{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1735","title":"Court filings concerning the Pulaski Educational Cooperative, June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools, and ADE motion concerning 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-07"],"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--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","Magnet schools","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning the Pulaski Educational Cooperative, June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools, and ADE motion concerning 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/1735"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Court's June 18, 1999, order and to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) motion concerning monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of appeal; District Court, three orders; District Court, reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative and supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion; District Court, order; 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.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COURT'S JUNE 18, 1999 ORDER AND TO PCSSD'S \"MOTION RE THE PULASKI EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE The Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") hereby moves the Court for a - brief extension of time, to and including Friday, July 9, 1999, in which to respond to (a) the Court's June 18, 1999 order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's \"Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On June 18, 1999, this Court entered an order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999- 2000 school year. The court's order allowed the parties to and including July 6, 1999, to file any objections to the MRC's proposal. 2. On June 23, 1999, PCSSD served by mail a document entitled \"Combined Motion and Memorandum re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" ADE's response to - this motion is due on or before July 7, 1999. 3. Undersigned counsel for ADE has been out of town on vacation from June 23, 1999, through July 5, 1999. ADE will therefore require a short extension of time, to and including Friday, July 9, 1999, within which to file its response to this Court's June 18, 1999 order and to PCSSD's motion concerning \"the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order extending ADE's time, to and including July 9, 1999, to respond to (a) the Court's June 18, 1999 order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's \"Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Atto e G neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 6, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage 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 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 7220i 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JIJl 1 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESE-aRfGATION MONITCREiG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JUNE 18, 1999 ORDER CONCERNING PROPOSED GIANGE IN GRADE STRUCTIJRE AND NUMBER OF SEATS AT THE MAGNET SCHOOLS The Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") submits this response to the - Court'c _. ... ne 18, 1999 order. In that order the Court notes that the Magnet Review Committee, by letter dated May 7, 1999, seeks the Court's approval \"of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year.\" The MRC' s May 7 letter to the Court assumes that the proposed changes in grade structure and number of seats will result in a significant increase in the State's share of funding for the magnet schools. Among other things, the MRC' s letter indicates that \"the costs associated with changes in seating will create an initial increase of $129 per student above the current funding level,\" and estimates that the State's share of funding for the magnet schools for 1999-2000 will increase by at least $567,270 over the State's current level of funding.1 ADE does not object to the proposed changes in grade structure for the magnet schools, nor does ADE object to an increase in the number of seats in the magnet schools for 1999-2000. ADE does object to the MRC' s proposal, however, to the extent it implies that the increases in enrollment will result in an increase in the State's funding level for the magnet schools. While the Settlement Agreement does not place any limits on the number of students who might attend the magnets, the Settlement Agreement does set specific limits on the State's funding obligations for the magnet schools. Paragraph II.D. of the \u0026tttlement Agreement provides that \"The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II. E. below.\" Paragraph ILE of the Agreement states, in pertinent part, that the State \"will continue to pay ... [t]he State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools .... \" Paragraph II.D. of the Settlement Agreement further provides: 1 It is not clear precisely how large this increase in funding will be. The State's funding level for 1998-99 as used in the MRC's projection does not take into account the 7.25% increase in salaries given to LRSD teachers in March, 1999, and the State's \"proposed funding'' level for 1999-2000 used in the MRC's projection does not take into account \"possible changes in salaries and basic operating costs for the 1999-2000 school year.\" It is clear from the MRC's May 7 letter, though, that the MRC assumes that some increase in the State's funding obligation can be expected due solely to the grade level\" restructuring and the increase in the number of seats. 2 Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. These seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 Williams 515 Gibbs 351 Booker 660 Mann 935 Parkview 991 The Settlement Agreement thus makes it clear that, no matter how many students actually attend the magnet schools, the State's' funding obligations for the magnet schools are limited to its share of, for example, the costs associated with a maximum of 991 students at Parkview, 935 students at Mann, and so on. To the extent the MRC's May 7 letter implies that the State's share of magnet school funding will be increased due to the addition of 209 seats at Parkview, such an additional burden on the State would be in direct contravention of the Settlement Agreement. The costs associated with magnet student enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be borne either by the  LRSD, whose decision to restructure its schools necessitated the restructuring of the magnets and the concomitant changes in seating capacity, or by the Districts collectively. 3 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ~/4 /4~~-:: :r== TIMO (G. GApGER #95019 . Assistant Atto~ General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 9, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 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 ~ fi~~1fu~ ?1- -  ,., . ,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 1 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO \"MOTION RE THE PULASKI EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE\" In this motion the PCSSD seeks an order requiring the State to distribute funds to an as-yet-to-be-formed education service coorr:!'c1tive1 (\"co-op\") that would serve only the three Districts. The motion is premised or .. PCSSD's belief that an appropriation contained in Act 1392 of 1999 entitles them to funds for such a co-op, and that conditional language restricting the disbursement contained in the appropriation is \"at variance with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement\" PCSSD's motion must be denied. This Court lacks jurisdiction to give PCSSD the relief it requests. Because the State has been dismissed from this action, this Court's jurisdiction over the State is 1 Education service cooperatives are \"intermediate service units in the state's elementary and secondary education system\" that are eligible to receive and spend state and federal funds. They exist to provide to school districts that choose to use them assistance in meeting accreditation standards, using educational resources more efficiently through cooperation among school districts,_ and promoting coordination between school districts and the ADE in the provision of certain services. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1002 limited to enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement (see Kokkanen u. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), and PCSSD does not allege that the State has breached the settlement agreement The Settlement Agreement does not compel or require the State to fund a co-op for the Districts. Indeed, quite the opposite is true - the Settlement Agreement acknowledges that state funding for a Pulaski County co-op had ceased, and that the co-operative had been dissolved, before the Agreement was signed. Settlement Agreement, section Ill E. (\"State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service [Cooperative] has ceased and the funds were reallocated to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court\"). PCSSD' s motion is in reality a somewhat convoluted request that the Court direct ADE to do what PCSSD 1'e1i~ves is required under State law. This Court must deny PCSSD's motion because PCSSD's attempt to enforce State law is not within the Court's Kokkonen-type jurisdiction over the State, and there is no other independent basis upon which this Court can base subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim. Such a state-law claim against the State is also barred by the Eleventh Amendment See, e.g., Pennhurst State School \u0026 Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 LEd.2d 67 (1984) (federal-court claims against state officials based upon alleged violations of state law are barred by Eleventh Amendment); Angela R. u. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320, 325 (8th Or. 1993) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from granting relief against state officials for violations of state law). Finally, even if this Court could exercise jurisdiction over PCSSD's claim, the motion must be denied because the Districts are not entitled to form a co-op and receive funds for such a co-op under either the Settlement Agreement or State law. Appropriations merely authorize the release of funds from the treasury, subject to other applicable laws including the Revenue Stabilization Act and other substantive law. Further, appropriations, by themselves, do not require that funds actually be disbursed. In this instance, the provisions of Act 1392 and the provisions of other substantive state law prohibit the release of funds for a Pulaski County co-op. Act 1392 prohibits the release of funds for a Pulaski County co-op because as of this date, no order has been entered by this Court relieving the State of its obligation to provide funds for the operation of the ODM. See Act 1392 of 1999,  17.2 In addition, the General Assembly has not amended or repealed other provisions of State law that prohibit the formation of a new, sixteenth CO-l.'P that would serve only the three Districts. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1002 (authorizing State Board of Education to establish \"no more than fifteen\" cooperatives); Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1003(b)(l) and (b)(2) (cooperatives must include at least three counties and include at least ten school districts).3 2 PCSSD attempts to sidestep this restriction by arguing that the language conditioning the release of the funds  is \"at variance with the requirements of the Settlement . Agreement and must therefore fail and be severed from the Act\"  The problem with PCSSD' s theory is that the conditional language is consistent With the Settlement . Agreement As noted earlier, the Settlement Agreement does not require that the State fund a Pulaski County co-op, and the special language in the Act recognizes that the State's obligation to fund ODM can only be modifi~ by an order from this Court  3 Thus, even if PCSSD were correct that the contingency language in Section 17 of Act . 