. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training 143. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE 144. Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 145. Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon 146. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation 10147. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of ViPS programs 148. Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program 149. Document from Kathy Leasecalendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000\nattached planning document on program evaluation 150. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation 151. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 152. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Camine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 153. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27, 2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 154. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 155. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations, then his questions and her answers. 156. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title 1/Elementary Literacy, LRCPMSA (mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation\nProgram Evaluation. 157. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. 158. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 159. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation 160. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 11161. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation 162. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation 163. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 164. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 165. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 166. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 167. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 168. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues 169. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 170. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee 171. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 172. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 173. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation 174. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 175. Agenda for Feb. 26, 2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 12176. 2001 Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 177. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation 178. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14, 2001, providing updates 179. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar, 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data 180. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation 181. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation 182. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 183. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 184. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 185. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 186. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25,2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 187. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 188. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis 189. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 190. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 13191. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 192. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to ne?d meeting on June 11, 2001 193. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 194. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation 195. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation 196. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 197. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports 198. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10, 2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA 199. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 200. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 201. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 202. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 203. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 204. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 205. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 206. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 14207. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 208. 2000 Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 209. 2001 Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 210. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 211. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 212. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 213. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern. 214. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University ofMemphis 215. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 216. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 217. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 218. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 219. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services 220. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 15221. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools\nattached tables. 222. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 223. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. 224. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 225. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 226. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 227. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Proposal to National Science Foundation, Aug. 1, 1998, to fund Collaborative Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (see pp. 2-4 for needs assessment). 228. Management Plan for Year One, 1998-99, CPMSA (based on proposal for funding to the National Science Foundation. 229. 1999-2000 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 230. September 2000February 2002 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 231. September 1, 2000August 31, 2003 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 232. Revised Three-Year Strategic Plan, April 11, 2001, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 233. Annual Progress Report, 1998-99, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 234. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Carnine, May 20, 1999, with follow-up report to Site Visit of April 27-29, 1999. 235. Document prepared for December 3, 1999, Site Visit: Relationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators 236. Agenda for NSF Site Visit, December 3, 1999 16237. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 24, 2000, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 1-3, 1999. 238. Annual Progress Report, 1999-2000, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 239. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Site Visit team. December 1-3, 1999. 240. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 16, 2001, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 6-8, 2000. 241. Copy of slide presentation to Board of Education relating to CPMSA progress. January 2001. 242. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Midpoint Review (reverse site visit) in Washington, DC, February 5, 2001. 243. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, March 15, 2001, with follow-up report on Midpoint Review presentation in Washington, DC (reverse site visit) of February 5, 2001. 244. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1998-99: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 245. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1999-2000: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 246. Program EvaluationSigns of Success: Trends in Mathematics and Science Student Performance, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, report submitted by CPMSA Program Evaluator to project staff. 247. Program EvaluationBenchmark ExaminationOpen Response Mathematics Items: Student Outcomes of a Targeted Initiative with 4* Grade Students, 1998-99. 248. Program EvaluationACTAAP Benchmark Examination Mathematics Results, Grades 4 and 8, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 249. Program EvaluationDistrict Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs), Higher-Level Mathematics and Science, 3^^ Quarter, 2000-01 250. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 17251. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Science Reasoning Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 252. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test: Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 253. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test\nScience Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 254. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 8* Grade EXPLORE, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 255. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 10* Grade PLAN, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 256. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 12* Grade ACT Test, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 257. Program EvaluationCompre\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_1703","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing compliance report and request for scheduling order; District Court, motion for withdrawal of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order","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":["2001-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing compliance report and request for scheduling order; District Court, motion for withdrawal of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order"],"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/1703"],"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":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - FILED .=,,A, _UE.S. DISTRICT COURT 1 RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR,O f 200f IN 11IB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '., \\ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~A!\"fE~jW- Mqe~RJ.f~K, CLERK WESTERN DMSION  y -v 1 ~~ ~ bl'\u003e]/\\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * * Plaintiff: * * vs. r * Case No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. * * ECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. * AR 2 200\\ * Intervenors, * OffiCEOf * OESEGRE~1lotl  KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. * * Intervenors. * ORDER The Pu1aski County Special School District moves the Court for an Order authorizing a special election to be held May 8, 2001. See docket entry 3400. The District states the proposed election is for the purpose of placing before the voters for approval a millage increase sufficient to finance an ambitious program of school fucility enhancement. There have been no responses or objections to the motion, and the Court finds that the motion should be granted. TIIEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the motion and approves the special millage election to be held in the Pu1aski County Special School District on May 8, 2001. dt SO ORDERED this _j_ day of March 2001. ~.\u0026-~ F JUDGE  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEPCLERJ\u003c'-.. ~ DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ..,OMPUAN3_ C; WITH RULE 58 ANO'OR 79(~ FRCP )R_ .  \u003cX~CJf.. IV ::'!:?- -~-_;.--~,- 3409 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 . , Qff.!;R RECEI\\.Y ~u PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAR 1 ~ 200\\ OF.ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF FILING COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\") for its Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order states: 1. LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan. A brief summary of each section of the Compliance Report is set forth below. 2. Good Faith. During the term of the Revised Plan, LRSD attempted to demonstrate its good faith by complying with its plan obligations. To manifest its good faith commitment for the future, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") on January 11, 2001, adopted a \"Covenant for the Future,\" in which the Board promised to continue fighting discrimination, providing equity and improving the academic achievement of all students. A key component of the District's success under the Revised Plan was the establishment of Campus Leadership Teams (\"CL Ts\") at each school. The CLTs provide the horsepower driving the District's efforts to improve student achievement. The District invested heavily in providing training to the CLTs and school principals in Total Quality Management (\"TQM\"). - All principals received intensive TQM training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The District's focus on quality leadership has not gone without recognition. In the fall of 2000, the District received the Quality Commitment Award from the non-profit group Arkansas Quality Award. This award recognized the District as an organization that has a plan and commitment to quality management. The District's development ofleadership talent should pay substantial dividends in the future. 3. Faculty and Staff. LRSD had a strong record in the area of faculty and staff even before adopting the Revised Plan. Even so, the District worked hard to recruit, develop and promote increased numbers of qualified African-Americans. Under the Revised Plan, the District increased the percentage of African-American administrators and teachers, and it increased the number of African-American media specialists, counselors, secondary core subject teachers, early childhood teachers and primary grade teachers. The District also began tracking the distribution of the most experienced and educated teachers in an effort to better ensure an equitable distribution of these teachers. 4. Student Assignment. In accordance with the Revised Plan, the District revised student attendance zones to allow students to go to their neighborhood schools to the extent possible. While this resulted in an increase in the number of racially identifiable schools and schools more than 20 percentage points from the district-wide percentage of African-American students, the increases were not dramatic. Moreover, the large number of alternative assignment choices available to students helped minimize any adverse effect resulting from the neighborhood school zone plan. This year twenty-percent of the District's students chose to attend a school other than their zone school. 5. Special Education. While African-American students remain disproportionately represented among special education students, a review of the District's programs, policies, and procedures revealed no vestiges of racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or other special needs programs. Furthermore, since 1998-99 the increase in the number of African-American students identified with disabilities has been in proportion to 2 their increase in the total student population. There has been only two percent growth in the number of identified students with disabilities since 1998-99, with the percentage of AfricanAmerican students remaining just about the same. The two percent growth correlates with the increase in total student enrollment over the same period, as well as an increase in the percentage of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch eligibility. 6. Discipline. The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. This was consistent with a 21 percent decrease in the total number of disciplinary sanctions. For the same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. 1:hus, fewer student are committing offenses, and those that do commit offenses are less likely to commit a second offense. The behavior modification plans being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan may account for this decrease. The decrease in discipline sanctions positively impacted parents' and teachers' perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999-2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninety-one percent of both African-American and white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child has a feeling of belonging at school. Ninety-seven percent of African-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. 7. Extracurricular Activities. Extracurricular activities increased dramatically under the Revised Plan. The number of African-American students participating in extracurricular activities jumped from 2,335 to 5,203 from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. A large part of the increase in participation resulted from a \"no-cut\" policy in athletics for middle school six graders and the use of Supplemental Instructional Plans (\"SIPs\"). SIPs allow students who otherwise would be academically ineligible for athletics to continue participating in athletics while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. The District also organized an Activities Advisory Board to promote, support and enhance the activities available in the District. 3 The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers also reflected the District's success in the area of extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. 8. Advanced Placement Courses. New policies and procedures for placement of students in advanced courses greatly improved access and participation for all students, and especially African-American students. New programs have the potential of producing exponential growths in both participation and success in advanced courses in the next few years. The increasing number of African-American students participating and succeeding in advanced courses perhaps provides the best reason to be optimistic about the District's future. With regard to Advanced Placement (\"AP\") courses, the total enrollment of AfricanAmerican students increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-01-an increase of 326 students or 69 percent. The total enrollment of white/other students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01-an increase of 531 students or 55 percent. The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01-an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. The number of AP courses taught increased from 16 in 1997-98 to 20 in 2000-01; whereas, the average high school in the United States teaches only six AP courses. With regard to high school Pre-AP courses, the total number of high school students enrolled improved from 5065 in 1999-2000 to 5953 in 2000-01-an increase of 888 students or 15 percent. African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher rate-from 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01-an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. White/other student enrollment also improved-from 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01-an increase of 514 or 15 percent. With regard to middle school Pre-AP courses, African-American student enrollment grew 937 from 1999-2000 to 2000-01-an increase of 19 percent. White/other student enrollment in 4 middle school Pre-AP courses grew 1076 in one year-a 24 percent improvement. The total middle school Pre-AP enrollment grew by 2013 students-a 22 percent improvement. In contrast to the enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total. In sixth grade Pre-AP/GT English courses there were 908 students enrolled in 2000-01 . At the high school level there were 261 students enrolled in English m AP in 2000-01 . If the current grade six students stay in the pipeline for advanced course enrollment, the English ill AP enrollment could improve 250 percent in a few years. The number of AP examinations taken increased from 422 in 1997-98 to 524 in 1999- 2000-an increase of24 percent. Although the percentage of students earning a \"3\" or higher on the AP examinations went down from 60 percent in 1997-98 to 52 percent in 1999-2000, the number of students earning a \"3\" or higher improved from 252 in 1997-98 to 268 in 1999-2000. With regard to the ACT, the most common college entrance exam taken by LRSD students, the number oftest-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of240 or 31 percent. The number of African-American test takers improved from 410 to 570-an increase of 160 students or 39 percent. The number of white test takers also increased-from 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000-an improvement of77 students or 29 percent. African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000, their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 to 17.4, and their average composite scores from 17.2 to 17.3. While small increases, they represent a substantial accomplishment given that test scores usually decrease when the number of test-takers increases. African-American students' willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. 5 9. Academic Achievement. The District completely revised its policies, procedures, and programs to facilitate and enhance academic achievement of all students, especially AfricanAmerican students. The District implemented new standards-based curricula, effective teaching strategies, aligned materials, and a re-designed and a comprehensive professional development program in fall 1999 and expanded in fall 2000 in English language arts, mathematics, and science, K-9. School year 2001-02 will see expansions into grades 10-12, as well as K-12 social studies and the beginning of fine arts program planning. Efforts included the addition of several new student support programs, many of which were funded through federal, state, and foundation grants. This District set high expectations for its students by raising graduation standards. Beginning in 2002, seniors must have a minimum of24 units to graduate, and beginning in 2004, they must have 26 units. In addition, the District published a \"Recommended Curriculum\" for high school students that includes eight advanced courses in the 28 units that students are encouraged to complete. The District secured several major grants as a part of its efforts to improve academic achievement. They are as follows:  A $3.