1392 is both inconsistent with the Settlement and can be severed from the Act the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1002 and 1003 would nonetheless prohibit the  formation of a new \"16th co-op\" that would serve only the three Districts. For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that PCSSD's motion be denied, and that the ADE be awarded its costs and attorneys' fee incurred in responding to this motion. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General TIMOT q_ GAUGER #95019 Assistant Attorney G~neral --- 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 9, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated:  M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 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 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1,3 1999 ~~~E~~- ~~~K,p C~AK OEPC~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER Without objection, the motion of the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for an Order relieving it of its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report is hereby granted. In addition, the Court grants nunc pro tune AD E's motion for an extension of time until and including July 9, 1999, in which to respond to (a) this Court's June 18, 1999 Order - concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's \"Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" .-f1\\_ IT IS SO ORDERED this _j.d::_ day of 4--= 1999. 9;1'rruo~j- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1s DOCUMENT ENTER C(.,MPUIJil WITH RULEED ON DOCKET SHEET fN ':)N L 3/ q Cl 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP   / BY m::: __j 2 u.s~(L, ,,,.f;,p C:ASTCR. ':,.;.;,': . .:_ v,111r,r .N DI~,, ,,1.,' ,, /~/1,l\"S \"S ' ,~, I-\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL l 1 1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 1999 WESTERN DIVISION ~;~MES \\V McCORM,iCK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ,II 11 1 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITOR~~FENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RELIEVE ADE MOTION CONCERNING MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors respond to the ADE motion concerning monitoring, served on June 28, 1999, as follows. The ADE motion was filed belatedly, rendering the request fait accompli. The - Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that ADE be ordered to file not later than Wednesday, August 4, 1999, their proposed new monitoring and reporting plan. Intervenors further respectfully request that the Court give priority to the development and approval of a new monitoring plan and require that the first report pursuant to that plan be filed not later than November 3, 1999. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 -1- Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this 14th day of July, 1999. Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arknasas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank. Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -2- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUI 1 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSA\u003c:; JUL 141999 JAMfil W, MaQQAMAGK, \"!:.EA ijy'-----~-- DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from the order of the district court filed on June 16, 1999 which denied LRSD's request for certain damages related to teacher retirement and health insurance payments from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This notice is filed based upon the understanding that the Arkansas Department of Education intends to appeal this court's decision awarding prejudgment interest to the districts on their claims concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. If ADE does not pursue such an appeal, this notice of appeal may be withdrawn. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller J. Clay Fendley CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the W following on this 14th day of July, 1999 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( 1903 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A , SCOTT , JR . JOHN G . LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS I LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KI MBERLY WOOD TU CKER RAY F COX . JR . GOROON 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 KATH LYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULOROW 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 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY 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: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 7220 1-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer 's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mj ones@wlj .com July 15, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A. PR ICE PATRICIA A. SI EVERS JAMES M. MOODY . J R. KATHRYN A PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CL AIRE SHOWS HANCOCK K EVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KY LE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNE Y MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McK ENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORG E J ANDREW VI NES 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. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUI 1 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enciosed is a copy of Notice of Appeal which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 115616-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 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 IRi,,.-  ---- \\fEO DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. t' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 11\\ J' ,.:'.gg KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. \\ l\u0026\u0026REGI '\\TORlNG NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from the order of the district court filed on June 16, 1999, which denied PCSSD's request for certain damages related to teacher retirement and health insu-rJ~J ~'::ll ~,( ~..l , _',; ; -~ i ' .,.  l s U:i~1-~ ~- ' .... .., payments from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). 11 5268-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 'Nest Capitol Avenua, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~ M. amue Jones Ill (7~060) orneys or Pulaskl..eounty Special cha istrict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 1..5, 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 2 - RECEIVEt' JUL .2 o 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * Intervenors, * * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * Intervenors, * ORDER JUL 181999 Before the Court is a motion by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for approval of a new school site (doc.#3266]. In its motion, which was filed June 9, 1999, PCSSD states that it'proposes to close both Bates and Fuller Elementaries and combine that student enrollment at a new site located at the northwest comer of 14S1h Street and Highway - 67/167 proximate to the Siemen's facility with no change of geo codes. The time for filing a response to this motion bas passed without a responsive pleading from any of the parties. Having considered the matter, and without objection from any of the parties, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion to approve the new school site described herein should be and hereby is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED this ii:_ ~ay of fl-4- 1999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL t 9 1999 JAMES f\" ~RMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER By: \\. i~U I) '\u003c'1'. -~ OEP CLERK No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED JUL 2 o 1999 OFFICE OF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") filed a petition requesting that the Court grant PCSSD unitary status and release it from further court supervision [docket no. 3253]. The Joshua intervenors responded [docket no. 3253], and PCSSD replied to the response [docket no. 3260]. After careful consideration, the Court denies the petition and for reasons that follow will not, at this time, issue detailed findings regarding its decision. I. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its first petition for unitary status, requesting release from federal court supervision over its desegregation efforts. 1 After receiving notice that the parties contemplated settlement discussions, the Court denied PCSSD's petition, without prejudice, noting the District's freedom to refile the petition if settlement efforts failed .2 1 Docket no. 3057. 2 Docket no. 3211. Presently hefore the Court is PCSSD's second petition requesting a declaration of unitary status. Additionally, PCSSD filed a document entitled \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments,\" which sets forth actions PCSSD pledges to carry out in the event the Court grants the District unitary status. The commitments call for a dispute resolution process, whereby the Joshua intervenors could, as a last resort, seek the Court's assistance in resolving compliance issues.3 Thus PCSSD envisions that once it attains unitary status, the Court could retain jurisdiction over this matter. PCS SD explains it provided for the Court's continued jurisdiction \"as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision .... \"4 However, the Court finds the provision for continued jurisdiction inapposite to whether PCSSD has achieved unitary status. This Court's jurisdiction depends on the existence of a constitutional violation. Once the PCSSD achieves unitary status and thus complies with the command of the Constitution, this Court's jurisdiction ends. See Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd of Educ. 91 S. Ct. 1267, 1276, 1284 (1971). The Joshua intervenors assert that PCSSD has not achieved unitary status and cite their prior submissions addressing PCSSD's 1997 petition to support their position.5 However, the intervenors believe the proposed commitments represent a \"renewed and more targeted\" plan that 3 Docket no. 3235, Attachment A, Pages 8-9. 4 Docket no. 3260, Page 3. 5 Docket no. 3079 (Opposition Response by Joshua to PCSSD's Motion for Release); Docket no. 3196 (Joshua's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning PCSSD's Motion for Release). 2 could serve as a new or-amended desegregation plan. With the sole exception of a provision concerning the duration of the cornmitments,6 the intervenors embrace PCSSD's proposed plan. In the past, the Court has encouraged the parties to amend their plan, if it would further their goals, and agrees that the proposed commitments would provide the basis for an acceptable amended plan and might even be suitable as a plan itself. II. The Court finds that PCSSD has not achieved unitary status and must deny the District 's petition. In light of the Joshua intervenors' recommendation that PCSSD's post-unitary commitments function as a basis for a revised desegregation plan, and the Court's desire to facilitate agreement among the parties, the Court will not, at this time, issue specific findings regarding its decision to deny the District's petition. If the parties can agree, such an agreement is preferable to court directives. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (8th Cir. 1990). As the parties are in agreement on all items except duration, it would be wasteful of their resources and effort to litigate the many issues concerning unitary status. In any event, duration will be determined, for the most part, by whether the District has achieved its desegregation goals. m. THEREFORE, PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision is hereby denied [docket no. 3253]. FURTHER, the parties have 120 days from entry of this Order to submit an amended desegregation plan for the Court's approval. 6 If the parties desire, the Court is willing to conduct a hearing concerning the duration of an amended plan. 3 FURTHER, in the event the parties do not reach an agreement, the Court will issue detailed findings regarding its denial of PCSSD's petition for unitary status. FINALLY, the time to appeal this Order will run from the date such detailed findings are filed. !TIS SO ORDERED 11-!IS / 'f ./i_DAY OF \u003c;)-, t2\" , 1999 ~)t;c UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN XiMPLJANCE Wirf ~LE 58 AND/n::1:1) FRCP , 1N '7//CJ  BY - I 4  IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 1999 JAMES w. M~cc MACK, CLERK By: \\/_ - u ,'\\f\\\\ll,\"- 1 DP ClERll vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. I, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, ORDER -JUL 21 1999 om:Ecr DESBHC-\\1 ~ ;roNITORI IJG Before the Court are a number of motions from the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") relating to attorney's fees and costs [see doc. #'s 3199, 3200, 3201 , and 3218]. The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), in tum, has before the Court a motion to defer consideration of LRSD's, PCSSD's, and NLRSD's respective motions for attorney's fees and - costs [doc.#3209]. The Court notes-that several of these motions are moot and the Court has been informed that other of these motions will be amended to address circumstances that have arisen since the initial motions were filed. That being the case, and so that the record will "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1412","title":"\"1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["1999-06-23"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1412"],"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":["41 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1016","title":"\"Compliance for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Programs, Policies and Procedures,\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-06-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["\"Compliance for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Programs, Policies and Procedures,\""],"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/1016"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1447","title":"Report: ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["1999-06-03"],"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--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School administrators","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1447"],"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":["23 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1721","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve new school site; District Court, three orders; District Court, combined motion and memorandum re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","School facilities","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve new school site; District Court, three orders; District Court, combined motion and memorandum re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1721"],"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":["90 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.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( U03- IQ77) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1 913  1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS l.LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX . JR. 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 111 JOHN WILL IAM SPIVEY Il l 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 D. ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY 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: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 7220 1-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WEBSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wri ter ' s Direct Dial No . 501-212 - 1273 mj onesQwlj .com June 9, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M PERK INS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M . SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTER SON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 0 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING. Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve new school site which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 108830-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP M. Samuel Jones, Ill 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. RECEIVED: JUN 1 0 1999' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN\u0026. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO APPROVE NEW SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. In its post-unitary commitments recently filed with this Court for approval, the PCSSD pledged to construct a new elementary school in the southeast sector. 2. Pursuant to the Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, the PCSSD established a biracial building committee including representatives from the Office of Desegregation, all as specified at page 81 of the Plan. 3. The committee spent several weeks evaluating possible sites before recommending a site located at the northwest corner of 145th Street and Highway 67/167 proximate to the Siemen's facility. 4. Counsel for the PCSSD is informed that the ODM has been appropriately involved in the site selection process. 5. This process began some time ago with the view toward closing Bates  Elementary and simply shifting that student population to the new facility. As matters have evolved, the PCSSD now proposes to close both Bates and Fuller Elementaries 108803-v1 and combine that student enrollment at the new site with no change of geo codes. The PCSSD believes that by simply moving these enrollments to a new facility, that its proposal is race neutral and will have no negative impact upon its current desegregation efforts. However, at the same time, approval of this site will enable these present student bodies to enjoy the conveniences and benefits of a new school facility. 6. Attached as Exhibit A are the original offer and acceptance, including special conditions and the outstanding counter offer. Speciai Condition 2 d. provides that approval of this Court is necessary to finalize this transaction. 7. We further wish to advise the Court that there are current active discussions at the district level which, if finalized, would cause the configuration of the building to be constructed on this site to be that for kindergarten through 5th grade. To - accomplish this, Fuller Junior School would be reconfigured for 6th through 8th grades and Mills High School would be converted to grades 9 through 12. The district has, of course, made no final decisions regarding this, but the district felt the Court should be aware of these discussions and deliberations. If and when a decision to change the configuration is made, an appropriate filing with this Court will also be made. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the school site described herein be approved and that, upon completion of the new facility, that the present Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools be approved for closing. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By _ ~-1------+-=------- ) Special 2 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9 , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 3 THE HATHAWAY GROUP I 00 MORGAN KEEGAN DRIVE, SUITE 120 LITTLE kOCK, ARKANSAS 72202 HA I OHT' 1.. I N O SEV - (591) 663-5400 OFFER \u0026 ACCEPTANCE  4 -l 1. BUYER \u0026 SELLER: Pulaski County Special School District, hereinafter referred to as \"Buyer,\" offers to buy, subject to the terms set forth ben,in. the below described property from The Dorothy Eosminier Trust. hereinafter rcfem:d to as '\"'Seller.\" 2. PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: Approximately 22.569 acres, being part of Tracts 27 and 28, Holman Acres, Pulaski County, Arkansa., mon, particularly described on Bxh.lblt B attached .. 3. PURCHASE PRICE: The Buyer will pay $135,400.00 for the property, payable all in cash at closing. 4. SPECIAL CONDffiONS: Buyer's Offer is conditioned upon satisfaction of the Special Conditions anached hereto on Exhibit A. 5. EARNEST MONEY: Buyer herewith tenders a check for $3,000.00 to be ~ upab accct,1'81-:c as earnest mooey which shall llJll)iy to purcbuc price or closina COit.i. \u0026mcst IDDDDY lball be mid In C9CroW by The Hathaway Group. If tide requin:IDCDU arc not fulfilled, or if thoao Special COllditiool providing for ID earnest moocy refuod UC not aatisficd. 1be earnest mooey deposit shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer fails to fulfill his obliptirm or if, after all cooditioi1' have been met, Buyer fails to cloae dlil tramacuoo. the earnest moocy may, at the 901c and cx.clmiYc optim of the Seller, be rctaiucd by the Seller as liquidau,d damages. Alrmnadvely, Seller may recum the eamesr money md uaert all lcpl or cquitlblc rigbta which may exist as a result of Buyer's breach of cootraa. 6 . CONVEYANCE: Convcyaoce shall be made to Buyer, or u mrc::am by Bu:yac, by general wammry deed, excepc It shall be subject to recorded restrictions aod easements, if my, which do D0t ma\u0026erlally affi:cl die property. 7. TJTI..8 INSURANCE: Within twenty-one (21) days of aix:cp(aDce, Seller shall fumiah to Buyer a cnmmirmcnt for an American Land TJtle .As3ociation (ALTA) owner's title insuraDcc policy in tbc amouot of tbc pun:base price issued by a compauy alllhom.ed to insure title to real property in the State of Arbnsas and which company is reuombly accepcable to Buya-. Where Um title commitment shows special excepdoos to title olber Ihm tbole ltandud exccptiom cootaincd in the ALT A commitmcat form. and where such special exa:prlom relare to rcstricdom, 011iMm. det=I or odJcr matters which would interfere with Buyer's use or adversely affi:ct the value of tbc premises, then wilmD fourteeu (14) days of delivery of the title C0111roitmmt, Buyer shall deliver written ootice thei'cof to Seller. Such nock:e \u0026hall awe speciftcally tboee eltCCJl(iom to which Buyer objects. All objecdoos not specifically enumerated within such a timely dclivcnxl DOticc shall be deemed to be waived by Buyer. Within fourteen (14) days of Buyer's delivery of noace of objecdom to Seller, Sell may cun, such objccdoos or baYC the exceptiom waived or removed by the title company issuing the oomrnilJJJtJUf U, witbin sucb fourt.ccn (14) day period, Seller fails to cure and/or have waived such objection., and excepdoas, or within that period, ScDer dclm:ni writlcu notice to Buyer that it will not so cmc, then. within three (3) days from delivery of Slr.b nodce from Seller or the eoci of tbc period within which Seller may CUJ'C (whichever ii applicable), Buyer shall have the option to: a. Tennioale this agreemem by ddlveriDg written nodcc thereof to ScUer, in which evcot all sums paid or dcpo5itcd by Buyer shall be returm:d to Buyer; or b. Purchase the premises subject to such objectioos and~ with no rccluctioo in the purchase price; or c. A\u0026rCC to extend tbc closin\u0026 date for thirty (30) days, to give Seller addiJiooal time ID cure such objectiolls. Ir Buyer falls to deUVer notice of termiDation or grant an extemioo of tbe closing date within that period. the objcctioos shall be deemed to be waived and this condition shall be sarlsfiod. Seller lball furnish tbe commincd owner's title iDsuraDce policy as IOOll u pnctlcablc after c:loliug, and shall pay all expcmcs related to the OWDer's title insurance policy. EXHIBIT I /J WR IGHT L. tNOS E .,  IJ. .PRORA TIONS: Taxca and special assesnnems due 011 or before cl01tn, shall be paid by Seller. ADY dcpoaita oo raJU1 property \u0026re ~ be transfcncd to Buyer at closing. Imunmce, cunm geueral wes and special VSCSSJDl'UI, r'Clllal ~ utilities, and any interest on assumed loam shall be prorated at closing unless odlerwise specified herein. CLOSING: Closina shall occur at such time as mutually agreed by the partiel, provided that the dale shall be no later lban August 31. 