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support improvements in mathematics and science;  A $7.8 million Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant from the United States Department of Education to support implementation of new programs aligned with the District's transition of the junior highs to middle schools;  Two multi-million dollar 21 st Century Learning Community grants from the United States Department of Education to develop and support after-school and summer programs to support student achievement;  A $250,000 planning grant from the Carnegie Foundation to support a year of planning for high school reform and improvements in student achievement. 6 An $11 million grant proposal was submitted to the Department of Education in December 2000 to develop magnet curricula at four southwestern Little Rock schools. One challenge the District faces in its effort to improve academic achievement is students arriving for kindergarten without the necessary social or learning skills. To meet this challenge, the District went beyond the requirements of Revised Plan in funding (with no assistance from the State) an early childhood program. The District implemented new four-year-old classes in 1999- 2000 and again in 2000-01. In 2000-01 there were 954 four-year-olds enrolled-234 more than the 720 required by the Revised Plan. In addition, early childhood enrollment included 254 children served in the HIPPY program; 23 infants, toddlers, and three-year olds at Metropolitan; 63 infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds at Rockefeller; and 18 three-year-olds at Washington-for a total of 1058. The District implemented new procedures and programs for early childhood education designed to improve children's kindergarten \"readiness\" level. Specifically with regard to reading and language arts, the District developed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan to guide implementation of new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across all schools. The District invested heavily in professional development for all teachers and in the purchase of classroom sets of materials for students. Consistent with the Revised Plan, the District established a two and one-half hour block of time for the teaching ofreading and language arts in grades K-3. To measure success of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, the District administers the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in kindergarten through grade two. Both are informal reading inventories that are administered one-on-one. They are administered both in the fall and spring so growth can be measured. The results from the 1999 fall pre-test showed that white kindergarten students began with a score of more than two ( a score of two indicates readiness for the next grade level), as compared to African-American students whose fall pre-test score was less than one. Thus, white students began kindergarten with a higher level of readiness. On the spring post-test, the kindergarten class had the highest percentage of students scoring at or 7 above readiness (72.2 percent) of any of the three grades tested, perhaps as a result of the new Animated Literacy program in phonemic awareness that was introduced in fall 1999, along with the new ELLA strategies and materials. Both African-American and white students improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. On average, African-American kindergarten students' post-test scores were 43 percent of that of their white counterparts. First graders performed the poorest of the three grades tested in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above readiness at the end of the school year ( 53. 6 percent), perhaps indicating the need for the Animated Literacy program for these students. All first graders improved, but white students improved the most, probably because the reading skills that they began the year with enabled them to progress faster. However, the average score for AfricanAmerican first graders was 65 percent of that of their white peers, suggesting a narrowing of the achievement gap that existed when the students entered the District. All second graders' scores improved significantly over the course of the year, just as they did in kindergarten and first grade, with 67.5 percent at or above the readiness level on the spring post-test. On average, African-American student's scores were 77 percent of that of their white peers, an increase from 43 percent in kindergarten and 65 percent in first grade. This again suggests that the District may be having success in narrowing the achievement gap which exists when students enter the District. With regard to reading and language arts in the intermediate grades, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across the District in fall 1999, just as with the primary grades. The District emphasized Effective Literacy in professional development for intermediate grade teachers. While the District is still not where it would like to be, the results from the State Benchmark Exam taken by fourth graders showed substantial improvement. Scores improved from 32 percent at the proficient/advanced levels in 1998-99 to 42 percent in 1999-2000-an improvement of 31 percent. African-American students improved almost 10 points on the exam, 8 a 50 percent improvement, and white students improved four points, a seven percent improvement. The gap between the scores of African-American and white students narrowed six points in 1999-2000, from 42 points to 36 points. The rate of improvement of African-American students was 43 points higher than for white students. The District had many fewer grade four students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99-a reduction of 13 percentage points or a 32 percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the Below Basic level-a reduction of 16 percentage points or a 31 percent decrease. White students in the lowest level were reduced by seven percentage points for a 41 percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level was 35 points in 1998-99 and was reduced to 26 points in 1999-2000. Reading scores also improved for fifth graders on the Stanford Achievement Test (91h Edition) (\"SAT9\") from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved five points, and for white students improved one point. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved seven points, and for white students improved four points. The achievement gap in reading narrowed from 46 percentile points in 1997-98 to 43 percentile points in 2000-01. Fifth graders' language scores on the SAT9 also improved from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved four points and for African-American students improved six points. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved four points, for African-American student improved seven points, and for white students improved one point. The achievement gap in language narrowed from 36 percentile points in fall 1997 to 30 percentile points in fall 2000. With regard to math and science, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, and materials in K-9. The District funded these efforts in large part with 9 the grant from the National Science Foundation. Major investments occurred in professional development and in the purchase of new materials. The scores of fourth graders on the State Benchmark Exam provide a reason for optimism. The State administered the grade four State Benchmark Exam in mathematics for the second time in spring 2000. The District's scores showed significant improvements for all students (eight points), for African-American students (seven points), and white students (eight points). Although the gap widened one point between African-American and white students in 1999-2000 (from 45 to 46 points), the percentage improvement for African-American students was much greater than that of white students, 88 percent compared to 15 percent. The District's grade four as a whole saw fewer students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99-a reduction of four percentage points or a seven percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the lowest level-a reduction of five percentage points or a seven percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level shrank from 50 points in 1998-99 to 45 points in 1999-2000. Fifth graders' mathematics scores improved slightly on the fall 2000 SAT9, with all students' scores up one percentile point and African-American students' scores up two percentile points. Compared to fall 1997 SAT9, the average percentile scores for all students improved one point and for African-American students improved four points. The achievement gap narrowed slightly from 1997-98 to 2000-01, from 36 to 32 percentile points. Tenth graders' SAT9 mathematics scores also improved. Their teachers had had initial training in a standards-based curriculum, and the students were the first required to take physics in the ninth grade. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the average percentile scores for all students improved four points, for African American students improved one point, and for white students improved six points. 10. Parental Involvement. The District already had a plethora of parent and community involvement policies, procedures, and programs when the Revised Plan was approved in 1998. Accordingly, the District directed it efforts to widening the outreach, focusing on the school level, and creating a more coherent leadership structure at the district level. The District began including parents and community representatives on CLTs, and the Board approved a Parent Program Restructuring Plan which consolidated all parent programs under the direction of one Collaborative Action Team. 11. Equitable Allocation of Resources. The District developed a unique method of reviewing equity in the allocation of resources. Each year the resource allocation review revealed no correlation between resources allocated to a school and the school's racial composition. Moreover, the District used the results of the review in making resource allocation decisions, such as allocating grant and Title I funding. 12. Guidance and Counseling. The 1999-2000 survey of parents revealed that 94 percent of all parents, both African-American and white/other, who expressed an opinion agreed that help and guidance was available to their child. This perception has proven a reality at least with regard to scholarship money received by African-Americans. Of the 301 scholarships awarded in the 1998-99 school year, 147 or 49 percent went to African-American students totaling $3,256,207 or 47 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. For 1999- 2000 school year, African-American students received a total of 185 scholarships valued at $3,716,358. African-American students represented 56 percent of the scholarship recipients and received 58 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. African-American females outpaced all other groups in the number received (105) and the dollar value of scholarships awarded ($1,967,654). 13. Cultural Sensitivity. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the District has been providing cultural sensitivity training through Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the \"Little Rock Nine\" and a desegregation consultant for the District approved by the Joshua lntervenors. His workshop, entitled \"Learning to Cope with Differences,\" provides strategies for dealing with differences in race, ethnicity, gender, economics, disabilities, religion and other characteristics that 11 I can divide people and create unhealthy tension. The 1999-2000 survey of teachers suggests that the District has done well in this regard. Ninety-four percent of African-American teachers and 93 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that District administrators value diversity. Eighty-eight percent of African-American teachers and 92 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that personnel respond to cultural differences. 14. Compliance. Section 8 of the Revised Plan included a procedure for parties to raise issues related to the District's compliance. This procedure was invoked on only five occasions, with the last being in December of 1999. All of those issues were resolved without the necessity of court intervention. 15. The Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to achieve certain outcomes, and it has done so. Although the Revised Plan did not obligate LRSD to achieve any particular outcomes, the Compliance Report includes information on outcomes which was used by LRSD to evaluate the programs, policies and procedures being implemented. 16. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001, indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in the Revised Plan. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, an order should be entered finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. 17. LRSD respectfully requests that the Court issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges to LRSD's compliance pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan. This should be sufficient time given that the parties have known when this report would be filed since April 10, 1998, and that Section 8 of the Revised Plan 12 required parties to raise compliance issues \"as soon as reasonably practicable.\" See Revised Plan, Section 8.2.1. If any party files a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, LRSD respectfully requests that a hearing on the challenge be held before June 30, 2001, the end of the 2000-2001 school year. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court immediately issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan; that should a challenge be filed by a party, a hearing be held on the challenge before June 30, 2001; and that should no party file a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, that on June 30, 2001, this Court enter an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-~-i--- 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by handdelivery on March 15, 2001 : . Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodward 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 14 RECEIVED MAR 1 s 2001 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED MAR 2 s zam lllll\u0026EJ~ WfMONllURINQJ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE I, Tim C. Humphries, hereby move to withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education in the above-captioned matter. I, Tim C. Humphries, am no longer employed with the Office of the Attorney General, and separate defendant - Arkansas Department of Education is now represented in this matter by Chief Barrister Sammye L. Taylor and Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier of the Office of the Attorney General. WHEREFORE, I, Tim C. Humphries, respectfully request that this motion be granted and that the Court direct the clerk of the court to remove me as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. By: Respectfully Submitted, TIM C. HUMPHRIES1. Secretary of State's Office State Capitol, Room 256 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-3016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tim C. Humphries, certify that on l_k of March, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postige prepaid, on the following person( s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Timothy Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim c:Humphries 2 I I I , ' . I i II J IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJSTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED APR 12 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFiCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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, 2001 . Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Ge 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on March 28, 200 l, I caused a copy of the foregoing doc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1436","title":"Report: ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2001-02-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student activities","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1436"],"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":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1733","title":"Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for approval of special election, PCSSD Middle School Project, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools","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":["2001-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for approval of special election, PCSSD Middle School Project, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools"],"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/1733"],"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":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion for approval of special election; District Court, memorandum in support of motion to approve special election; District Court, supporting materials for forthcoming motion and brief on Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Middle School Project; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, two entries of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of change of address and telephone number  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I 1. i -I I I I I -I Iii I I I I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT .EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS FEB O 2 2001 STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN EXTRACURRicu4~~1;~~ACK, CLERK . IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor February 2, 2001 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1003 - 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1013 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW aO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 RECEIVE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 - 0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 fE6 15 10m www . wlJ .com CHARLES C. PRICE OF COUNSEL CHARLES T. COLEMAN oct:lf'C.QC. ALSTON JENNINGS JAMES J, GLOVER rnu1. r RONALD A . MAY EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. II \u0026lf\\U'\\lODI\\IQ M. TOCO WOOD CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER ... ~~l11f\\ll 11\\\\111 1\\111 WALTER E. MAY ~IV GREGORY T. JONES Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 H. KEITH MORRISON mjones@wlj .com BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE JOHN O. DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM February 14, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. 00 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN\" C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY\"\" M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHER'l'.Y, Ph .D.  Licensed only In Florida and Texas  Licensed to prac/ice before the UnNed States Patent and Trademark Office Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed are copies of motion for approval of special election and memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 234632-v1 Cordially, ~T, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~a~u CELEBRATING 100 YEARS 1900-2000 IN THE 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ELECTION The PCSSD for its motion, states: fEB 1 ~ no1 OffUJ:.]f lBIREGATiorunmm,11 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD desires to conduct a special election on May 8, 2001. 2. The proposed election is for the purpose of placing before the voters for approval a millage increase sufficient to finance an ambitious program of school facility enhancement. 3. Exhibit \"A\" describes certain projects proposed for Phase I of this plan. - The proposed program is a result of the formal facilities study conducted by the District last year. 4. State law offers no impediment to the calling of this election as more fully explained in the accompanying memorandum. 5. This motion is presented to the Court for approval because of this Court's monitoring role regarding the financial affairs of the PCSSD. 232191-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this court approving the special election to be held on May 8, 2001. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February ~2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each r - of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 232191-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 232191-v1 3 J FEB-01-0J THU 04:36 PM FAX NO. l'lWPOSED BOND REFERENDUM SCOPE (PHASE 1) PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOLS ZON: I 0~1cs 1:lcmcnrary College S1olion l~kmcnr~ry Fuller Junior High (m~jor rcnov:ilion) Mills Univcrsi1y Studies High (major rcnovntion) ZONJ,;l NEW ELEMENTARY SCIIOOL (500) 13akcr l111e,,fatric1 Elcmcni:uy L:lndmark Elcmcnl.lry (major rcnnvnlir.,n) L:iw,011 Elcmcu!.lry (11uj,1r rcnova.lion) ItEPLACE ROil!NSON MIDDLE SCHOOL (SOO) Rnbu\\SOII IIif:ll ZON~J C1ys1al I lill E.lemcnbl)' NEW MAUMELLE /\\RE.A ELP.Ml!NTARY SCI-TOOi, (500) Pu1c Fores! Elcmcnlllry Oak Grove Elcrncnlllry (rcnovo1iun) llobiuson I::lcrncnl.lry NEW MJDDLTI SCHOOi, (S00) o~k Clmvi: J1111iur/Scnior 1-li,:h ZONE-4 Clinltln I::le111cn1ary Magncl Oakbl'ooke clcnic:uury (m~j11r ~-nnvarion) Slll'1'WOOJ Elcmculllry Sylvan llills ElcnicnLllry RI!PLACE SYLVAN llll.1.S MIDDLE SCHOOL Sylvan llilb Jligh (mnjor r1:nova1i0n) ZONES Arnold Drive Elcmcmruy Bayou Melo C'a10 r.lcmcntmy (rc11ov:11ion) DuprL'C F.lcmcnlary Tolkson F!h;mcnt:iiy Nnr1hwo11,l Junior High (1u.1jor renov:ilion) North Puh1.ski Hieh (major rcnov:itioo) ZONE6 Rl:.PLACF. JACKSONVlLU! fil.EMl!NTARY SCHOOL (600) Pinewood t::lcmcnt:iry Tuylor Rh:mcmn1y fockso11viUe Middle (shifl 1'\u003e nuw u.c) RHl'LACB JACKSONVJLI.I! MIODJ.Fi SCHOOL (1,000) 1~c:ksonvillc lligb ZON7 REPLACI! HARRIS bl .f.MENTAR.Y SCHOOL (3S0) Adkins Elc111cnl:iry Soon ElcmcnWy (rcnuvlion) Alrcnotivc Leurnins Ccnwr lllST.N.ICT Admini,ir:11ion fluillliue Adull T..wrnin, C'cmcr /\\11xiliary Scrvicc:s Moioltnancc / Warehouse 'rr;11s1,orlnti011  North Tr.in~pon.'lrlon  Soull1 TOTAL I EXHIBIT It li\u003c.:IIOOL TOTAL so S349,000 SS,411.000 $4,175,000 $6,900,000 $327,600 Sl,888,000 Sl,580,000 $11,300,078 $1,128,000 S49,000 S\u003ci,900,000 $225,000 Sl ,352,000 $387,000 $11,300,078 $973,000 $206,000 S1,929,000 $876,000 $700,000 $11,300,078 S9,370,000 $978,000 $358,000 $1,254,000 5426,000 $518,000 54,076,300 $6,49),000 $8,530,000 $1,071,000 S546,000 Sl,086,000 S13,810,094 SJ,258,000 SS,S00,000 S706,000 5668,000 so so so $0 $0 $386,000 $230,000 SllG,Sl!l,228 P. 02 ZONE TOTAL $!