1999, unless such rcquircmcut is waived in writiDg by both parties and a new date substituted tbcretor. Unless oberwiae agreed by Buyer and Seller, tramacdo.n costs will be paid by the party indicated below: Scllcr:  Title examination or search fees, Premium for owner's title insurance policy, IRS notification form, Preparation of conveyance documents, One-half of escrow fees., Onebalf of doaimeowy stamps, Other charges as customarily paid by Seller. Buyer. Premium for mortgagee's title in:s1U1111cc policy,  Recording fees, Preparation of loan dOCIIIllents, One-half of oscrow foec, One-half of documentary stamps. Other charges customarily paJd by Buyer. 10. POSSESSION: Poi.seaion shall be delivered to Buyer upon the closing dale. 11. A TI ACHED FIX1URES AND EQUIPMENT: Unless specifically excluded herein, all attached fixtures 111d equipment, if any, are included in the purchase price. 12. INSPEC110NS AND REPAIRS: Buyer certifies that Buyer has inspected or will inspect tho property and is not relying upon any wammtic,. repn:scntatioru or statcmeotll of any a\u0026cnt or Seller as to age or condition of improvements, other than those specified herein. 13. RISK OF LOSS: lf prior to closiog of this ttaosaetloo the lmprovemmm on the property shall be destroyed or m.at.crially damaged by nre or other casualty. tills comract sball, at tbc opt1oD or lbe Buyer, be null and void. If Buyer shall elect, in the cvem of such lou, Chat the comnict lbalJ be performed, he shall be cotitlcd to the proceeds of iu\u0026urani:e applicable to the loss for use in repel.rfng said loss. 14. MISCELLANEOUS: - L This Offer and Ac:ccptaDcc shall be goYClllCd by the 1awa of the Stale of Arlcamas. b. lb.is Offer and Accepcmce, iDcludillg all cxhibkl, contains the compl= agreement bctMcn tho parties and cannot be vuicd ex.c:cpt by writa qr-ccmcut by the panics. The partica a,rco lba1 there are no oral agreemcnta, unde~. representations or warranties which are oot expressly set funh herein. c. Any portion of this Offer and Au eptauce JJDt odJerwise \u003cxDRJrnrnated 'It closing wUl surviYe the closing of this n-anslld:loa aa i:i coodnning agm:mem by aod between lbe parties. d. This Ofm' ilOd Accepc.uu, \u0026ball inure to the benefit of md bind the panie., hereto and their rC3Jiective heirs, rcprcscntativcs, suca:ssms, and assigns. c. Tune is of the caax:e witb respect 10 this Offer and Acccptancc. 15. ACCEPTANCE: The tam-~ .. a UICd hcl'cio shall rm thc larer of thc two dates oo which this Offer and Acceptance Is sipcd by Seller Ol' Buyer, u iDdicared by dlelr sipalUrCI below, whicb later date shall be the date of final execution and agreemem by die putiel hereto. If my dat.e or deadline provided for herein ran. on Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday. the applicable dale shall be the next bmioca day. 16. AGENCY: By virtue of The Hathaway Group's Exclusive Listing Agreement with Seller covering this Property, and The Hathaway Group's Exclusive Agency agreement wi1b Buyer, dated March 15, 1999, Seller and Buyer heRby aclmowlcdgc and agree lbal the Usdog/Sellillg Agem Firm and all licellled pe1101111el ISIOcialed with the Listing/Selling Agcat Firm are representing both Buyer and Scllei- in the purchase md sale of Ille abo't'e relereoccd Property and 1ba1 Listing/Selling Agem F'll1D bas been and is now the agent of bath Scllec and Buyer with ~ 10 this cramactioa, Seller and Buyer have both consented to, and hereby confirm their oonsent to 1FDCY repn:se:otatiao ofbacb parties. Further, Seller alJd Buyer: 2 WR I GHT 1,..I N OSE ., a. agree dial tbe J..istiu\u0026ISelliD\u0026 Agent F'um shall DDl dia::1olo to either Buyer or Se1lc:r aay penoaal, fimucia.l or OCher con.f1dcm1a1 information cooccmmg the olber puty witboul the cxprea wriUm comm or that party. This rcstrictioo doea DOt include ':nformation actually known by Li.sting/Selling A.gm. Firm which IWSt, at Ustiug/Sellioa A\u0026CDt Pirm'a dJscrction. be disclosed. b. aclalowledge ncdfiadoo lbat when Ustina/Sellinl Aacnt rum ,epreaem bodi partica, a coaflic:t of imercst CAD arise, and Seller and Buyer further agree to forfeit their individual right to receive the uodividcd loyalty of Llsting/Sclling Agent Firm. It is understood, however, that Luling/Selling Agent F\"srm is obligated to treat each party fairly and equitably. c. waive any claim now or hereafter arising out of aay c:onffictl of interest from Listing/Selling A\u0026cnt -P-liln rcp~nting bodl parties. Buyer and Seller acknowledge tbe Listiag/Selliag Agent F1rm di9cmed that the L\u0026ting/Sdliaa Agaat F1rm rcpr'CXlltl both partic., ill this tnmactioa, and Daya- md Sellrr ban ghm tbefr couseld to th1I representation before entering into this Offer 1111d Ac:ceptaDce. d. agree that Llsdng/Selliog Ageot P-um'a fee shall be paid by Sell only. 17. EXPIRATION OF OFFER: This offer shall expire unlcsa accepted in writing bySclltrbcfore S:00 p.m. oo June 8, 1999. SELLING AGENT FIRM: The Hathaway Group Jeffrey~(, ~-- s~---1 Urtr:Jr-.....-\"'~'~prtd _________ 1999 at __ AM/PM. w~ ag,w to pay 1M llaw nanwd agar/ a Ju for profusiotlal urvku r in Sffllnllg said o/fer, as ~ in a HJ)Q1'QU listing agnanDII. If for (1lfJ reason w eamt!SI money Af'_TC1VU'kd for lwmn is forfeit, u under the provisions herro/. same shall be divided apllJlly bt:twlln Sd/Lr and Listing .Agmt -Firm after payTMnl of inaured apauu. LISTING AGENT FIRM: . The Hathaway Group ingerTrust J.E. Hathaway, Jr. - Agent Date Supervising Broker Date 3 e - 9--39 : t: -l 9PM ;0 1 S;\"Q 1cr .:::,F = C E wA  C t--1 r L.. , ,._,CSE .,, EXHIBIT B ..: .ar- . , --- S ...... '- -,,---.. 11ft ,.. ---- I ._(.t z.. ' taOf'Ellff Daelll\"r~ Pn et Tr.eta a, 1'4 21 Mel ... Aar ... hllll eouncy. u~. -r partlcularlr deac\u0026\"lbe4  co-Mlft9 ac ~ i11Mtnecr4;1011 ot ne ~ rl.,,ac-ot-var u,.. et \u0026aac Uldl '\"-tend ta. W.at ri11u:-.t-var Une et Dln.11 Del ~-.. ~ l~  , ..... , dqac-af-vr , ... llocUI oo n 40 bsc ,,,.1., teec u u.. 101n or 10::tnucc, tJ\\eaae Nertll  11  .- w.et JCM.51 feecr CMACe SouU oo oc \u003eo vcc 1s,.co , .. c to  poi\"c \" ~ Eaatedy ri48'tot- y u .. or U.S. Ni,aw.y W.. H-161r U..nca alon9 tUld .-1.8'C-e(-V.f UM ua oUovl-, IOUI' ... , bearlnq and dlt.a- 1).IIOru. a,,., \u003eo W..t i10.2t r-.t, JI 110n.a  \u003e s7 w.ac 6a\u0026.oJ t .. c, )) .-oru. s, \u003e 41 w.ac 110.,~ r .. c, c) !llonll 02 \u003eo ,.,. Vet a\u003ec.os fti ~ace SCNta n H' M caac UtJ.n , .. c ~  polnt oa ~ v.ac rlc,Ac_f_J' u .. of Di,.._ DdI '-\"\"el..-. .. ,. l'l.hC ot--r souc.11  11 co w.ac n1.,1 , .. ,, CAanC:41 co.clMalftt 1---. lei rl9~c-ot-r 0A a~ COCM ci.hc 11\u0026vl1119  ra4l- et 71S.6\u0026 , .. c. ell aro dlat.AIIOe of ltt.15 f~ Uld  c::IIOnl vt1icll ~r Souu. oa 11 5\u0026 v.ac 1,,.20 feec, Uaw: con~llllll\"'f IOAtf  ,. rl'fl\\C-O(-vay Souc- 1, 20 .,. Vc 20.ao fec, ua.nco CCM1Cl11111-, al ... a.\u0026 rl~hc-ef-.r on cwrv to t.h4 letc a.v11WJ  rulua of ,1s.1, fNc. \u0026A arc dlaUftCa ot 200.05 f-~ AM CMC'1I lltlicll be~ SovQ Ot l' 21 Vt lt , .. c, ~ CGCIClnulnq IOftlll aald rlqllC-f-vey SOUC!I oo ff' U V.C 25.tO feet to CM ,01111' or am11a11-.. c0Aul11l11o9 a,.~,, ecr aor oc l RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - JUN 2 4 1999 OfflCE OF DcSEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 1, 6 1999 JAMES,~MACK, CLERK By: L~ADtv\\iL\".., OEP CLER;\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors,       No. LR-C-82-866                   ORDER On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. See Little Rock School Dist. v. North Little Rock School Dist., 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court stated as follows: The three Pulaski County School Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old 3257 system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. 148 F.3d 956, 968. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties subsequently submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. A hearing on this issue was held on January 6, 1999, following which the parties filed post-hearing briefs on the issues raised at the hearing. Thereafter, the three Pulaski County school districts - the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") (hereinafter ''the districts\") - filed a motion for an Order directing the State of Arkansas to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages. The State, by and through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), responded in opposition to the districts' motion, and the districts filed a reply to ADE's response. By Order dated March 4, 1999, this Court granted the districts' motion, noting that there was no dispute to be resolved as to the appropriate methodology for determining the districts' damages with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance - all parties having agreed on the ADE's proposed methodology- and that all parties were in agreement that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00. The 2 Court thus ordered that the State of Arkansas make payment to the districts in the amount of $20,380,490.00, to be distributed as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCS SD, and 10% to NLRSD. In so ruling, the Court stated that it would resolve in due course whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State, and whether the districts are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. It is those issues to which the Court now turns. The districts first contend that in order to provide equal funding to the districts, the starting point for their damages should be 106% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs -- a percentage they state is approximately the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas1 - and that to provide less is discriminatory and in violation of the Order of the Eighth Circuit. The ADE, however, argues that such a remedy would result in a windfall to the districts that the Eighth Circuit stated was improper, and that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs rather than the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. The Court has considered the matter and agrees with the ADE that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. In directing this Court to determine the appropriate relief to be accorded the districts, the Eighth Circuit only required that the districts \"should be placed in a position no worse than they would 1 See Mem. Br. in Sup. of Mot. for an Ord. Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Und. Teach. Ret. and Health Ins. Damages, at 2. 3 have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed,\" and stated that the \"districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" I 48 F.3d 956, 968. In this regard, there can be no doubt that requiring the State to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance will make the districts whole as envisioned by the Eighth Circuit. The I 06% figure cited by the districts constitutes the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State and ignores the fact that some school districts received more and some received less. Accordingly, this Court determines that requiring the State to pay the districts I 00% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance will hold them harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. The districts also contend they are entitled to an equitable award of prejudgment interest  - to compensate them for the State's delay in paying the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. They note that the \"adverse effect of the funding change\" to which the Eighth Circuit held they are entitled to be held harmless against has manifested itself in many ways, including deprivation of funds -- or the use of funds -- to which they have been entitled since 1996. The ADE, however, argues that the districts have cited no case in which prejudgment interest has been awarded in circumstances similar to the case at bar, and that the districts in any case are not entitled to such an award as the amount of the underlying liability is not reasonably capable of assessment. The Court has considered the matter and determines that the districts are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. Whether or not the districts have cited similar cases in which prejudgment interest has been awarded is of no import as the Court finds that under these 4 circumstances such an award against the State is proper. Prejudgment interest serves purposes of making a claimant whole, promoting settlement, and deterring attempts to benefit unfairly from inherent delays in litigation, and should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional or unusual circumstances exist making the award of interest inequitable. Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 752 (8th Cir. ) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141 (1986). The Court finds no exceptional or unusual circumstances in this case that would make an award of prejudgment interest inequitable, and such an award comports with the Eighth Circuit's directive that the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change implemented by the State. Contrary to the suggestion of the ADE, existing case law allows an award of prejudgment interest against a state defendant in a case such as this. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 - (1989), the Supreme Court held that adjusting an attorney's fee award against a state under 42 U.S.C.  1988 to account for delay in payment was appropriate and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 284. In so ruling, the majority specifically rejected the view, expressed by the dissent, that the Eleventh Amendment requires an \"ultrastrict rule of construction for interest awards\" comparable to the \"federal no interest rule.\" Id. at 281 n.3 . Based on Jenkins, the Eighth Circuit has refused to impose a strict rule of construction protecting state defendants against prejudgment interest awards, see Winbush v. State of Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471 , 1483-84 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that under Title VII and its \"make whole\" policy, courts have the power to award prejudgment interest against state defendants), and, as noted in Winbush, other circuits likewise have rejected such a strict construction. See Reopell v. Massachusetts, 936 F.2d 12, 15 5 (!51 Cir.) (noting that \"interest is includible [against a state defendant] if, under nonnal litigation principles and rules of statutory construction, a court could have been expected to allow prejudgment interest on the underlying recovery\"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1004 ( 1991 ); Pegues v. Mississippi State Employment Serv., 899 F.2d 1449, 1454 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting that \"Congress did not limit the tools with which courts.could fashion relief to victims of discrimination perpetrated by state defendants\"). Nor does the Court find any merit to ADE's argument that an award of prejudgment interest is not reasonably capable of assessment. All parties have agreed -- and this Court has found -- that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00, and today's decision establishes that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance rather than l 06%. - Thus, the amount of the underlying liability is in fact reasonably capable of assessment. 2 That being so, and there being no exceptional or unusual circumstances in this case that would make an award of prejudgment interest inequitable, the Court agrees with the districts that they are entitled to an equitable award to compensate them for the State's delay in paying them teacher retirement and health insurance costs. In sum, the Court finds that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance, and finds that the districts are entitled to an 2 The Eighth Circuit calculates prejudgment interest at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C.  1961. Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1331 (8111 Cir. 1995) (citing Dependah/ v. Falstaff Brewing Corp, 653 F.2d 1208, 1219 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968 (1981)). In this regard, 1961 provides for calculation of interest \"at a rate equal to the coupon issue yield equivalent (as detennined by the Secretary of Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to the date of judgment.\" 6 award of prejudgment interest. The Court directs the districts to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order within twenty (20) days of the date of its entry. IT IS SO ORDERED this j1,_~ y of ~ 1999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~:: wmi/WLE 56 AND/OR 79(\u0026) FRCP JN .JeJJk/TI.. ev_n=-JU----- 7 \\ J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f r3 1999 JA~AES 1 MC~ACK, CLERK By. \\  :;:;;~-2. ~ J, ,LL\\ Q,, 0EP CI.Bt( RECE.fVED JUN 2 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated May 7, 1999 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties until and 3269 - including July 6, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving MRC's request. !TIS SO ORDERED this / f 11)ay oKr ., 1999. ~)~)t;u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH/S D0cUMENT ENTE ~c MPLIANce WITH Ru~l~ ON DOCKET SHEET IN )N ~ /J-1/ a q AND/OR 79(1) FR(jp -~-1--.r.J.--,';Lf-.~~~~L_ !Y try : ~ 2 . ~~~!\"\" ..;;\":.~   ~ :;::?:__.,*. -Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 May7, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright\" Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 15, 1998 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee tMRC\"l approved a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year. This letter is a request for Court approval of this MRC action. t kt The changes approved by the MRC result from the restructuring of schools in the Little Ro~ School District nRSDl to accommodate middle schools rather than the traditional grade  arrangements in elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. The Magnet School Stipulation, dated February 27, 1987, and the March 1989 Settlement Agreement, as revised September 28, 1989, describe the magnet schools' structure and establish the enrollment at each. Because the MRCs action alters the terms of those agreements and adds 132 seats to the K- 12 magnet program, the Magnet Review Committee requests your approval of the changes described below. The LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the reconfiguration of grade structure from the traditional elementary, junior high, and senior high to allow for middle schools to house grades 6, 7, and 8. If the magnet schools are to conform to the administrative structure of other LRSD schools, the four elementary magnets must serve grades K-5, the middle school magnet school must serve grades 6-8, and the high school magnet must serve grades 9- 12. The results of moving the sixth grade to middle school and the ninth grade to high school in the magnet program as approved by the MRC are describ "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_139","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":["1999-05","1999-06","1999-07","1999-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/139"],"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.\n3 1999 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Llttle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Llttle Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey\u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Llttle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Llttle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Llttle Rock, AR\n72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County SpecialSchool District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ ' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 3 1999 OF 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, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Basedon theinformation availaibt Mlearch31,199t9heADcaElculattheed Equalization Funding for FY 98/9s9u,bject 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) 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Baseodn the informationavailable at Marc31h, 1999, the ADE calculated for FY 98/99, subject toperiodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 On March 1999.distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 98/99 wereas follows\nThe allotments oSftateEqualization Funding calculated for FY 98/99 at March 31, 1999, subjecpte rtioodic adjustments, were as follows: 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, 1999 Based onthe informationavailable, the ADE calculated at March 31, 1999 for FY 98/99, 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, 1999 Based on the information available, the ADEcalculated at March31 , 1999 for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31 , 1999 for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge . . 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Distributions for FY 98/99 at March 31 1 19991 totaled $6,613,578. Allotment calculated for FY 98/99 was $9,145,016, 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, 1999 Calculated for FY 98/99, 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, 1999 Distributions for BM 98/99 atMarch31, 1999were The allotments calculated 98/99 at March 31, 1999, subject to periodic adjustments,were LRSD -$3,752,546 NLRSD - $1,940,185 PCSSD - $7,463,443 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, 1999 In September 1998, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 98/99 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, 1999 In January 1999, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 98/99 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.\n4:DE pays districtsJhree equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In January 1999, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 98/99 transportation budget. The budget is now payed out in three equal installments. At March 1999, thefollowing had been paid for FY 98/99: LRSD -$2,219,635.34 NLRSD- $317,020.10 PCSSD - $1,268,403.34 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, 1999 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 1998-99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. 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, 1999 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continue) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring: 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. 8 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, 1999 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. 9 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed . Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. 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. 10 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education , the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. 11 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. 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. 12 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, 1999 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8 . Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 14 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, 1999 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. 15 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, 1999 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to reviestwatutes and regulations thadt eismegpreegdateionwill meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. 16 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 3.0, 1999 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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 17 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, 1999 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. 18 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, 1999 (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. 19 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, 1999 (Continued) The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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. 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, 1999 (Continued) In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 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. 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, 1999 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua intervenors 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. 22 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, 1999 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. 