\u003e,9.lS,000 $23,123,678 521,186,078 S24,3:!l,078 $14,\\02,300 S26,3ill,094 SG,874,000 SGlG,000 $126,519,228 FEfl-Ol~Oi THU 04:36 PM FAX NO. fulaski County Special School Distritl 2/1/01 P11!aski County Special School District will ask voters for 3dditiona1 millage at a special election to be held in lhe Spring of 2001. Revenues gcncntcd from the millage will be used lo finance the constructing and equipping of new school buildings and making additions ond improvemt.\u003enls to existin: facilities. These additions and improvements are a current necessity of the DistricL Sorne of the most critical repair work needed in thcst! facilities will be complctud with these funds. As wdl, new construction which will t.ikc pL'lcc in high-growth areas will help to meet the present demand of incrca.~cd student enrollment ln order to satisfy these current needs of the Dis!dct, it is ncccssal)' to hold a special election to :isk patrons for lht!iT support. P. 03 IN THE 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL ELECTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This Court has had occasion to approve motions seeking to hold special elections several times during its involvement in this case. Most recently, this Court approved a special election in the Little Rock School District which was successful. During a time of dire financial circumstances, this Court approved a special election in the PCSSD which was held in 1992. The legislature has fundamentally changed the law since 1992. Under the old law, special elections were authorized only because of circumstances such as a natural catastrophe. Today, ACA 6-14-102 simply provides that: (d) The board of directors of any school district shall have the authority to request the county board of election commissioners to call a special election for the purpose of considering a rate of tax for additional millages for maintenance and operations or for debt service as authorized by Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 74, provided that: (1) All constitutional and statutory requirements for a special school election are met; and 232186-v1 (2) The date of the election is approved by the director. (Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-102(d)) The PCSSD desires to hold a special election on May 8, 2001, to place before the voters a proposed millage increase sufficient to commence an ambitious program of school facility improvements. Thus, the measure comports with the new provisions of 6-14-102(d). All other constitutional and statutory requirements for a special election will be met and it is anticipated that the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education will approve the date of the election. This motion is being submitted to this Court for approval because of this court's role in monitoring the financial affairs of the PCSSD. 232186-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 11, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 232186-v1 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Ann Marshall ODM 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www. wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Di rect Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjones@wlj .com February 15, 2001 Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Middle School Project Dear Ann: PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY-* M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY, Ph .D.  Licensed only in Florida and Texas  Ucensed to practice before the Unffed States Patent and Trademark Offlce FEB l 6 20-l OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONiTORING I do not yet have a final approved version of the motion and brief I am submitting. However, I wanted to get the supporting materials to you today and ask that you flip through them. The main body of documents will be submitted with the motion and the first page is the PCSSD middle school curriculum course descriptions. That is followed, in chronological order, by the remaining documents I propose to submit directly to the Court. They cover the issues of student/parental involvement, teacher and staff training and frequently asked questions, parent surveys, parent meetings, athletics, and other topics. One of the notebooks I am submitting is the curriculum description for grades 6 through 12. I do not propose to submit that directly to the Court but will reference that it has been furnished to your office. The really thick notebook is the compilation of resource materials which the District has obtained, reviewed and relied upon through most of this process. It has been distributed to all buildings. Again, because of its size, I do not propose to submit it to Court but will reference that it has been furnished to your office. 234904-v1 CELEBRAT ING 100 YEARS 1900-2000 WR IGHT , LI N DSE Y \u0026 JENN INGS LLP February 15, 2001 Page 2 I will also furnish with the motion an additional copy of the Business Case and am submitting an additional one for your convenience. I should have mentioned that pages 001A through D are taken from the curriculum notebook and will be submitted to the Court. Please give me a call after you have had a chance to look some of this over as I need to get this motion filed. MSJ:ao Encls. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP \"--- amuel Jones, 111 CE LEBRATING 100 YEARS 1 900-2000 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 1977) ROBERT S. LINO SEY (1913- 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER , JR. TERRY L. Mr .:WS DAVID M. P ROGER A. ( . W C. DOUGLAS ORO, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISOALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN . JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLESL. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9H2 WEBSITE: www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wrller's Dlrecl Olal No. 501-2121273 mjonesCwlj .com September 27, 2000 JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMll!RLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.  TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK \"KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN\" C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY\"' M. SUN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. WEISENFELS ROBEIIT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. ' L.lcenad oni\\t., Ronda Md Tuu 'f \\ __ ,,. -,._,_.,,,,__,,,. __ i! -~\\\\ Vl':O r~ ~ , ., P_,. end T,_.,,..,. Offlce The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 ~ ~ \\~;_\\1 ~  0~t:-1\"-~ UESEGl\\r ;.,i~--- :\\i:'-~ 1' r,h ,, Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: As the Court is aware, the PCSSD has for many months been studying the adoption of a middle school configuration. I enclose a copy of a business case, which the District has developed, which explains the District's plans in this regard. By copy of this letter to counsel for all of the parties and to Ms. Brown, I am furnishing a copy of the business case to each. MSJ/ao cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen W. Jones Mr. Timothy Gauger Dr. Gary Smith 206060-v1 CELEBRATING Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP :~ I Jor:;;11I 00 YEARS 1 9 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 Implementation of Middle Schools Pulaski County Special School District September 2000 Executive Summary: The Pulaski County Special School District (District) currently has 24 elementary schools, each encompassing grades kindergarten through six; one existing middle school, Jacksonville Middle School; and six junior high schools, each encompassing grades seven through nine. The six senior high schools . currently contain students in grades ten through twelve. Evidence from medical science, psychology, and other areas is beginning to show that middle school students are passing through a very special, very critical period of their lives. The change from childhood to adolescence, we now see, is a tremendously important time of life. It is also often a terribly difficult time. Children from age 10 through 15 must endure more changes than they will for the rest of their lives. The middle school has to be unique, but it must also be transitional. It has to lead from the elementary to the high school and still do something special in the middle. With this philosophy in mind, the District has explored the middle school concept as a means to address the specific needs of the students in grades six through eight. After discussions and workshops, the District's Board of Directors voted at its May 9, 2000, meeting to approve a district-wide conversion to middle schools, effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board also stipulated that the Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School not be converted that year, though its staff would be trained along with other district personnel. The Board wanted to allow for the construction and opening of a new facility in this attendance area, as referenced in the District's current desegregation plan. A letter to the District's counsel was sent on May 25, 2000, asking him to file the appropriate documentation with the court. (See attached). . Staff estimated that costs for staff development, expanded student services, transportation and facility remodeling would total $1,111,428. (This accounting excludes the cost of construction of a new building in the Crystal Hill area). The Board believes that implementing the middle school concept in the District will create an academic and social environment that is developmentally appropriate for these adolescents and will promote achievement, improved student behavior, and more co-curricular activities for students. Background: I The implementation of the middle school concept will not change student as nments, only the configuration cif the existing junior and senior high schools. Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School will be the exception. Toward this end, the District contracted a general evaluation of all of its schools. This facilities study provides the Board with a blueprint of construction needs. At this time, the District anticipates that the conversion to middle schools can be accomplished by converting the existing junior high facilities to middle school campuses and sending ninth grade students to the senior high school facilities. * Existing facilities have been examined for this movement of students. Two sites would need renovation to accomplish the conversion: Robinson High School will require classroom space conversion and renovation. Mills University Studies High School will need additional cafeteria space and a new media center. Problem Statement: Implementing the middle school concept to provide developmentally appropriate environments for the success of adolescents is recommended. The recommendation, if approved, would be implemented in the 2001-2002 school year, with the exception of Oak Grove Junior/ Senior High School. The middle school concept will promote the District's objective tci raise student achievement and improve student discipline by establishing appropriate and effective learning environments for adolescent youth. Alternatives: The alternative to this recommendation is to keep the current grade configuration the same. However, the District strongly believes that the middle school concept provides needed academic, social and developmental advantages for students. Action Recommended: By its vote on May 9, 2000, the Board of Directors approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools, to become effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board also renewed its support for construction of a new middle school/junior high school facility in the Crystal Hill area, as is referenced in the District's desegregation plan. With the hope that this construction is allowed to go forward, the Board chose to delay the conversion of Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School to the middle school concept. Staff members prepared tentative recommendations for the Board to illustrate plans for. the middle school conversion. These recommendations included an examination of facility capacity, expanded student-services, proposed curriculum and extracurricular offerings, parent and com~unity involvement, and district-wide professional development. Once the Board authorized the middle school concept, staff and community members have coAiued to work in committees to address these specific issues. Plans have alsffl\u003eeen developed for continuing parent and teacher input in the process. Objectives: The implementation of middle schools works to support the District's overall goals. Foremost, the creation of effective learning environments for the students in grades six through eight will support the District's goal of raising student achievement and successfully raising expectations. Students in sixth grade will have intensive use of technology and more opportunities to participate in co-curricular activities than is available in elementary schools. Ninth graders will enjoy increased opportunity for advanced academic pursuits and extracurricular activities._ The conversion to middle school focuses the District's current use of facilities and resources to ensure that equitable opportunity is available to all its students. Impact: The creation of developmentally appropriate environments will improve discipline, enhance student achievement and increase the chance for success for these students. As sixth graders move to the middle school campuses, openings will be created in the elementary schools. This additional space will allow for additional pre-K classes, after-school programs, and increased recruitment opportunities within the District. Expansion costs at the elementary level will be reduced by this configuration. Ninth grade students will benefit from the challenge of high school classes, increased curriculum opportunities and extracurricular activities. Resources: The conversion to middle schools can be accomplished with few facility changes. Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School have been identified as the only buildings needing immediate renovations. These costs are estimated to be $1 ,019,800. Costs for expanding students services, which include media, student-teacher advisory, counseling, health services, and transportation for extracurricular activities, is estimated to be $82,078. Professional development has been designed for district-wide education, as well as targeted needs for teachers and staff. Parents will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations. Focus groups will be held at the local campuses to identify teacher and staff questions, concerns, and needs. Data from the focus groups and parent surveys will allow input from our internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process of middle schools. -Plan-forlmpi-ementatio1~------------------------- fj The Pulaski Co-unty Special School District will make the facility renovations required to accommodate a middle school conversion. The committee work done to date will be refined, and resulting plans will be implemented. Upon the opening of school in 2001-2002, students in grades six through eight will attend the middle school, and ninth grade students will attend the high school in their attendance area.   PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT May 25, 2000 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Sam: . 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Litt le Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 The Board of Directors has approved the District's plan to adopt the middle school model, to become effective District-wide for the 2001-2002 school year. We need you to contact the court and file the appropriate documentation on our behalf as soon as is possible. In general, the plan will not change student assignments, only the configuration of the existing junior high schools and the senior high schools. We are confident that the adoption of middle schools will improve the delivery of services to this age group and will provide improvement in student achievement. ' Enclosed .;:ire the minutes. from the Board meeting, as well as information from the staff presentation. Please contact me if you need any other documentation or information. Sincerely, Theresa Wallent Director, Legal \u0026 Community Affairs . /tnw Encl. I I  I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I ,I I RECEIVED' FEB 16 2001 , OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MOiroRING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM 2001-2002  COURSE DESCRIPTIONS GRADES 6-8 001a . . . EDWARD L. WRIGHT I 1003- 1\"77) ROBERTS. LINDSEY I 1913- 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON JgA~M:E=S~ J::. GfLO ~V~E~Ri ~AN REC\u003c., EIVED EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TODD WOOD MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY .. M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN ROGER 0 . ROWE FEB 2 0 2001 Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mJones@wlJ .com ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J, DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. JOHN 0 . DAVIS OfFICE OF February 16, 2001  Licensed only in Florida and Texas - Licensed to practice before the Un#ed Stales Patent and Trademarl\u003c Office DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED FEB 2 O 7nn1 ftWCEOF ~ -1{6 Enclosed are copies of PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools and memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 235155-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP CELEBRATING 100 YEARS 1 9 0 0  2 0 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL BE~ . ij\\l\\!e() DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. nS.\"' ii W ~ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FEB t fr 7nm ifflCEOf -lGREGATIOti MON\\lORHIG PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. This Court approved a middle school plan for the LRSD as part of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. On September 27, 2000, the PCSSD submitted its comprehensive Business Case to this Court, the ODM and the other parties in this case, which Business Case is attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\". 3. During the spring of 2000 and commencing to this day, the PCSSD has proceeded carefully and thoughtfully toward this proposed conversion. Submitted with this motion is a comprehensive bound set of materials which are arranged chronologically and which have been numbered for the convenience of the Court. 4. These materials, other documents and highlights of the District's efforts since this planning effort began are included within this submission. 234946-v1 5. All of the foregoing matters are more thoroughly explained in the accompanying memorandum. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD requests that this Court lend its approval to the District's plan to establish middle schools and high schools for grades 9 through 12. 234946-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February fl,, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 234946-v1 3 EDWARD L. WAIGHl C,903-1177) IIOHRT S. LINDSEY (1113-1911) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JII. JOHN G. LIL GOIIDON S. RHHEII. JII. lRRY L. M~ .'NS DAVID M. P A OGE A A.\u003c. OW C. DOUG LA\u003e 0110. JII. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLI .. M SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PIIICE CH .. RLES T. COLEMAN , ~~~~= t: ~~~~~~R, JR. CH,.RLEIL. SCHLUMBEIIGER WALTER E, MAY GIIEGORY T. JONES H. KEITH UORIIISOII HTTINA l . BROWNSTEIN WAL TEA McSP,.DDEII ROGER D. ROWE N,_NCY BELLHOUSE M .. Y WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKA "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1158","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-01-13/2001-12-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1158"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 2, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: EC IVE I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meeting held on November 16, December 7, December 14, 2000 and January 11, 2001. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, kGriffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 11, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, January 11, 2001, immediately preceding the regularly scheduled agenda meeting in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kum1s Judy Magness Mike Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER E EV President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 5 :07 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 5: 12 p.m., Mr. Berkley was absent. In addition, ex-officio representatives to the Board were also present\nScott Andress, teacher at Cloverdale Middle School, and Jake Phillips, student from Hall High School. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following item: A. Approval of Covenant SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 11, 2001 Page2 III. ACTION AGENDA A. Approval of Covenant The Board was asked to approve the Covenant for the Future in order to affirm the District's commitment to continue good faith efforts to improve academic achievement of all students and to create an equitable, nondiscriminatory learning environment. A copy of the Covenant will be filed with the Courts at the time the District asks to be released from federal court supervision. A copy of the Covenant will be attached to these minutes. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to adopt the Covenant, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Stckland moved to adjourn at 5:15 p.m. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board moved directly into their regularly scheduled agenda session.  