23 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, 1999 (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. 24 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, 1999 (Continued) 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 Cyde 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. 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. 25 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, 1999 (Continued) 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, tec.hnical 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. 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical  assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Exce/fence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and  resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6~8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 30 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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 SA T-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, 1999 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. 31 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. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. 32 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, 1999 (Continued) Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 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. 33 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 34 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, 1999 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service tra ining programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service tra ining programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 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, 1999 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. 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 nonacademic 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. 36 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 37 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 38 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, 1999 (Continued) 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 providing 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. 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. 39 VI II. 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, 1999 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' in-service 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. 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 PCSSD 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. 40 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 41 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, 1999 (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 ofthe Tri-DistrictStaff DevelopmeCntommittee met withthe Teacher Center Coordinators attheir regular meeting, April6, 1999, at theADE. Much of the meeting centered on the $mart Start Initiative and the Getting SmarterSunimerConference to be held inHot Springs, July28-31, 1999, 42 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through _May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 43 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at LIA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them. They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Ucensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. 44 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) 8. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. 45 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In June 199.5 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 46 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships.  1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X. D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 47 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. E. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. 48 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund : 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under th_e Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded : 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority-Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. 49 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them . The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. 50 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESELP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 445,000 89 ** Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121 ,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. 51 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21 , 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21 , 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: 52 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) SB31, \"an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" SB261 \"to encourage teachers to participate in and complete NBPTS Certification by authorizing the Department of Education to pay full tuition and incentive bonuses.\" S8113 \"to amend A.CA 6-17-410 to clarify that the Department of Education will pay criminal record check fees for certain public education employees.\" 53 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started . Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 54 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE communication section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video. 55 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE communication and MIS sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The-Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997 to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997 to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997 at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's action plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the administrative team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997 due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. The Minority Recruitment Committee met with the ADE Deputy Director in November 1997 to provide him with a copy of the revised plan and receive his input on the plan. The revised Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) plan was approved at the December 1997 State Board of Education meeting. The MRC met in January 1998 to discuss the implementation of the revised MRC plan. Reports and documentation of progress in completing the components of each goal Will be reported at the next meeting. 56 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of the these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996 to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table of contents and an executive summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997 to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997 to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees and the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee received information on Arkansas pupil enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73. 7% of all students are white, 23.4% are black, 1.8% are hispanic, 0. 7% are asian, and 0.4% are native american. 57 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) 8. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) To assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items were developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board members. At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the annual retreat. Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. At the January 1998 MRC meeting, it was decided that the chair and secretary would prepare a report on minority representation within each unit and section and present it to the committee at the next meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 11, 1998, to discuss new membership for the committee and plans for a retreat. The committee recommended a new design and composition of the committee to represent each of the seven sections of the Arkansas Department of Education and included Grade 20's and below. The Minority Recruitment Committee niet on July, 16, 1998, to discuss implementation of new membership for the committee for FY98/99, and to update plans for the September retreat. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on August 11 , 1998 with Dr. Dave Westmoreland, Acting Chairperson. Members were notified that the dates for the September Retreat are September 10-11 , 1998 at the Teacher Retirement Building, Little Rock Arkansas. New Members were introduced and background materials regarding the purpose and progress of the MRC were distributed to new members. The selection of new officers will be conducted at the retreat. The two-day annual retreat was held on September 10-11 , 1998, at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat focused on the current ADE Minority Recruitment Revised Plan (approved by the State Board of Education in December 1997). Since several of the members had recently joined the committee, issues concerning the implementation of the Revised Plan were examined. Acting Chairperson, Dr. Dave Westmoreland, was elected Chairperson, and Mr. Jimmy Burks was elected Vice-Chairperson. Mrs. Michelle Griffin consented to continue in her role as Secretary for the committee. 58 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on October 15, 1998, and discussed the progress on the 1997 Minority Recruitment Plan. Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.3 were discussed, respectively. It appears that funding is available for the committee to engage an independent auditor. In addition, the committee reaffirmed the importance of the \"minority graduate student internship program\" as a resource for possible minority recruits. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on November 12, 1998, and discussed the following progress on the 1997 Minority Recruitment Plan: 1. Objectives 1.1 through 4.4 were discussed 2. The committee had extensive discussion on where to gather information for a study on the availability of minority workforce. Suggestions were Employment Security Division, UALR's Arkansas Statistical Review, and current data on the World Wide Web 3. 4. The minutes of the November 10, 1998 Employee Focus Group Discussion was distributed to members. The Focus Group participants recommended incentives for staff members to grow in work skills and evaluation of various employees be as objective as possible The committee discussed the ADE newsletter on the Intranet as an avenue for employees to communicate concerns, and accomplishments. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 1998. The Minority Recruitment committee meeting scheduled for December 17 was rescheduled for December 16, 1998. Dr. Dave Westmoreland disseminated a Memorandum summarizing the December 14, 1998, Employee Focus Group Discussion on Perceptions of the ADE. The group noted that the ADE is not structured in a manner that allows employees to voice concerns. Members felt salary adjustment would be desirable. Specifically, those employees who remain with the ADE after several years have observed that some less experienced employees are paid more. Perception of opportunities for advancement may not be uniform across the agency. Dr. Westmoreland noted that the focus group however, commented that the ADE was a good place to work. The committee will invite Mr. Artee Williams, Director of Office of Personnel Management, to the next regularly scheduled meeting to address employee salary concerns. The committee will forward comments on the perception of ADE to senior management. 