t4dwi7/7~, ~atherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: I -~ s -C) I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 MAR 1 6 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School Distiict held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathetine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: one ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. In addition, ex-officio representatives to the Board were present: Scott Artdress, teacher at Cloverdale Middle School, and Jake Phillips, student at Hall High School. II. READING OF MI UTES: Minutes from the regular meeting of December 14, 2000, and a special meeting on January 11, 2001, were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. REGULAR BOARD MEETI G January 25, 2001 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPER! TENDENT'S CITATIO S Dr. Carnine introduced Margo Swanson, coordinator of nursing for the District. Prior to the Board meeting, a reception was held in honor of school nurses who had been nominated for nurse of the year. Ms. Swanson introduced the honorees\nKim Hagin, from Badgett Elementary School, Patricia Brown who serves at Southwest Middle School, and Ann Calloway from Carver Magnet Elementary who was selected as the District's nurse of the year. Dr. Carnine introduced Diane Barksdale, principal of Carver Magnet Elementary School, and Teresa Richardson, first grade teacher. Ms. Richardson, along with fellow teachers Holly House, Hayley Armstrong, and Eunice Skubal wrote a grant proposal that was presented at the Arkansas Reading Association annual conference in ovember. The proposal was accepted and funded in the amount of $1,000 as a \"grant of excellence\" and will be presented again at the CA annual meeting in Chicago in April. The proposal, entitled \"Recycling and Book Checkout Program Makes for Successful Readers\" provides first grade students with books for nightly reading with their families. Ex officio members of the Board were also presented with certificates in recognition of their service for the month of January\nteacher representative Scott Andress, from Cloverdale Middle School, and student representative Jake Phillips from Hall High School. B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Mr. Rose made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: Badgett Elementary/ LRSD Charter School - represented by Mary Golston \u0026amp; Krishna Young, in partnership with Allen Kerr Insurance Agency, Inc. - represented by Allen Kerr, Marliese Kerr \u0026amp; John Wheeler LRSD Charter School - represented by Krishna Young, in partnership with The Optimist Club of Greater Little Rock - represented by Walter Dickinson and Wesley United Methodist Church - represented by Rev. Mark Norman \u0026amp; Cherry Washburn Franklin Elementary School - represented by Ethel Dunbar, Connie Simpson, Karen Ware, \u0026amp; Karen Carter in partnership with Say's Place (Robert \"Say\" McIntosh could not attend) REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 Page 3 IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Clementine Kelly, President of Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, relayed new year greetings from the membership of CTA. She noted that problems and concerns of the CT A were being addressed, and that teachers were continuing to work hard to meet the needs of their students. Joy Springer, representing the Joshua Intervenors, noted that it had been almost three years since implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She stated that the Intervenors feel that some improvements have been made, but that there are still some issues to be addressed. Joshua is hoping to dialog with District administrators and the Board about those issues prior to any additional legal filings. She stated that their intentions were to make a difference for the children in the new millennium. V. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness reported that she had visited Stephens Elementary School. The building is complete, but work continues on the playground and landscaping of the grounds. She complimented Sharon Brooks, the Stephens principal, on the smooth transition in moving students and staff into the new building over the holidays. Ms. Magness also discussed the Carnegie Initiative and planning process. Study Circles are being formed to discuss ways to improve Little Rock high schools. These groups will meet one night per week for the next three weeks to discuss ways to improve the learning environment in our schools. The groups have met once, and are still seeking participation from the community. She invited the public to attend a meeting at Parkview on February 1, 6:00 p.m. to listen to Kati Haycock discuss ways to address the achievement gaps and improve the learning environment for our children. Mr. Rose noted that his daughter has been visiting middle schools in anticipation of being a sixth grader next school year. He encouraged parents to review their options carefully when making decisions for their children's educational future. He also encouraged listeners to make contributions to the Central American earthquake relief efforts. Mr. Kurrus asked about a report on achievement test results and comparative analyses for measuring improvements. He noted that this is an exciting time in Little Rock, and he encouraged parents to go into the schools to see for themselves the kind of education their children are receiving in our schools. He asked the viewing audience to also visit our schools to see for themselves, not to rely on what they read in the newspapers as accurate or dependable information. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 Page 4 Dr. Daugherty stated that public education \"takes a beating\" in every political election. He noted that there is some truth in the statements that there is never enough funding or parent participation, but there is also an inaccurate perception that all public schools are inadequate in meeting the needs of the children. There is a collective effort to improve the learning climate in our schools and increased public support is the key to making the improvements. Dr. Mitchell reported on attendance at a staff development activity at the Instructional Resource Center, Writing Across the Curriculum. She thanked Marion Woods for her work in coordinating the District's staff development activities. Dr. Mitchell is also planning to attend a Smart Start Conference in Fairfield Bay with some District administrators. On the issue of the Superintendent search, Dr. Mitchell reported that letters of interest from applicants had been received and that packets of information had been returned to the applicants. She noted that February 1 is the deadline to return the applications and supporting documents, and that the Board would review the applications and select individuals for interview or further consideration. VI. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS None. VII. ACTION AGENDA A. Second Reading: JLD - Guidance and Counseling Policy Policy JLD, Guidance and Counseling Program, was submitted for the Board's review and first reading approval in January. It was presented for second review and final approval at this time. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the policy on second reading. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. B. First Reading: IAA - Professional Development A new policy for Professional Development was presented for the Board's first reading and approval. Regulations for administration of the policy were also provided for the Board's review and comments. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, Staff Development Specialist, were present to respond to questions. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the policy on first reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 Page 5 C. 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Grant The U. S. Department of Education recently notified the District that we were selected to receive $1,628,454 over a three-year period for expansion and implementation of the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers. This award will improve the current program by establishing four new sites at Meadowcliff Elementary, Southwest Middle School, J. A. Fair High School, and the Alternative Leaming Center. Marion Baldwin, Director of the McClellan Community Education Center, prepared the application and presented it for the Board's consideration and approval. Ms. Strickland made a motion to accept the proposal as submitted, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools and Communities Application JoEvelyn Elston submitted the District's 2000-01 Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities application for the Board's review and approval. As a recipient of federal funds, we are required to implement a drug abuse prevention program in grades K- 12. Our allocation for the current school year is $127,645 . Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the submission as presented. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. E. Student Calendar, 2001-02 Mr. Gadberry presented the proposed student calendar for the 2001-2002 school year. In addition, a calendar for the three extended year schools was also submitted for Board approval. Representatives of the three Pulaski County Districts met to align the calendars to the degree possible and all three Districts will begin classes on August 23, 2001 . Mr. Berkley moved to approve the calendars as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. F. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to graciously accept the donations. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Central High School Refrigerator/freezer valued at Linda's Used Furniture approximately S 150.00 Jefferson Elementary School Microwave oven, valued at $80.00 for use Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. John Deering in the teachers lounge Buzzer system, valued at approximately Jefferson Elementary PT A $500.00 for use in quiz bowl and other competitions Pulaski Heights Middle School Signet oboe,valued at $1,000 to the Band Ms. Janet Aronson Deoartment REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 Page 6 G. Personnel Changes Personnel items were printed in the agenda and the administration recommended approval of the items presented. In addition, a temporary salary adjustment for Linda Austin, Interim Director of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, was recommended. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve personnel items as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Financials The monthly financial reports were provided for review and approval. Dr. Stewart provided an explanation of the revenue shortfalls reflected in the report\nthat they are due to collection of delinquent taxes by Pulaski County. He also reported that he and Mr. Milhollen would be meeting with campus leadership teams to develop next year's budget and that they would be better prepared to meet with the Board after each campus had set their primities. Dr. Stewart predicted that the budget would be tight and that we would have to \"get leaner\" for a number of reasons, including state funding shortfalls, the need to increase teacher salaries, and fund the initiatives established to improve student achievement. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the financial reports as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules in order to consider an item not previously presented as an agenda item. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Gadberry presented a proposal for making up the four student attendance days that were missed due to inclement weather in December and January. The days would be made up on February 19, March 5, March 23 and April 13. These days were previously noted on the calendar as parent conference, staff development, and teacher record days. The teachers will make up the days at the end of the school year or on their own time. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the change in the student attendance calendar. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT A. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs reminded the Board that open enrollment for the 2001-02 school year was currently in progress through February 2. School Open Houses and \"check-us-out\" activities were also being held at all schools across the District. He issued an invitation for parents to visit their neighborhood schools and review the other options available to them through the Student Registration Office. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 Page 7 He also reported that development of the Covenant was continuing and that he and other District administrators were currently meeting with building principals, campus leadership teams, brokers and parents to gain input before finalizing the language of the Covenant, which will be incorporated into existing policy. B. Budget Update No report. C. Construction Report on Bond Projects Mr. Goodman's report on current bond projects was printed as a part of the Board's agenda. He was present to respond to questions. D. Internal Auditor's Report Mr. Becker was present and noted that he was available to meet with the Board members individually or as a group at their discretion. His monthly report was printed as a part of the monthly agenda. E. SF Update Vanessa Cleaver, Coordinator of the ational Science Foundation Grant for the District, presented a brief slide show highlighting some of the successes of the LR CPMSA initiative. In addition, Dennis Glasgow, Marcelline Carr, Trish Killingsworth, Docia Jones and Renee Kovach were present. A printout of the slides was distributed for the Board's review and for future reference. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS one XI. HEARINGS one EXECUTIVE SESSIO The Board agreed unanimously to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. The session began at 7:45 p.m. The Board returned from executive session at 8:25 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2001 Page 8 XII. ADJOURNMENT There bemg no further business before the Board, Mr. Kurrus moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. APPROVED: d._  J\n__. 0 I , il~R~~Ltt~ '-.:::. :\n., '- Katherine Mitchell, President LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 9, 2001 MAR l 6 20u The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Friday, February 9, 2001, in the conference room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESE T: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSE T: Mike Daugherty ALSO PRESE T: one. I. CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 5: 10 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETI G The meeting was called for the purpose of reviewing the applications for the position of Superintendent of Schools. There was no printed agenda. III. EXECUTIVE SESSIO Mr. Kurrus moved for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of reviewing personnel information. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. The Board returned from executive session at 6:15 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 9, 2001 Page2 IV. ACTION Larry Berkley made a motion to invite Dr. Mary Guinn and Dr. Ken James to interview for the position of Superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Tony Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. \\ i CJfi~ PlkitJG\nKatherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: J -dJ_ O I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 REC IVEO APR 1 0 2001 OlfiGE r DE8EGREGATIO ITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 22, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6:08 p.m. In addition, ex-officio representatives to the Board were also present: Karisa ichols, teacher at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, and Ahran Washington, student'at McClellan High School. II. READI G OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular meeting of January 25, 2001, and a special meeting on February 9, 2001, were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. REGULAR BOARD MEETI G February 22, 2001 Page 2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. STUDENT PERFORMANCE Students from the Baseline Elementary School Show Choir performed two selections for the audience. They were directed by Mr. Will Dunn, Baseline music teacher. B. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIO S Dr. Carnine introduced Leon Modeste to present certificates of appreciation to coordinators of the diversity training \"Learning to Cope with Differences.\" The coordinators present included: Leon Adams, Marion Baldwin, Susan Chapman, Dennis Glasgow, Kathy Lease, Marian Shead-Jackson, Linda Watson, and Marion Woods. In addition, Mable Donaldson and Marie Mc eal participated as trainers in the sessions but were unable to be present at the meeting. Ex-officio members of the Board were also presented with certificates in recognition of their service for the month of February\nteacher representative Karisa Nichols, from Dunbar Magnet Middle School, and student representative Ahran Washington from McClellan High School. C. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: M. L. King Interdistrict Magnet School - represented by Debbie Finkbeiner, in partnership with Four Oaks Living Center - represented by JoAnn Wilson and Rodney Swaty Forest Heights Middle School - represented by Eloise Hudson and Carol Young, in partnership with Pulaski Bank \u0026amp; Trust - represented by Kevin Scribner Forest Heights Middle School - represented by Eloise Hudson and Carol Young, in partnership with Immanuel Baptist Church West - represented by Steve Black McClellan Community/Business High School - represented by Cherie Walker and Michelle Brown in partnership with Urban Financial Services Coalition - represented by DeMarcus Bell REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 3 IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES V. A. Presentation: Vision Little Rock- Education and Youth Work Group Frank Cox and Mike Kumpuris briefly reviewed activities of the City of Little Rock Initiative - Vision Little Rock. Mr. Cox and Mr. Kumpuris serve as co-chairmen of the Vision Team for Education and Youth. They provided a written summary of the objectives established for their work group and proposed recommendations for the City of Little Rock Board. They asked the LRSD Board to provide comments or recommendations to be included in their presentation to the city. B. Clementine Kelly, President of Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, noted that teachers were busy and were looking forward to the remainder of the school year. She announced Read Across America to be held in March, and noted that teachers were also preparing for spring achievement testing. She stated that she had enjoyed working with Dr. Carnine and she wanted the Board to know that she appreciated his support and willingness to meet with CT A representatives on a monthly basis. She also expressed appreciation for Sadie Mitchell and the assistance she receives when contacting Ms. Mitchell's office. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Rose stated that he recognized and appreciated that more churches are partnering with District schools as a result of Sharefest. He announced that he had attended an open forum where several legislators, including Senator Blanche Lincoln, Lieutenant Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, and others discussed the needs of public schools. Mr. Rose also reported that a group of students from our District had visited his workplace at UALR as a part of the Share America collaborative. He was very impressed and happy to see the manner in which these students represented the District and their school. Dr. Daugherty thanked the city for their recent vote to invest in the central Little Rock neighborhoods by working to preserve areas around older schools. Mr. Kurrus thanked Frank Cox for his presentation and for the work of the Vision Little Rock team. He also expressed appreciation to the Baseline students who performed for the Board and he thanked the Baseline parents for their support. Mr. Kurrus also noted that he had attended the Daisy Bates Memorial Garden dedication ceremony. He was pleased to see that people from all backgrounds were represented at the ceremony and were celebrating together for a common interest. He invited the audience to \"step into our world\" in celebrating the diversity of our school district. Mr. Kurrus noted that the L. R. Central High School women's soccer team placed first and the men placed second in a recent statewide tournament. He thanked the great volunteers and community supporters for all their hard work with these teams, especially volunteer Bill Spivey who coaches the women's team. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 4 Ms. Magness announced the final wrap-up session for the Study Circles. The meeting will be on March 1, 6:00 p.m., at Parkview Magnet School. There were 15 study circles with over 180 participants. Their work will provide the framework for development of improvement plans for our high schools. Dr. Mitchell applauded the efforts of the campus leadership teams and their participation in Quality Workshops. She noted that our principals are serious about the process of improving the quality of leadership and learning in our schools. Dr. Mitchell also announced that she had written a letter to Dr. Carnine commending him for his leadership over the past four years. She thanked him for his work in the LRSD and stated that the Board would expect his continued support of the Little Rock School District. Dr. Mitchell then announced the schedule for interviewing the candidates for Superintendent of Schools. Dr. Mary Guinn will interview on Sunday, February 25 and Dr. Ken James will interview on Wednesday, February 28. Public receptions will be held and an opportunity will be provided for district staff to meet with both of the candidates. She noted that the Board was hoping to make their decision as soon as possible and that a public announcement would be made as soon as the interview process was complete. VI. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Students Roy Baker, Rani Cooksey, Madra McAdoo, Jake Phillips, Justin Schieder, and Samir Shah each spoke to the Board regarding the exemption of second semester senior students from semester testing. They argued that this incentive was worthy of the Board's reconsideration due to the fact that they felt it motivated and encouraged students to do their best in their day-to-day academics and attendance. They provided strict guidelines for earning the incentive and asked for the Board's approval. It was noted that the students who qualified for the exemption were those who would most likely not benefit by the grades earned on a single test and that their class grade point averages were already high enough that passing or failing one additional test would not affect their final grades. After the student presentation, Mr. Berkley made a motion to move the action on this issue to this point in the agenda so that the students who were present could hear the remainder of the Board's discussion and the outcome of their vote. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The vote will be reported as Item A under the Action agenda. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 5 VII. ACTION AGENDA A. Semester Exam Exemption The issue of exemptions from semester exams for high school seniors was brought back to the table for additional discussion and review at the request of Mr. Kurrus as a result of petitions presented by students from each of the high schools. The issue had been on the Board's agenda previously in August 2000, and again in October 2000. The administration had recommended that no exemptions be allowed and that all students be required to take their final exams. Building principals met as a group with Dr. Lacey, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools. Dr. Lacey presented the recommendations of the building leaders and responded to questions from the Board. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the student's request for exemptions from semester exams for second semester seniors. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion. After a great deal of discussion and a review of the students' proposal, Mr. Rose made a motion to amend the recommendation to require students to earn a grade of 85% or higher for each of the nine-weeks grading periods instead of 80% noted in the proposal and petition. Dr. Daugherty seconded the amendment to the motion, but the motion to amend failed 3-4. On the original motion to approve the students' request for exemptions from testing for second semester seniors, the motion carried 5-2 with Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland casting the \"no\" votes. B. Second Reading: IAA - Professional Development The policy for Professional Development was presented for the Board's first reading approval at the January 2000 Board meeting and was brought before the Board at this time for second reading and final approval. Regulations for administration of the policy were also provided for the Board's review and comment. Mr. Kum1s made a motion to approve the policy on second reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. C. First Reading: AB - The People and Their School District Board policy AB, The People and Their School District, was presented for the Board's review and approval on first reading. This policy is intended as an affirmation of the Board's commitment to the Covenant, which was approved by the Board in January. The policy and Covenant will be made a part of a court submission, which is due to be filed in mid-March. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve policy AB on first reading, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. REGULAR BOARD MEETI G February 22, 2001 Page 6 D. First Reading: Fiscal Policies The Board received copies of fiscal policies DFA - Revenues from Investments/Use of Surplus Funds, and DJ - Purchasing, for review and first reading approval. In addition, procurement regulations DJ-Rl were provided for information only. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the policies as presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. E. First Reading: Evaluation of Instructional Programs Policy IL, Evaluation of Instructional Programs, was presented for first reading approval. Evaluation instruments will be developed and designed by the local schools in conjunction with the Division of Curriculum and Instruction. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the policy on first reading with an amendment to delete reference to the Research Advisory Committee. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion to approve the policy as amended on first reading, and it carried unanimously. F. QZAB Funding Application The Arkansas Department of Education recently released application forms for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB)for reimbursement of costs related to energy projects which will be considered by the State Board of Education at their regular April Meeting. Dr. Stewart reported that he had met with state representatives regarding our application and eligibility issues. It was clear from these meetings that not all of the funding would be approved on the first submission\nit was estimated that only $4.6 million would be available on the first round. It is expected that we will receive partial reimbursement on the first application and that we would then re-file on the second grant period. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the application for submission to the State. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Dr. Daugherty was absent during part of the action portion of the agenda. He returned at approximately 8:50 p.m. G. Space for Continuous Instruction Centt\nr The Board was asked to approve a lease agreement with Lakeshore Drive Baptist Church to provide space for a Continuous Instruction Center as part of the Safe Schools Grant. The church has agreed to provide the space and custodial services necessary for implementation of the program. This center will replace the center which was located at Temple of Restoration Church. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the lease agreement, Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 7 H. Approval of Revised Construction Project Estimates Dr. Stewart and Mr. Gadberry presented a proposal for increasing the budgeted amounts for several of the largest construction and renovation projects across the District. It was estimated that an additional $10.3 million would be needed, including $2.8 million for a District Technology Center. The Technology Center would provide space for Information Services staff, Technology staff, Voice Communications equipment and staff, a Help Desk, Technology Equipment, training rooms, and a production facility. Administration requested the Board's approval of the revised budget. The other projects that would require an increase in the budget at this time include Mabelvale Middle School, Hall High School, and Central High School. It is also anticipated that additional funding will be needed for the renovations at Mann Magnet, but the architect, engineer, and construction firms have not yet completed their assessments of the structural problems at that site. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the proposal for increasing the construction budget at these sites. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. After a lengthy discussion, the Board asked for additional information in order to determine the need for the Technology Center, and asked that they be allowed to approve the proposal for funding the projects listed, excluding the Tech Center at this time. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to amend the original motion to defer approval of the Tech Center, but approve the project list for Mabelvale Middle School, Hall High School, and Central High School. Dr. Daugherty seconded the amendment to the motion and it carried unanimously. The amended motion carried unanimously. I. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance ofrecent donations to the District. Ms. Strickland made a motion to graciously accept the donations. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DO ATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR \u0026gt; Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School $500 cash for purchase of athletic Carson \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. equipment Chicot Elementary School $100 cash to purchase school unifonns for Wal-Man Store #124 students Geyer Springs Elementary School $800 cash for purchase of stage risers Geyer Springs PTA $100 cash for purchase of games for students Mabelvale Middle School Workstation for front office valued at Greg Han of Southern Otftce Supply $2,000 Wilson Elementary School Vision machine, valued at approximately Cheryl Chapman \u0026amp; Chara Stewan of $ I ,500 for health room UALR Share America Program Little Rock School District 26 Sony TV's \u0026amp; rolling cans for Avaya Commumca11ons distribution to the schools. Total value approximately $14,8 12.00 REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 8 J. Personnel Changes Personnel items were printed in the agenda and the administration recommended approval of the items as presented. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the personnel items presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K Financials The monthly financial reports were provided for review and approval. In addition, Mr. Milhollen introduced Don Smith from the Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas Auditing Firm who reported on the District's annual audit. The audit had been provided for the Board's review and approval at the February agenda meeting. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the monthly financial reports and the District's annual audit report. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERI TENDENT A. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs reported that he has been working with our attorneys to complete the Covenant and the court filing that is due in mid-March. In addition, the student registration office has been preparing the mail out of letters to all homes next week notifying students of their 2001-02 school assignments. All open enrollment and assignment activities are reported to be on schedule at this time. B. Budget Update Dr. Stewart reported that his staff had been working on the 2001-02 budget submission\nplans are to present them for discussion by the Board at the March agenda meeting. C. Construction Report on Bond Projects ) Mr. Goodman's report on current bond projects was printed as a part of the Board's agenda. Mr. Eaton was present to respond to questions. Dr. Daugherty requested information on the Districts' hiring of small business construction firms, those with 25 or fewer employees. D. Internal Auditor's Report Mr. Becker's report was printed as a part of the Board's agenda. No additional information was requested at this time. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 9 E. Technology Update Lucy Neal provided a brief report to advise the Board on technology activities since her last report in December. The technology plan that was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education in December was approved and our E-rate application was completed and submitted. She reported that the State had approved our grant application that will provide summer training for teachers as part of a partnership with the UALR Technology Department. Ms. Neal announced that the Tech 2000 Work Group would be meeting next week and she invited the Board and staff members to attend. She noted that EDS representatives had been interviewing key District technology staff and that they would be reporting back to the Board on their findings. Related to the Board's decision to delay approval of the request for budgetary consideration of a Tech Center, Ms. Neal briefly reviewed some of the reasons this was a critical need for the District's technology and information services operations. She will be providing additional information to identify operational savings that would be realized by housing the technology equipment and staff in a centralized location. F. Title IX Report The Board received a written report as requested. Once they have had a chance to review the report and request additional information they will place it back on the agenda for further discussion. G. Teacher Recruitment The Executive Summary of the Recruitment and Placement Services Annual Report was printed as a part of the Board's agenda. Dr. Hurley and Mr. Robinson responded to questions from the Board. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS None XI. HEARINGS one REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 22, 2001 Page 10 XII. ADJOURNME T There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 3 -11  0/ X4LJ~ Katherine Mitchell, President 1 , LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 4, 2001 r APR 10 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M01 ITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Sunday, March 4, 2001, in the board conference room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. TI. PURPOSE OF THE MEETI G The meeting was called for the purpose of selecting the next Superintendent of Schools for the Little Rock School District. There was no printed agenda. III. EXECUTIVE SESSIO Mr. Kurrus moved for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of reviewing personnel information. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board moved into the Boardroom at 3: 10 p.m. and opened the meeting to the public. Dr. Mitchell reported that the Board was returning from executive session and that no action had been taken. , SPECIAL BOARD MEETI G March 4, 2001 Page2 IV. ACTION Dr. Daugherty made a motion to extend an offer and employment contract to Dr. Ken James for the position of Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, effective July 1, 2001. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNME T The meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m. APPROVED: J\u0026lt;lJ.Q/ Katherine Mitchell, President I ( // ,} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT EIVED MAR 1 G 2001 March 9, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meeting held on January 25 and February 9, 2001. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLEROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 13, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, in the board room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Baker Kurrus ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER ECEIVED MAY 14 200i OIRGEQf President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nMr. Kurrus was absent. In addition, ex-officio members of the Board were also present\nTonya Johnson, teacher from Forest Heights Middle School, and Michael Gutierrez, student from Parkview Magnet High School.  Prior to calling the meeting to order, Dr. Mitchell asked Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director, and Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent, to present a report on Title IX activities and compliance. Members of the Board asked questions regarding athletic expenditures, and equity between male and female athletic budgets. Dr. Daugherty requested that more recognition be given to female athletic achievements during Board meetings. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 13, 2001 Page2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the meeting included the following items for action: I. Compliance Submission II. Technology Center ill. 2001-02 Budgetary Considerations IV. Student Reinstatement Petition V. Employee Hearing III. ACTION I. Compliance Submission Chris Heller, attorney for the LRSD, presented the Compliance Report that was prepared for filing with the Court on March 15. The information provided by Mr. Heller also included a proposal for settlement with the Arkansas Department of Education of the $20 million desegregation loan and future State funding options. The Board had been briefed prior to the meeting and was asked to approve the compliance agreement for filing. Mr. Berkley made a motion to submit the completed document on March 15, 2001. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. II. Technology Center Don Stewart provided a revision of the capitol projects report for the Board's review in consideration of adding funding for a District Technology Center. The Tech Center would provide additional training space, computer labs, space for telephone equipment, a help desk, and all of the technology employees who are housed in the administration building and in the Instructional Resource Center. It is hoped that the Center can be located in the southwest area of the city, near Metropolitan. Additional information will be provided prior to the regular March Board meeting. The administration requested that the Board place this on the agenda for approval at that time. III. 2001-02 Budgetary Considerations Dr. Stewart briefly reviewed a listing of possible areas for budget reduction in the 2001-02 school year. He noted that the Board and the administration must work over the next few weeks and months to \"re-set priorities\" and decide where expenses can be reduced. He suggested areas for possible reductions as travel, administrative staff positions, certified, and non-certified staff. He noted that the intent is for eliminating positions by attrition and there is no intent to \"pink-slip\" anyone. There was also a brief discussion regarding the possibility of a severance package for up to 150 employees who voluntarily resigned from SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 13, 2001 Page 3 their positions. He noted that this was not intended to be an \"early retirement\" package as was offered several years ago, but a way to eliminate some of the higher paid positions. Mr. Rose suggested that budget managers be required to provide narrative budget justification requests. Dr. Stewart noted that he would consider that request as the process continues. EXECUTIVE SESSION IV. The Board was asked to convene an executive session for the purpose of hearing student and employee appeal petitions. Ms. Magness moved for the executive session at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. Student Reinstatement Petition Linda Watson presented a reinstatement petition from Lemond Smith, a 13-year-old student who was expelled from Southwest Middle School on May 25, 2000. He had been attending Pulaski Alternative Leaming Academy for the past year, and was asking for permission to return to the LRSD. Dr. Watson recommended placement at the Juvenile Justice Center's Step One Alternative Program, where he can begin to earn regular school credits. If he is successful, he can then be transitioned into a regular school setting. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the administration's recommendation for placement at the JJC. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. V. Employee Hearing Dr. Carnine recommended the termination of Carver Magnet Elementary School Teacher Angie Sunderman. The letter of termination stated that the recommendation was based on conduct unbecoming of a Little Rock School District teacher. Specifically, she: I) failed to notify building principal of her arrests, per Article 7, Section 12 of the P.N. agreement\nand 2) her arrests indicate unprofessional conduct which fails to meet the competencies expected of a teaching professional (ie: uses sound judgement\npromotes respect for the teaching profession\nand is socially well-adjusted.) Ms. Sunderman requested a Board hearing on the recommended termination. The hearing was conducted pursuant to this request and was held in a closed session. Dick Hurley, Director of Human Resources, presented the administration's case against Ms. Sunderman. Dr. Hurley notified her on January 18, 2001, that she was being placed on administrative leave with pay, pending an LRSD investigation into allegations that she SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 13, 2001 Page 4 was involved in possessing and manufacturing illegal drugs. Dr. Hurley told the Board that Ms. Sunderman had been arrested and charged for various drug offences. Dr. Hurley introduced the arresting officers to explain the circumstances of Ms. Sunderman's arrest. They informed the Board that her arrest was based on the fact that illegal drugs were found in her residence together with the tools and ingredients for the manufacture of meth-amphetamines. Following the administration's presentation, Ms. Sunderman told the Board that she' was not guilty of the charges and that the items the officers said were used to manufacture meth-amphetamines were common household items which she had not used for that purpose. Ms. Sunderman said that she was in jail for 2 days after her arrest, and that once released on bond, she made an effort to contact her supervisor. She admitted that she did not reach her supervisor by telephone and did not leave a message. The Board members convened in private to discuss their options and returned at 9:15 p.m. Dr. Carnine reiterated the basis for his termination recommendation set out in his letter of January 22, 2001, to Ms. Sunderman, but suggested that the Board might modify the termination recommendation to a suspension without pay pending adjudication of the criminal charges against Ms. Sunderman. The Board voted to find as fact that Ms. Sunderman had failed to notify her immediate supervisor in a timely manner of the criminal charges filed against her as required by the PN Agreement. The Board then voted to find as fact that Ms. Sunderman engaged in conduct unbecoming of a LRSD teacher. Finally, the Board voted to suspend Ms. Sunderman without pay pending the resolution of the criminal charges against her. The Board returned from the closed session to report that the Board unanimously voted to suspend Ms. Sunderman without pay pending the resolution of the criminal charges against her. It was noted that a non-renewal letter would be sent to Ms. Sunderman. However, once the case is heard in court and a final determination is made on the criminal charges pending, Ms. Sunderman would be allowed further consideration of her employment status. EXECUTIVE SESSIO The Board reconvened the executive session at 9: 15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing a personnel issue. They returned at 9:35 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. Mr. Berkley made a motion to offer a base salary of $141,000 annually to Dr. Ken James for the position of Superintendent of Schools, effective July 1, 2001. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board agreed by consensus to authorize President Katherine Mitchell to meet with the attorneys to get the appropriate contract drafted for Dr. James' review and approval. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 13, 2001 Page 5 IV. ADJOURNME T There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Mr. Berkley. 'tdlwJfl~Wu Katherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: ~-l\u0026amp;-0/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 19, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Monday, March 19, 2001, in the board room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Baker Kurrus Tony Rose Sue Strickland ne El ED ~~'( 1 !\\ 700\\ -= ~,roa\\ll MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. All members of the Board were present. Dr. Mitchell noted that Dr. Don Roberts, previous Superintendent of Schools, was present. In addition, Dr. Ken James, the next Superintendent of Schools, was also in attendance. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose ofreviewing a settlement agreement that was approved by the Arkansas Board of Education. Mr. Chris Heller, attorney with the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark firm, was present to review the document and provide information. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 19, 2001 Page2 III. ACTION IV. Mr. Heller conducted a briefreview of the settlement agreement which was approved on this date by the Arkansas Board of Education. He noted that on-going discussions would be held with Attorney John Walker regarding the terms of the agreement as related to the LRSD's obligations to the desegregation plan. He explained the benefits of the agreement related to the effect on the statewide school funding formula in that the manner in which the LRSD structures its bond sales and repayment schedules would have an effect on the  amount of school funding the State must pay to other school districts. Under the terms of the agreement the State will not attempt to reduce funding for LRSD desegregation programs for at least seven years. After seven years, the State would be free to seek modifications to the agreement as it relates to funding of those programs. In addition, $15 million of the desegregation loan would be forgiven immediately and the remaining $5 million would be forgiven if the LRSD is granted unitary status and released from federal court supervision by July 1, 2004. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the agreement between the State of Arkansas and the LRSD. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5 :20 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. ~\n/~ {fu\u0026amp;u Katherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: L/ 'J.~  0 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Baker Kum1s presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER RECEIVED Mt\u0026gt;.Y 14100\\ Vice President Baker Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell was absent. In addition, ex-officio representatives to the Board were also present: Tonya Johnson, teacher at Forest Heights Middle School, and Michael Gutierrez, student at Parkview Magnet High School. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular meeting of February 22, 2001, and a special meeting on March 4, 2001, were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Magness. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Dr. Carnine presented a certificate from the Arkansas School Boards Association to Tony Rose in recognition of his completion of six hours of inservice training for new Board members. Diane Vibhaker was introduced and thanked for her volunteer service to the District. Ms. Vibhaker recently led the Study Circles sessions by providing support and technical assistance to volunteers who met over the course of several weeks. This effort was funded by the Carnegie Corporation and is intended to provide public input for improvements in the Districts five high schools. Dr. Carnine introduced Paulette Mabry who coaches the Central High School women's swim team. Ms. Mabry introduced team members and recognized several individuals for their achievements. Students who perform on the team include: Christina Horton, Ann Campbell, Emily Evans, Lauren Frost, Elizabeth Hoffman, and Laura Beth May. The Central High School men's basketball team recently won the 5-A statewide championship for the second time in the past three years. Coach Oliver Fitzpatrick could not be present at this meeting, but Coach Craig Bankhead and Assistant Principal Daniel Whitehorn were present along with several members of the winning team. Ex-officio members of the Board were presented with certificates in recognition of their service for the month of March\nteacher representative Tonya Johnson, from Forest Heights Middle School, and student representative Michael Gutierrez from Parkview Magnet High School. The Superintendent announced the annual VIPS celebration, An Evening for the Stars, to be held on April 10 at Ricks Armory. In addition, he introduced Thelma Jasper, PT A Council President, who made a brief announcement regarding this year's PT A membership drive. Districtwide membership has increased over the past three years from approximately 12,000 members to over 18,000 members. Twenty-one schools achieved 100% membership, and Central High and Mann Magnet Middle School each have over 1000 members. She thanked Dr. Carnine for provide incentives to the schools for membership increases and for his three years ofleadership. B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Ms Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page 3 Newly established partnerships include: Parkview Magnet High School - represented by Linda Brown \u0026amp; Fred Boosey, in partnership with Arkansas Repertory Theatre - represented by Ann Muse, and Lelie Golden In addition to the partnership presentation, Ms. Milam introduced two new members of the VIPS office staff who will be involved with the Parent Involvement component. Kaye Rainey is the Parent Involvement Coordinator, and Stella Loya is the ESL Parent Liaison.  Each of these individuals took a moment to introduce themselves to the Board and provide a brief explanation of their responsibilities within the Parent Involvement office. IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES V. Eleanor Coleman, former President of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, was present representing the organization, as Ms. Kelley could not attend. REPORT ON LITERACY PROGRAMS The Board agreed by consensus to reorder the agenda to hear a report on the District's Literacy Programs. Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Programs, and Suzi Davis, Director of English and Foreign Language, made a slide show presentation indicating progress in the literacy initiatives across the District. Board members received a written report for further reyjew of test data, and the final summary indicated that student achievement improved Districtwide after the first year of the new literacy curriculum. VI. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Rose thanked Ms. Price and Ms. Davis for their report. He was pleased to note the District's improved test scores and stated, \"As we experience success, we expect more success. . . as we improve, we will go places.\" Ms. Magness reported that Gibbs students and their parents are at this time on an exchange trip to Lion, France, attending school in that city. They are having a wonderful time in Lion, have visited Barcelona and will travel to Paris before returning home. Mr. Berkley stated that the Literacy Program report was good news, and that the information reinforces that once we are freed from some of the requirements of the old desegregation plan that we will be better able to focus on the things that really matter to our students. He is looking forward to hearing more progress reports over the next year. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page4 VII. Mr. Kurrus read a written statement from Dr. Katherine Mitchell, who was attending a ational School Boards Association meeting in San Diego. Her statement expressed appreciation to Dr. Carnine for his leadership and to the District's entire staff for their dedication to the children of our city. She noted that the agreement between the District and the State of Arkansas, along with the recent submission of the compliance report to the Federal Court, were monumental moments in our District's history and would mark the beginning of a new era of academic progress for our children. She thanked the rest of the Board members for their work and commitment of time expended in the successful search for a new superintendent. She thanked the Chan1ber of Commerce for their assistance and members of the community who provided their support and input into the process of selecting the next leader for our District. After completing Dr. Mitchell's comments, Mr. Kurrus stated that he felt it was very noteworthy that we have reached a settlement with the State, and that as a part of this settlement, the District will not be required to repay $15 million in desegregation loan funds. The release from repayment of this loan is due to the way in which the District has agreed to restructure its bond sales and debt repayment. He noted that there are twenty private schools within his zone, and that he continues to be amazed that the District's successes are still \"secret,\" even though we continue to demonstrate that we are a successful school district. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Delores Logan addressed the Board regarding the importance of the HIPPY Program to the pre-school aged youngsters in our District. She stated that 3, 4, and 5 year olds are provided one-on-one assistance in their home environment to help them become ready for school. These aides work with the parents in order to help them know how to teach their children the skills they need when they enter kindergarten. She urged the Board to continue to support funding for the HIPPY program. Elizabeth Daley, parent of students at Parkview Magnet High School, asked the Board to review the course credit requirements at that school. She feels that there will be a potential problem for her son to earn the Honors Seal on his diploma because he is enrolled in the ROTC program. She asked that ROTC curriculum credits be counted in lieu of the technology course requirements, or that the administrators at Parkview be directed to come up with a way for ROTC students to be eligible for the Honors Seal. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page 5 VIII. ACTION AGENDA A. Second Reading: AB - The People and Their School District Board policy AB, The People and Their School District, was presented for the Board's review and approval on first reading at the February meeting of the Board. This policy is intended as an affirmation of the Board's commitment to the Covenant, which was approved by the Board in January and is presented at this time for second reading approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve policy AB on second reading, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Second Reading: Fiscal Policies The Board received copies of fiscal policies DFA - Revenues from Investments/Use of Surplus Funds, and DJ - Purchasing, for second reading approval. These policies were approved on first reading in February 2001. Procurement regulations DJ-Rl were provided for information only. Ms. Magness moved to approve the policies on second reading. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Second Reading: Evaluation of Instructional Programs Policy IL, Evaluation of Instructional Programs, was presented for approval on second reading. First reading approval was granted at the February Board meeting, with a modification to remove reference to the Research Committee. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the policy on second reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Lease Agreement: Stephens Elementary School The Board was asked to approve a ninety-nine year reciprocal agreement that allows the city sufficient property to operate the community center at Stephens Elementary School and, in return, the LRSD will be allowed to maintain its educational facility at that site. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the lease agreement, Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. E. Board Zones On the advice of Attorney Clay Fendley, the Board was asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the administration to review our compliance with the laws governing school board zones. This review is to be done every ten years after the census\nthe current zones were developed after the 1990 census with the assistance ofMetroplan, and were approved by Judge Wright. Ms. Magness moved to approve the suggested resolution. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETI G March 22, 2001 Page 6 F. Psychological Examiners The District's Psychological Examiners petitioned the Board requesting that they be permitted to withdraw from the L. R. Classroom Teachers' Association. The District's administration took a neutral position on the request and asked the Board to make a determination based on the information from the Examiners, taking into consideration the LRCTA's opposition to the request. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the request from the Psychological Examiners to  be removed from representation by the L. R. Classroom Teachers Association. Mrs. Magness seconded the motion. Mr. Rose questioned the legality of taking such action while a valid contract is in force, and Mr. Kurrus recommended that additional discussion take place prior to making the final decision. Ms. Magness suggested that the original motion be amended to make certain that this action would not have any effect on the current contract. Although there was no formal amendment to the motion, it was agreed by consensus that there was no intent to change the current contract by approval of the Examiner's request. The motion passed, 5-1, with Mr. Kurrus casting the \"no\" vote. G. Short Term Debt for Bus Purchase Mr. Gadberry presented a proposal for the purchase of seven to eleven diesel buses to replace several older buses that need to be retired from the special needs transportation fleet. The administration plans to review and inspect several used buses that are available .. and if they are of good quality, we would be able to purchase eleven used buses for the same price as seven new ones. The administration requested Board approval to expend approximately $390,000 for the purchase of school buses. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the purchase. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Technology: Dr. Stewart reviewed the information provided for consideration of a District Technology Center. In addition to a centralized technology facility, the Board was asked to consider the funding proposal for network systems integration and cabling for non-E-rate schools. Each of these projects was submitted as part of the total technology plan which was completed by the Tech 2000 work group. Dr. Stewart discussed purchasing existing property to house the Tech Center compared to the cost of building a new facility. An extensive report was provided as part of the printed agenda. As part of this report, Mr. Paradis, Director of Procurement, provided information on the Request for Proposals for the various services which will be contracted through outside vendors. REGULAR BOARD MEETI G March 22, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the administration's request to begin negotiations with EDS, and to proceed with the study and further investigation of a Technology Center site. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Prior to the actual vote, the Board qualified their action by asking for additional information prior to any contractual commitments on the Technology Center. I. Resolution in Support of PCSSD Bond Election The Pulaski County Special School District asked for the LRSD Board to publicly support their efforts to pass a millage increase in a special May 8 election. The Board was reminded that approximately 1,036 LRSD students attend school in the Pulaski County District due to M-to-M transfer options. A Resolution in Support of the Putting Children First Campaign was presented for the Board's endorsement. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the Resolution\nMr. Rose seconded the motion. It carried unanimouslv. J. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to graciously accept the donations. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. Dr. Daugherty read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Central High School S4,825.00 cash for Financial Support Central High School PTSA Grant Forest Heights Middle School Clarinet valued at $125.00 Minnie Washimzton Jefferson Elementary Planing services and u e of planting Rick Minor/Cantrell Gardens equipment valued at approximately $ I 50.00 for planting donated trees Trees, valued at approximately $ I 00.00 KA TV - Channel 7 Trees, valued at approximately SI 00.00 Dr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Jim Ingram Trees, valued at approximately $100.00 Carlos Munevar / Crain Kia Trees, valued at approximately S100.00 Ted Mitchell Party City Trees, valued at approximately S 100.00 Drs. Jeffrey \u0026amp; Laurie Barber Trees, valued at approximately $100.00 Jefferson Elementary PT A Williams Magnet Elementary Picture frames, valued at $912.0010 the Becky Tanner Art Department SI 0,000 cash for purchase of software for Williams Magnet PTA computer lab and computers for classrooms REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page 8 K Personnel Changes Personnel items were printed in the agenda and the administration recommended approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the personnel items presented. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. L. Financials The monthly financial reports were provided for review and approval. Mr. Milhollen was , present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the monthly financial reports. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT A. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs reported that since the completion of the Covenant and the March court filing, activities within his Division had calmed somewhat. The Student Registration Office had completed the general mailing of 2001-02 school assignment notification letters and the appeals process will continue throughout the summer months. B. Budget Update Dr. Stewart reported that his staff had been working on the 2001-02 budget submission, but that no meaningful budget projections could be made until the legislative session is over and final educational funding issues are determined. Building level budget amounts are being sent to each principal next week. They will not be asked to write up narrative budget projections, but they will return their budgets for review during the next few weeks. In addition, Dr. Stewart briefly discussed the upcoming bond sale that relates to the District's settlement with the State of Arkansas. Under the terms of our agreement, all of the remaining construction bonds must be sold immediately. He has been working with Stephens Inc. to get the bond sale scheduled during the first week of May. Based on current interest rates of just over 5%, it is expected that the sale will generate approximately $87 million. Our goal is to get the District's 2002 calendar year debt payment to $11.8 million dollars in order to keep the District's budget neutral. He stated that the process is a real \"balancing act\" due to the nature of interest rates and that they were all hopeful that there will be a favorable interest rate on the day of the sale. .. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page 9 C. Construction Report on Bond Projects Mr. Goodman's report on current bond projects was printed as a part of the Board's agenda, and he was present to respond to the Board's questions. Dr. Daugherty thanked Mr. Goodman for providing the report on our general contractors. D. Internal Auditor's Report Mr. Becker's report was printed as a part of the Board's agenda. No additional information was requested at this time. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS None XI. HEARINGS None XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Berkley moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: l.f-)(,-01 Jjl! {f\n::u,t!f~ REC1VED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MAY 14 200\\ MI UTES  O'fflCEOf llSfr.t:ltEA':\"J \\i\\Otutti\\KQ SPECIAL BOARD MEETI G April 3, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 , in the Board conference room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESE T: Katherine Mitchell Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Baker Kurrus Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSE T: Tony Rose ALSO PRESENT: I. Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nMr. Rose was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of approving the negotiated contract for the new Superintendent, Dr. T. Kenneth James. III. ACTION Members of the Board had been provided copies of the contract negotiated between the District and Dr. T. Kenneth James, effective July 1, 2001 . Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the contract. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell noted that the formal signing of the contract would take place at the Board's agenda meeting, April 12, 2001, where Dr. James would be present. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 3, 2001 Page 2 IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Ms. Strickland. Katherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: t.f-J.~ O I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT D APR l O 2001 OFfiCEOF DESEGREGATION MO ITORING April 4, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meeting held on February 22 and March 4, 2001. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Enclosures 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 12, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, April 12, 2001, in the board room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESE T: Katherine Mitchell Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Baker Kurrus ALSO PRESE T: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes Mary Rutherford, Student Ex-Officio Representative I. CALL TO ORDER l\\!CEI E MAY 14 'lil \\ President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 5: 17 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nMr. Kurrus was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of approving summer school principal assignments and to conduct an employee hearing. In addition, the Board agreed by consensus to suspend their own rules to consider an item not previously noted as an action agenda item, Approval to Establish a Wellness Clinic at McClellan High School. SPECIAL BOARD MEETI G April 12, 2001 Page2 Ill. ACTION IV. A. Summer School Principal Assignments The Board was provided with a list of summer school sites and the administration's recommendations for principal and assistant principal assignments to those sites. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the recommended personnel assignments. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The summer school sites with principal assignments are noted in the following chart: SCHOOL PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL Baseline Elementary Eleanor Cox Booker Magnet Elementary Joyce Willingham Brady Elementary Ada Keown DehvinSmith Washington Magnet Elementary Les Taylor Southwest Middle School Sherry Rogers Valerie Tatum Central High School Jerome Farmer Carolyn Lamb B. McClellan High School Wellness Clinic Prior to calling the special meeting to order, Margo Swanson, Health Services Coordinator for the District, and Dr. Peggy Bell, from the UAMS College of ursing, provided information for the establishment of a School Based Health Clinic at McClellan Community High School. A memorandum of understanding between the Arkansas Department of Health and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences was provided for the Board's review. This MOU outlined the operational expectations for the clinic and provided a written overview for the Board's consideration. Ms. Magness called for a suspension of the rules in order to consider approval of the McClellan Wellness Clinic. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion to suspend the rules and it carried 6-0. Ms. Magness then moved to approve the establishment of a Wellness Clinic at McClellan Community High School, Mrs. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Magness made a motion for an executive session for the purpose of conducting an employee termination appeal hearing. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ' . . ' - SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 12, 2001 Page 3 The hearing convened at 6:19 p.m. Dr. Hurley provided documents from the personnel file of Mahasin Siddiq for the Board's review. Ms. Siddiq was a probationary employee who was first hired by the District in September 2000, as an Instructional Aide in one of the Continuous Instruction Centers of the Alternative Programs Division. Dr. Carnine recommended termination, and notification was sent by certified mail to Ms. Siddiq in March 2001. The recommendation for termination was based on poor performance as an instructor, and for a number of unacceptable performance factors. A copy of the individual improvement plan, which was developed by Ms. Siddiq's immediate supervisor, provided detailed areas of deficiency and misconduct.  Ms. Siddiq asked for the Board to reconsider the administration's recommendation for termination and to allow her to continue to work as an instructional aide. She denied the allegations of misconduct and stated that she was under the impression that she was doing a good job. She asked for additional training and offered to be reassigned to another position ifthere was a problem with her performance at the CIC. The Board took a briefrecess to review the evidence and discuss possible options. They returned from recess and Ms. Magness moved to uphold the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimouslv. The Board returned from Executive Session and reported that they had upheld the administration's recommendation for termination and that no other action was taken during the executive session. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by~ t,( /21!.,zte__,,/ Katherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: l..f.-d--\u0026amp; 01 EC IVED JUN 7 200! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETI G April 26, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 26, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESE T: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without an official roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nMs. Strickland was absent. In addition, student ex-officio representative to the Board, Mary Rutherford, was also present. There was no teacher representative in attendance. EXECUTIVE SESSION Prior to the convening of the regular meeting, Ms. Magness moved for an executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session at 6:00 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. The Board moved directly to the business portion of the meeting. ' REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 26, 2001 Page2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular meeting of March 22, 2001, and from special meetings held on March 13, March 19, April 3, and April 12, 2001, were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. III. PRESE TATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDE T'S CITATIONS Dr. Carnine introduced Rosalind Nicholson, student at McClellan High School. Ms. Nicholson is a senior, and plans to become a teacher. She recently attended the National Future Educators of America conference in New Orleans, and placed first in the essay contest. The Superintendent presented citations to Jimmie Lou Neal, kindergarten teacher at Pulaski Heights Elementary School, and Anne Hansen, Assistant Principal at Parkview Magnet High School. The Little Rock PTA Council named Ms. Neal Teacher of the Year, and Dr. Hansen Administrator of the Year at the annual PTA awards program. Students who participated in this year's Quiz Bowl were recognized for their achievements in the competitions. Dunbar Magnet School students, coached by Arthur Olds, took first place in the Middle School Division. Team members included Katie Dunn, Brint Maries, Tyler Lee, Lawrence Watts, Nathan Scarborough, and Laura Soderberg. The Elementary Division I champions were from Gibbs Magnet Elementary Sc/zoo/. Coached by Susan Branch, the team included Grace Nam, Dalton Wise, Bea Vena, Kathryn Tull, Nick Matthews, Nate Kinne, Ross Ingram, Brittany Hudson, and Joey McE!derry. Elementary Division II champions were from Western Hills Elementary Sc/zoo/. Team members were unable to attend the Board meeting, but the Superintendent announced that the team coach was Beth Collins, and members included Christian Outlaw, LeTara Moore, Brad Cook, Klayton Taunton, and Chris Rhodes. Michael Peterson, Principal of Metropolitan Career and Technical Center, announced student winners in the VICA statewide competitions, which were held in Hot Springs, April 17 - 18, 200 I. Metro students competed in each Division, and took honors including gold, silver and bronze medals. Other awards included software packages valued at $78,645.00, and scholarships totaling $13,000.00. Areas of competition included medical professions, commercial arts \u0026amp; photography, cosmetology, culinary arts and commercial baking, architectural drafting, computer-aided drafting, automated manufacturing, drafting, auto body repair, diesel technology, and other automotive technology. Student winners have been invited to participate in the national competitions, to be held in Kansas City, Missouri in June. REGULAR BOARD MEETI G April 26, 2001 Page 3 Dr. Carnine introduced Pat Knighten, Project WILD Coordinator at the Arkansas Game \u0026amp; Fish Commission. Ms. Knighten presented a check to Cassandra Norman, principal of J. A. Fair High School, and Martha Rains, Fair's Science Department Chairperson. The funds are a grant for the development and expansion of the outdoor science classroom at Fair. A certificate of appreciation was presented to the student ex-officio representative to the Board for the month of May, Mary Rutherford, from Central High School. B. PART ERSINEDUCATIO Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: Badgett Elementary School - represented by Mary Golston, Kim Dunahay and Wanda Varady, in partnership with Barnes \u0026amp; oble Books - represented by Carolyn McNutt Brady Elementary School - represented by Ada Keown and Eileen McMurry in partnership with Markham Street Baptist Church - represented by Ron Ross and members of the church family Jefferson Elementary School - represented by Roberta Mannon, in partnership with the University of Arkansas System - represented by Chiquita Munir and Lynda Bertram IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES VI. Victor McMurry, member of the Board of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, was present to represent the association in Ms. Kelley's absence. There was no official report. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness thanked Suellen Vann and the Communications Office staff for their efforts in coordinating the Stephens Elementary School dedication ceremony. She also expressed appreciation to the organizations who participated in the dental screening of over 3,000 LRSD students. Students in eleven of our elementary schools were provided this service through collaborative efforts of Share America and UAMS, and Colgate. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 26, 2001 Page4 Mr. Kum1s announced that the Central High School women's soccer team had won against Mt. St. Mary's. He thanked the parents who support the soccer programs across the District. Mr. Kurrus also reported that he had spoken at the sixth grade honors assembly at Southwest Middle School. He was impressed by the students' behavior and was encouraged to see the excellent academic achievements of these students. Mr. Rose noted that he had also enjoyed the dedication ceremony at Stephens Elementary School and remarked that he was impressed by the speech given by Mrs. McClinton, who was one of Mrs. Stephen's former students. Mrs. McClinton expressed the impact that Mrs. Stephens had on her life, and he wanted current teachers to know the impact that they can have on their students' lives. Dr. Mitchell thanked everyone who worked on the Stephens dedication program. She congratulated Hall High School drama students for their production of Fame, and the Parkview Magnet School performing arts students who performed The Wiz. Dr. Mitchell reported that she had attended both of these performances and that she was truly impressed with the talent of our students. Dr. Mitchell also displayed a plaque received from the Arkansas School Boards Association by our Board as commendation for their participation in Board Leadership Training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy and the ASBA. She thanked Ms. Magness for encouraging our Board to participate in this very worthwhile effort. Debbie Milam was recognized for the hard work and efforts of the VIPS staff in coordinating the annual Evening for the Stars. VII. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Versie Burgess, a parent of students at Southwest Middle School, addressed the Board regarding improvements in the school climatP. over the past two years. Ms. Burgess noted that the staff moral has improved and that the atmosphere has become more pleasing to parents and community volunteers. She invited the public to visit Southwest and see that good things are happening in the school. Betty Flowers addressed the Board as a supporter of and participant in the HIPPY Program. Two of her children are HIPPY students and she is proud of the positive impact the program has had on her children's academic achievement and on their future ability to succeed in school. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 26, 2001 Page 5 Alice Gray addressed the Board on behalf of the Parkview Magnet School ROTC Program. ROTC students were also in attendance and stood at attention around the room during Ms. Gray's presentation. She asked the Board to modify current curriculum requirements to allow participation in ROTC for four years. She stated that the current requirements only allow ROTC students to participate for two years in order to be able to complete other elective requirements, specifically, two years of technology courses. Some students would like to be able to take four years of ROTC in order to qualify for grants and scholarships. Kalina Gilmore, Stephen Dailey and Denise Stephens also spoke to the issue of Parkview ROTC participation. It was noted that a minimum of 100 students must be enrolled in the program in order to maintain the current level, and each of these individuals expressed appreciation for the discipline, respect, and sense of family that are learned through their experiences in ROTC. VIII. ACTION AGE DA A. Science Textbook/ Materials Adoption Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science, presented the recommendations of the science textbook committee for the Board's review and adoption. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the recommended textbooks and materials. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. 2001-02 Calendar Revision The Board was asked to suspend their rules to consider revision of the 2001-02 revised school year calendar. Ms. Magness moved to suspend the rules, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The revised calendar, as provided by Mr. Gadberry, was discussed briefly. The revisions were made in response to a conflict in our previously approved calendar with the Arkansas Department of Education schedule for administration of the benchmark examinations in 2001-02. The recommended change was to move the week of spring vacation up one week. It was noted that the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School Districts would also change their spring break dates to be able to remain consistent with our calendar dates. Mr. Berkley made the motion to approve the recommended calendar for 2001-02. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 26, 2001 Page 6 C. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to graciously accept the donations. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Booker Arts Magnet School $1,500 cash to purchase school sign Nell ie Leonard and Maggie Hawkins/East Broadway Neighborhood Association S 1,500 cash match for purchase of school Booker Arts Magnet School PTA sign Dunbar Magnet Middle School S 1,000 cash for Close-up trip Michael and Ti Rohr $200 cash for Close-up trip Georgiana Soderbert $2,058 cash for Close-up trip Roy and Louise Gutierrez J. A. Fair High School Covered batting cage and dressing room J. A. Fair Booster Club I Booster Club valued at aooroximatelv S 18,000 President Larry Bradley Forest Heights Middle School $300 cash to the Athletic Department at Ivy Crenshaw FHMS M. L. King Elementary Magnet $2,835.54 cash to purchase wall mounted M. L. King Magnet PTA fans for 54 classrooms McClellan Community High School 20 -$5.00 gift certificates and $1,700 cash Baseline Wal-Mart Store for student awards Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 2001 Cadillac Seville STS, valued at General Motors Corporation YES S40,000 for use in auto technolo11:v class orowam Parkview Magnet High School S900 cash to Parkview baseball prowam Jerry Peters/ Webster University LRSD English \u0026amp; Foreign Language Dept. $20,000 gift to fund reading improvements Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation at the at the Middle School level request of the Honorable Henry L Jones, Jr. LRSD Dept. of Instructional Technology Magazine cases and binders, valued at Office of Desegregation Monitoring S300 to be distnbuted to school libraries LRSD 23 computers, 18 printers, a scanner and U. S. Bankruptcy Court assorted supplied valued at approximately SI 1,000 D. Personnel Changes Personnel items were printed in the agenda and the administration recommended approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the personnel items presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 26, 2001 Page7 E. Financials The monthly financial reports were provided for review and approval. Mr. Milhollen was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the monthly financial reports. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTE DENT X. A. Desegregation Update Dr. Carnine reported that since the filing of the compliance report and the motion for unitary status with the courts, that we had been working through the attorneys and maintaining compliance with timelines as required. The Board will be kept informed of any developments, as they become available. B. Budget Update Dr. Stewart reported that there was no budget report ready as yet for the Board's review. He noted that there were some new procedures being utilized in the production of the budget document, and that as revenue figures become more firm the reports will be developed. He anticipated that a tentative budget might be ready for the Board's discussion in mid-May. He also reported as good news that tax revenue collections are up over the predicted amounts and that would have a good result for our budget. We are scheduled to receive approximately $1.2 million more in state teacher retirement and health insurance funds than we originally predicted. Dr. Stewart reported that the next bond sale is tentatively set for May 22 at 10:00 a.m. C. Construction Report on Bond Projects Mr. Goodman's report on current bond projects was printed as a part of the Board's agenda, and he was present to respond to the Board's questions. D. Internal Auditor's Report Mr. Becker's report was printed as a part of the Board's agenda. No additional information was requested at this time. ANNOUNCEMENTS None REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 26, 2001 Page 8 XI. HEARINGS None XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Magness made a motion for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing a personnel issue at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from executive session at 8:25 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Rose moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED:5J4 0 I RECEIV D JUN 7 2001 (I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MI UTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 10, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, May, 2001, in the board room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSE T: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes Everette Calloway, Student Ex-Officio Representative I. CALL TO ORDER Prior to the call to order, Dr. Mitchell recognized Ethel Ambrose, representing the Central High School Neighborhood Association. She had been invited to make a brief presentation by Board Member Tony Rose. Mrs. Ambrose asked the Board to assist her neighborhood association in efforts to reduce the number of students who drive to school. She suggested a method that is being used in other cities whereby students are given colored parking stickers which allow them to drive on a designated day of the week. Senior students would be allowed to drive each school day. This method would serve to encourage carpooling and would reduce the number of vehicles on the streets during the school day. President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. All members of the Board were present. .---------.-- ------- -- SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 10, 2001 Page2 II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of considering student expulsion recommendations from Dr. Linda Watson, student hearing officer. III. ACTION Four students had been recommended for expulsion from the District as a result of being in possession of a firearm. Each of the students had been recommended for placement at the Step-One Alternative School at the Pulaski County Juvenile Justice Center. Students Willie Davis and Leese Grimes had been enrolled at McClellan High School. Brandon Reed and Curtis Wells were from Central High School. The Superintendent recornrnended placement at the Step-One Center. Ms. Magness made a motion to uphold the administration's recornrnendation for expulsion and alternative placement. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board convened in an open session at 6:05 p.m. to report that they had upheld the recornrnendation of the Superintendent in the matters of student disciplinary action. IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION After reconvening at the end of the student disciplinary hearings, the Board continued in executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. They returned from executive session and reported that no action had been taken. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7: 10 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. KJtJiJJ:kc atherine Mitchell, President APPROVED: J \n) Lf-0 I J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT June 5, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: 0 ----EIVED JUN 7 20D1 OfRCEOf I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on April 26 and May 10, 2001. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 24, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSE T: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESE T: I. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of the Board were present\nMs. Strickland was absent. In addition, student ex-officio representative to the Board, Everette Calloway, from J. A. Fair High School and teacher exofficio representative, Virginia Booth, from Mabelvale Middle School were also present. IT. READING OF MI UTES: Minutes from the regular meeting of April 26, 2001 and from a special meeting held on May 10, 2001, were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page2 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDE T'S CITATIONS Prior to presenting citations, Dr. Carnine congratulated thirty-seven employees who were recognized at a reception prior to the Board meeting. These thirty-seven retiring employees represented a total of 831 years of service to the LRSD. Students from the Pulaski Heights Middle School MathCounts team were presented with citations in recognition of their first place award at the statewide Math Counts competitions. Their coach, Trela Cook, was present, as well as team members Eliza Borne, Yang Dai, Alex DePriest, and Jamie Willbanks. In addition, it was announced that Yang Dai placed first in the individual competition and will attend the national finals. Lawrence Watts, student from Dunbar Magnet Middle School, placed second overall in the individual MathCounts competition and will also attend the nationals. One student from each of the five high schools received a $200 check as an award for winning the District's annual art competition. Their work will be displayed in the administration building lobby for the next year. Students present to receive their award included: Laura Wilson, J. A. Fair High School\nJenna Dixon, Hall High School, Latarsha Burns, McClellan High School, and Ashley Tribulak, Parkview Magnet High School. Katherine Hubbard from Central High School was unable to attend the meeting but was recognized for her achievement and will receive her check by mail. Lucy Neal and Barbara Williams received citations in recognition of their recent receipt of awards from the Arkansas Association of Instructional Media. Mrs. Neal received the 2000 Outstanding Media Program Award, and Mrs. Williams received the Leadership Award. Danny Fuller, chemistry teacher and Science Department Chair at Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet School, was recognized for his receipt of the High School Chemistry Teacher of the Year Award from the Central Arkansas affiliate of the American Chemical Society. The LRSD received one of fifteen Arkansas Pathwise mentoring grants from the Arkansas Department of Education. The grant is intended to implement a pilot mentoring program to guide novice teachers in their first year in the classroom by pairing them with a mentor teacher. Marcelline Carr, Katherine Wright-Knight, and Marian Woods were recognized as certified Pathwise trainers for the LRSD. In addition, Dr. Carnine expressed appreciation to the 61 mentor teachers who participated in our District's Pathwise Program this school year. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page 3 A certificate of appreciation was presented to the ex-officio representatives to the Board, Virginia Booth, teacher from Mabelvale Middle School, and Everette Callaway, student from J. A. Fair High School. B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam introduced Phil Burch, chairman of the VIPS Board of Directors. Mr. Burch reported that the District's volunteer hours for the year totaled 309,740, representing over 1$4 billion in man-hours. Mr. Burch thanked the Board members for their support and participation in various VIPS activities. Ms. Milam then presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: Dodd Elementary School - represented by Martha Lowe, in partnership with Kidsports - represented by Denver Walker and Lou Ann Hawks Gibbs Magnet Elementary School - represented by Felicia Hobbs and Nancy Hamilton, in partnership with Kidsports - represented by Denver Walker and Lou Ann Hawks Gibbs Magnet Elementary School - represented by Felicia Hobbs and Nancy Hamilton, in partnership with Fellowship Bible Church Stephens Elementary School - represented by Margaret Williams and Becky Mehlburger in partnership with UALR Share America - represented by Heather Gage and Shara Stewart Woodruff Elementary School - represented by Janice Wilson, in partnership with University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences - represented by Amy Hester and Sheila Cook LRSD - IRC - represented by Barbara Williams, Lucy Neal, Kris Huffman and Suzi Davis, in partnership with Barnes \u0026amp; Noble Booksellers - represented by Carolyn McNutt REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page4 IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Anwar Hardin, volunteer and youth specialist with the American Red Cross, introduced First Lady Janet Huckabee, who was promoting participation in the Arkansas Rapid Response Team project. This initiative would involve representatives from each of our high schools in training sessions designed to prepare students to aid their peers in times of crisis. It is hoped that teams can be formed in each high school in the state. Board members were provided with packets of information on the Rapid Response Team project, as well as information on other summer youth educational activities available through the Red Cross. Mr. Hardin invited the Board and the public to contact him for any assistance or for additional information. V. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell recognized Dr. Ken James, the superintendent-elect, who was in attendance at the meeting. Dr. Mitchell reported that Dr. James would be reporting to work sometime during the month of June and she welcomed him to the community. Dr. Mitchell also reported that the Chamber of Commerce and the District had plans to hold a retirement reception for Dr. Carnine sometime within the next few weeks. She expressed appreciation to Dr. Carnine for his service to the District over the past four years, and thanked him for speaking at the five high school graduation ceremonies. She noted that he had also spoken at the Adult Education and HIPPY commencement ceremonies during the past few weeks. Dr. Daugherty announced that he had attended the Central High School prom last weekend. He thanked the school staff and students for inviting him to participate. In addition, he thanked the representatives of the Red Cross for attending tonight's meeting and for their offer to assist our students with crisis training strategies. He noted that his term on the Board expires in September and that he is contemplating a run for re-election. Mr. Kurrus expressed appreciation to parents, volunteers, students and teachers for a great year. He thanked Dr. Carnine for his four years of hard work and congratulated him on building a good team and for leading the team to do good things for children. Ms. Magness stated that she is excited about the District's fine arts program and is gratified to know that our students are benefiting from these arts activities. She reported that she had attended the Williams Magnet School production ofHotmds of the Baskervilles, and had attended an opera written and performed by students at Gibbs Magnet School. In addition, Ms. Magness noted that the District had received a federal magnet school grant in the amount of $7 million. Linda Austin, with the assistance of Phale Hale, was instrumental in getting this grant application completed and submitted. The funding will benefit students at McClellan and Fair High Schools and Mabelvale and Cloverdale Middle Schools. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Magpess reported that the Carnegie Education Trust representatives were very complimentary about our high school teams working together to develop our plans. She expressed appreciation to Dr. Carnine for his commitment to the District and promised him that we will continue to progress in the work that he began during his time here. Mr. Berkley thanked Dr. Carnine for his hard work, especially for his guidance in leading the successful millage campaign. Mr. Rose echoed Mr. Berkley's comments and thanked Dr. Carnine for leading the way to site-based management and the formation of campus leadership teams. VII. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Michelle Wright presented a proposal for the commission of a bronze monument honoring the Little Rock Nine, to be placed on the campus of Central High School. She provided the Board members with a summary report of her proposal and asked for their support. Elizabeth Daley, representing the Parkview Magnet School PTSA, requested consideration for changes in the course credit requirements for Parkview Arts Magnet students. ROTC students' concerns have been previously presented to the Board, but Ms. Daley indicated that all Arts students are affected by the credit requirements that limit the number of electives that a student may take. Dawn McCall, also a Parkview Magnet parent, discussed some of the specific problems her daughter had encountered with credit requirements at Parkview. Her daughter had been home-schooled prior to enrollment at Parkview and she felt that her child's educational options and opportunities for additional art and music instruction were limited by the course requirements for the honors seal on her diploma. VIII. ACTION AGENDA A. Technology Center Lucy Neal presented the administration's proposal for building a Technology Center on the campus of Metropolitan Career Education Center. The District's technology plan requires that the main telephone and computer equipment be housed together in a central location. Space must be provided for the staff needed to support the technological functions of the District to be located at this same site, along with classrooms for training. The proposal projects a cost of $3 million for the center, with approximately fifteen months for completion. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve construction of the technology center as recommended by the administration\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page 6 B. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds The Board was asked to approve a resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of bonds in the amount of $87.6 million. Action on this request required a suspension of the Board's rnles prior to consideration. Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Prior to approval of the resolution, Don Stewart and Mark McBryde, from Stephens, Inc., responded to questions from the Board. Merrill Lynch was the low bidder, with an effective rate of 5 .2764%. Dr. Stewart reported that this rate will allow us to raise significantly more money that was originally projected. Ms. Magness made a motion to authorize the issuance of bonds. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to graciously accept the donations. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Geyer Springs Elementary Riding lawnmower valued at $851.93 Geyer Springs PT A Cloverdale Elementa,y After-School Program Four boxes of range golf balls and two ball David Dukes/ Lakewood Golf School tubes valued at $160. \u0026amp; D,iving Range 15 sets of junior golf clubs with canvas Steve Ralston and Matt Watts/ Bums bags valued at $450. Park Golf Course 25 dozen golf balls valued at $75 Patrick Boyd of Golf world 25 dozen golf balls valued at $75.00 Gerald Staley/ ironwood Driving Range 20 golf clubs valued at $100.00 Don Parker / Lake View Count,y Club Cloverdale Elemental)' $25.00 gift certificate for Science Ma,y Gibson/ Baseline Wal-Mart Store Invention Convention Pulaski Heights Elemental)' Playground equipment including play Pulaski Heights Elementa1y PTA structure and bench, rubber surfacing, concrete base, plastic border edging and certified supervision. Total value $27,196.98 Little Rock School District 75 Win Pentium PC's with monitors and Social Security Adminisnation keyboards valued at approximately $22,500.00 REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page 7 D. Personnel Changes Personnel items were printed in the agenda and the administration recommended approval. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the personnel items as presented. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. E. Financials The monthly financial reports were provided for review and approval. Mr. Milhollen was present to prmride brief remarks and respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the monthly financial reports. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT A. Desegregation Update No report. B. Budget Update Dr. Stewart provided a brief summary on receipt of tax revenues as it relates to cash flow issues and the need for short-term financing for District operations. Additional information will be provided for the Board as he reviews our options over the next few weeks. It is anticipated that QZAB Funding for energy-efficiency lighting projects will generate $3.3 million over a ten-year period, resulting in an average -4% interest rate. C. Technology Update Lucy Neal provided a brief progress report on implementation of the District's Technology Plan. Approval of the funding for the Technology Center will allow the Plan to progress as anticipated, and upgrading of the Wide Area Network capabilities will be possible. Phone systems will be upgraded so that teachers will have access to a telephone with voice mail in every classroom and improved accessibility to computers and e-mail systems. This will enhance parent/teacher communications, and the WAN will provide more professional development opportunities. Cabling for the new phone system is scheduled to begin July 1. D. Construction Report on Bond Projects Mr. Goodman's report was provided as part of the printed agenda. In addition, Mr. Goodman was present to provide a briefreview and update. It is anticipated that many of the larger projects will begin as soon as school is dismissed for the year. Many of the projects will be completed over the summer months. - - REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24, 2001 Page 8 Dr. Daugherty suggested that we post the bond project listing on the District's website. Dr. Stewart indicated that this would be a simple matter of providing the information to the Communications Office. E. Internal Auditor's Report Mr. Becker's report was printed as part of the Board's agenda. He was not present. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS XII. XI. Dr. Mitchell announced that there would be a special meeting at 11 :00 on tomorrow, May 25, 2001, to receive the report from the Athletic Review Committee. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Magness made a motion for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of conducting an employee hearing at 8 :25 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. HEARING The Board conducted a closed hearing at the request of Mr. William Noid. Mr. Noid was appealing the administration's recommendation to terminate his employment as an employee of the Facilities Services Department. The termination recommendation was based upon poor attendance, the loss of District property, using a District vehicle for personal business, and failing to report an accident in a District vehicle. The Board heard from Doug Eaton and Dick Hurley and then questioned Mr. Noid on the circumstances surrounding his employment. He was originally hired in July 1997, and performance appraisals which were provided by Mr. Eaton indicated that Mr. Noid was a \"satisfactory\" employee overall, with the exception of \"unsatisfactory\" ratings in attendance. Previous disciplinary sanctions included being required to reimburse the District for \"lost\" equipment, and being suspended for four days for failing to report an automobile accident. Mr. Noid asked the Board to reconsider termination and he appealed to them to allow him to retain his employment with the LRSD. The Board recessed to deliberate on the evidence presented. They returned from review, and Mrs. Magness made a motion to uphold the administration's recommendation for termination. The motion died for lack of second. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 24,2001 Page 9 Mr. Berkley offered an alternative motion\nthat Mr. Noid be retained as a District employee as a general laborer and that that he be placed on six-month probation. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0-1, with Ms. Magness abstaining. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board returned from executive session and reported that the employee hearing had been conducted in a closed session and that the employee was granted his request to be allowed to continue working for the LRSD Facilities Services Department. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kurrus moved to adjourn at 9: 17 p.m. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED:  -0 . J-9 -0 I y{~Yb~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 25, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 11 :00 a.m. on Friday, May 25, 2001, in the boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Kathe1ine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 11 :00 a.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nMs. Strickland was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing a report from the Athletic Task Force. Members of the committee were present and included: Junious Babbs, Skip Rutherford, Rett Tucker, Rudolph Howard, Sandy Becker, and Marian Lacey. III. PRESENTATION Dr. Mitchell introduced Dr. Carnine and asked that he provide a brief preface to the presentation from the Athletic Task Force. He expressed appreciation to the media representatives for their attendance at the meeting. He also noted appreciation to Junious Babbs and to each of the committee members for giving up their time for this worthwhile investigative review. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 25, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Babbs presented the Task Force's report and indicated that it was limited to finding of fact, an overview of all documents, and results of interviews with witnesses. It is hoped that the findings will result in improved performance by administrators of the LRSD athletic programs. Mr. Babbs introduced Skip Rutherford to present findings. Mr. Rutherford reported that the committee had found that one student athlete was not eligible to play as of January 12, 2001, and that there had been a breakdown in the SIP process for remediation of academics. There were students who had exceeded the number of excused absences, and one student had received grade changes which allowed him to become eligible to play during the second semester. Mr. Rutherford noted that the committee was \"troubled\" by these grade changes, but there was \"no evidence to suggest that athletes were the primary beneficiaries of grade changes.\" Mr. Howard spoke briefly and indicated that the Task Force report would serve to compel us to \"review what we do,\" to take the committee's findings and improve ourselves. He apologized to the community and offered to return the basketball team's winning trophy to the AAA office. Dr. Mitchell thanked the committee for their work and indicated that the Board would review the report to make sure that we comply with all AAA and LRSD rules. She opened the floor for media questions. John Walker requested a moment to speak to the Board and to address the committee and media representatives. It was his opinion that Mr. Howard should not return the trophy. He continued by saying that teachers were allowed to change grades for many reasons and that recruitment for academic purposes was not forbidden. IV. ACTION Mr. Kurrus made a motion that the Board accept the Task Force Report and Finding of Facts with gratitude to the committee. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. After a brief discussion, Mr. Kurrus offered a second motion for the Board's consideration: the motion would preclude any further action until the Board has the opportunity to fully review the report. This would allow administrators to deliver a copy of the report to the AAA office, but would prevent the return of the trophy or any other action until the Board has a chance to decide further steps to be taken. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. The Board members agreed to reconvene on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 to make a recommendation for further action. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May25,2001 Page 3 V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11 :50 a.m. on a motion by Mr. Kurrus, seconded by Ms. Magness. APPROVED: (o.J.80 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 29, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 29, 2001, in the boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Katherine Mitchell called the special meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Six members of the Board were present\nMs. Strickland was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING III. The meeting was called for the purpose of presenting the Board's comments and reactions to the Athletic Task Force Report, which was received on Friday, May 25, 2001. Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order and opened the floor for discussion and comments by Board members. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 29, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Kurrus discussed the issues relating to the violations in the SIP Program, and stated that the blame needs to be directed where it belongs - - to the administrators who are responsible for following the rules and regulations and making sure that these types of things don't happen. Mr. Berkley stated that, as a result of all the allegations, the school climate was hurtful to the students. His fear was that we are \"giving kids the impression that poor academic performance is tolerated in the super athletes.\" He wants the Board and administration to take measures to improve and correct this message. Ms. Magness expressed regret that the adults who were responsible allowed the breakdowns to occur. She wants us to make sure all our students have an opportunity to become fine scholars as well as great athletes. Dr. Mitchell thanked the committee for doing a \"remarkable job\" in a short period of time. She asked that we work to establish long-range and permanent solutions so that there is no chance we will ever play an ineligible student athlete. She announced that the position of Athletic Director had been posted as a vacancy, and that the Board was hopeful that a new person could be on board by July 1. She stated that the new Athletic Director would work with the superintendent and the Board to establish new policies and procedures to ensure accountability. Dr. Carnine commented on Mr. Howard's offer to return the trophy to AAA, and agreed that this action would be appropriate. He agreed that the SIP program procedures needed to be monitored more closely, but also noted that in the long run, we will have fewer students who require the SIP program because of the other programs that are in place to insure academic achievement. Students know that the rules are there for the benefit of \"fair play\" and they will follow the rules established. Mr. Babbs stated that the appropriate and required action was that we \"self-report,\" and that this had been done by delivery of the Task Force report to the AAA office. He noted that it was now up to AAA to review our findings and investigate to determine the appropriate sanction. IV. ACTION Mr. Kurrus offered a motion for the Board's consideration\nthat we immediately self-report to AAA and to the Arkansas Department of Education and that we will cooperate in all investigations and abide by their rulings. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Magness asked that the record reflect that the Task Force report had been delivered to the AAA on Friday, May 25, 2001. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 29, 2001 Page 3 V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Dr. Daugherty. APPROVED: l, ~? -0( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 14, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meet\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":43,"next_page":44,"prev_page":42,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":504,"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}}]}}