59 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The committee met on January 14, 1999. Dr. Charity Smith reported the progress of the ADE Minority Graduate Student Internship Program. She explained that the program provides for students enrolled in advanced education degree programs, in Arkansas institutions of higher learning, to be interns at the ADE. The higher education program advisor dictates the particular activities of the interns. Typically, the intern works with various ADE personnel for approximately six weeks. Three students have engaged in the program since 1994. The committee also discussed the possibility of a speaker tour bureau for the ADE, with this information being housed on the ADE web site. Mr. Artee Williams from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or a representative will be invited in the future to talk about the Career Ladder Incentive Program (CLIP) and training as it relates to the ADE's minority recruitment efforts. Dr. Andre Guerrero recommended that the committee stress to our Licensure Section the importance of keeping a strong mentoring system available for minority teachers. Mr. Reginald Wilson reported that he has contacted three persons that the committee might use as an independent auditor for the Minority Recruitment Plan, and is waiting on a response from them. Mr. Wilson is also working on a report on the racial makeup of the ADE, Grade 21 and above. Dr. Westmoreland updated the committee that the 1997 revised Minority Recruitment Plan is near completion and a draft documentation is available for the audit. The next meeting is scheduled for February 11, 1999. On February 11 , 1999, A follow-up was made prior to the meeting about the invitation of Mr. Artee Williams. Mr. Williams invited the committee to write specific questions regarding personnel issues. He stated that he could not answer specific questions as they related to the ADE, but could answer broad questions based through state government. He stated that questions should be in writing from the Director, and the Director would have to extend an initiation before he could speak to the agency. Mr. Williams also mentioned proposed legislation that could result in the implementation of a merit/performance based program called the Career Ladder Incentive Program (CLIP). If passed, this program will be implemented beginning July 1, 1999. He said this program might address the agencies salary concerns. The committee agreed to monitor this legislation. Dr. Westmoreland reported the Revised Minority Recruitment Plan is ready for the auditor to review. Mr. Wilson reported Ms. Denise Fletcher, Attorney at Law, Fletcher Law Firm has agreed to perform the audit. Mr. Wilson disseminated a draft of the ADE Grade 21 and above Employee Status Report dated February 11 , 1999. 60 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued} 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The MRC met oMnarch 11 , 1999. The committee was informed that the Minority Recruitment Plan was forwarded to the audiotr, Denise Fletcher, Attorney, Fletcher Law Firm When the auditor is finished with the Plan, it will be forwarded to the Stale Board of Education for theirreview and approval. After some discussion on possible objectives for the Minority Recruitment Plan, the committee agreed fo forward information to the ADE Director recommending that he share the importance of the MRC with all hiring officials. 61 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION A. Improve the effectiveness of the ADE's existing rules, regulations , and site evaluation form for assessing the desegregation impacts of school construction between school districts. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII.C. of this report. 8 . Review existing rules, regulations and site evaluation forms and their application to school construction projects within districts and between districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII .C. of this report. Amend the rules , regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 ADE's School Site Selection Committee met on April 21 , 1995 to revise the proposed rules and regulations. The proposed rules and regulations were presented to the State Board of Education on May 8, 1995. The Board voted to table the decision on public comment until the proposed rules and regulations were reviewed by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office reviewed the revised school construction draft and provided a letter of approval. 62 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION (Continued) C. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) On June 12, 1995, the State Board of Education voted to place the revised School Site Approval rules and regulations for public comment. The hearing was held on June 19, 1995 in the ADE Auditorium, and a copy of the revised draft was sent to all school districts in an ADE\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_60","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":["1999-05","1999-06","1999-07","1999-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/60"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nRECEIVED 1998 Of MONITORING Winston Bryant Attorney General Ms. Ann Brown STATE OF ARKANSAS Office of the Attorney General October 30, 1998 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown: Telephone: (501) 682-2007 Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for October, 1998. CJ enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for October, 1998. C D i..,_ 1998 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Baseodn theinformationavailable atSeptemberQi 1998,the ADE calculatedthe Equalization Fundingfor FY 98/99 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) 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Basei#d1 thinfoermation avaliable atSeptembe3r0, 1998 the ADE calculatedfor FY 98/99, subjecpte rtioodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 On September30, 1998, distributions of State Equalization Funding forEm 98/99 were as follows LRSD-$8,353,887 NLRSD - $4,715,448 PCSSD - $10,063,840 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 BasedIi. the informationavailable tAhDe Ecalcuateadt September301,998,for FY 98/99 subject to periodicadjustments It shouldP! notedthat currently the Magnet Review Committees reporting this informationinstead of the staff attorney ii indicated inthe 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 October 31, 1998 Bathes inefordma tioonn availacbalcluelat,e dthaet S eAptDemEber 30, 1998 for G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Distributions for FY 98/99 at September 30, 1998 totaled $1,624,606. Allotment calculaatet Sdeptember 30, 1998 for FY 98/99 was $8,935,328, 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 Distributions forFY98/99 at September30, 1998were LRSD - $3,463,507 NLRSD - $1,512,970 PCSSD - $6,832,606 The allotments calcuated for FY 98/99 at September adjustments, were 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 October 31, 1998 In September 1997, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 97/98 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. Reginald Wilson notifies General Finance to pay districts for first two-thirds of the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 inAugust1998,GeneraFlinancewasnotified lR pay the final one-third payments for FY 97/98 to theDistrictsn should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator currently performing this function. L. ADE pays districts for first two-thirds of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts for first two-thirds of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 payments to theDistricts AtAugust 1998, the following hadf obr eFeYn p9a7i/d98 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 October 31, 1998 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 1998-99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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 $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD -8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The LRSD receiv$e2,d000,000 in April 1998, As of this reportingdate, the LRSD has received $17,000in,0 lo0a0n proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 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 97/98. 8 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 October 31, 1998 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. 9 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. 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. 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. 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. 12 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 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 October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 14 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 October 31, 1998 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 detennine 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 81st 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. 15 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 October 31 , 1998 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 16 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 October 31, 1998 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 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 17 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 October 31, 1998 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. 18 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 October 31, 1998 (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. 19 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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. 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 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. 21 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 22 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 October 31, 1998 (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. 23 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 24 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NGA 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. 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 Leaming, 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. 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 October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 25 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 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 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 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. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 29 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. 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 October 31 , 1998 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. B. 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 30 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. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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. 31 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 32 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 October 31 , 1998 (Continued) 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. of 33 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 October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. 8. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VII I. 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 34 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 October 31, 1998 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. 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 nonacademic 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. 35 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 October 31 , 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 36 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 37 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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 providing 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. 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. 38 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' in-service 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. 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 PCSSD 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. 39 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998 at the instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask Topics ofdiscussion included the meeting with thceo orepegrioatniva. el s' teachercentercoordinators the staff developmenttask force on whMicahrion Woods is serving and theNSCI training traininpgrovided by theFederal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. DougAsk will serve as representative to the O19ct9om8beeer t6in,g of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit Donna Harris, president ofthe group ! request for one othermember ofthe Tri-CountyCommittee (Dana December, Dana Chadwick, January. Thenext committee meetingwill be 9:00 am. Tuesday, Octo1b3e,r1998, at theNorth Little Rock School districtCentral Office 40 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nLIA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, LIA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 41 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at LIA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. 42 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. D. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. 43 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 44 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. E. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X. E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. 46 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund : 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. 47 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued} 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. 48 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESELP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 445,000 89  Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121,250.  11 Students are pending passing the PPST. 49 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The report on Minority Teacher ScholarshipsDistribution 'mii presentedOctober shortagesin Mathematics, Special Education and Collaborative efforts of theADEand thAeDHE to recruit teachbyers funding more than 450 scholarships forapplicants interested in teaching annually Reasons new teachersgive for leaving tphroefession 50 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 7 4 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 51 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was wriUen. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE communication section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video. 52 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE communication and MIS sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997 to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997 to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997 at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's action plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the administrative team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997 due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. The Minority Recruitment Committee met with the ADE Deputy Director in November 1997 to provide him with a copy of the revised plan and receive his input on the plan. The revised Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) plan was approved at the December 1997 State Board of Education meeting. The MRC met in January 1998 to discuss the implementation of the revised MRC plan. Reports and documentation of progress in completing the components of each goal will be reported at the next meeting. 53 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of the these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996 to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table of contents and an executive summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997 to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997 to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees and the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee received information on Arkansas pupil enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73.7% of all students are white, 23.4% are black, 1.8% are hispanic, 0.7% are asian, and 0.4% are native american. 54 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) To assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items were developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board members. At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the annual retreat. Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. At the January 1998 MRC meeting, it was decided that the chair and secretary would prepare a report on minority representation within each unit and section and present it to the committee at the next meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 11, 1998, to discuss new membership for the committee and plans for a retreat. The committee recommended a new design and composition of the committee to represent each of the seven sections of the Arkansas Department of Education and included Grade 20's and below. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on July, 16, 1998, to discuss implementation of new membership for the committee for FY98/99, and to update plans for the September retreat. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on August 11, 1998 with Dr. Dave Westmoreland, Acting Chairperson. Members were notified that the dates for the September Retreat are September 10-11, 1998 at the Teacher Retirement Building, Little Rock Arkansas. New Members were introduced and background materials regarding the purpose and progress of the MRC were distributed to new members. The selection of new officers will be conducted at the retreat. The two-day annual retreat was held on September 10-11, 1998, at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat focused on the current ADE Minority Recruitment Revised Plan (approved by the State Board of Education in December 1997). Since several of the members had recently joined the committee, issues concerning the implementation of the Revised Plan were examined. Acting Chairperson, Dr. Dave Westmoreland, was elected Chairperson, and Mr. Jimmy Burks was elected Vice-Chairperson. Mrs. Michelle Griffin consented to continue in her role as Secretary for the committee. 55 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) ii J resource foprossibleminority recruits 56 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION A. Improve the effectiveness of the ADE's existing rules, regulations, and site evaluation form for assessing the desegregation impacts of school construction between school districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII .C. of this report. B. Review existing rules, regulations and site evaluation forms and their application to school construction projects within districts and between districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII .C. of this report. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 ADE's School Site Selection Committee met on April 21, 1995 to revise the proposed rules and regulations. The proposed rules and regulations were presented to the State Board of Education on May 8, 1995. The Board voted to table the decision on public comment until the proposed rules and regulations were reviewed by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office reviewed the revised school construction draft and provided a letter of approval. 57 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION (Continued) C. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On June 12, 1995, the State Board of Education voted to place the revised School Site Approval rules and regulations for public comment. The hearing was held on June 19, 1995 in the ADE Auditorium, and a copy of the revised draft was sent to all school districts in an ADE Director's Memo. Proposed rules and regulations underwent a third revision and were presented to the Board in July 1995 with a request for final approval. The revised rules and regulations were approved by the State Board of Education on July 10, 1995. On August 3, 1995, the proposed School Site Approval rules and regulations were reviewed by the Legislative Council. Due to questions raised by the staff attorney for the Legislative Council, the council voted to defer review until their next meeting so that additional information could be obtained to resolve the questioned items. The proposed School Site Approval rules and regulations were reviewed by the Legislative Council on September 7, 1995 and went into effect on September 8, 1995. Goal completed. No additional reporting required. 58 XIII. ASSIST PCSSD A. Determine if the PCSSD wants and needs assistance in lowering the cost of Black History course offerings to its certified staff. 1. Projected Ending Date April, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 A letter was mailed to the desegregation director of the PCSSD on March 16, 1995 regarding offering assistance in facilitating a special arrangement with colleges and universities for reducing the cost of a black history course offering to the PCSSD certified staff. In a letter dated April 3, 1995, the PCSSD responded that their staff development director was working with UALR to develop the black history course offerings. No additional assistance was requested of the ADE. Goal completed as of June 1995. B. If PCSSD wants assistance, communicate with local colleges and universities to facilitate the Black History course offerings to PCSSD teachers at the lower costs possible. 1. Projected Ending Date September 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 UALR informed the ADE that they had contacted PCSSD regarding their willingness to provide non-credit black history studies for the PCSSD. UALR indicated that as of November 11 , 1994 they had received no response from the PCSSD. Two universities offered assistance in providing teachers in the PCSSD a black history course. The ADE had not received requests for any assistance with the facilitation of a black history course in the PCSSD as of February 27, 1995. On April 3, 1995, the PCSSD informed ADE that its staff development director was working with UALR to develop the black history course offering. No additional assistance was requested of the ADE. 59 XIV. SCATTERED SITE HOUSING A. Through Executive Branch communication procedures, ADE will inquire about State land holdings in Pulaski County and about the availability of State land holdings for use as building sites for scattered-site housing. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The ADE had previously inquired about State land holdings in Pulaski County and about availability of State land holdings for use as building sites for scattered site housing. All materials were distributed to the appropriate district representatives. There has been no contact with the PCSSD on Scattered Site Housing since July 1995. Goal completed. No additional reporting required. 60 XV. STANDARDIZED TEST SELECTION TO DETERMINE LRSD LOAN FORGIVENESS A. Meet with and propose to the representatives of the LRSD that the current Stanford 8 standardized test, following a bias-free validation study, be used to measure the District's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date May 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 On April 21, 1995, a letter was sent to the LRSD Superintendent suggesting meeting dates to discuss the variables which affect student achievement. On May 1, 1995, the ADE Director was advised of the need to discuss the selection of the SAT-8 to measure the LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Settlement Agreement. On May 21, 1995, the ADE staff discussed the status of the selection of the test relevant to the ADE's Implementation Plan. The Variables Committee, a subcommittee of the Test Selection Committee, received evaluations on the relationship of the various types of scores that could be used on the SAT-8 Test. The Variables Committee recommended using the state-adopted norm referenced test to determine the achievement levels of black and white students. Based on the evaluations, they indicated that scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics to use for this purpose. The recommendation from the Variables Committee was submitted to the Test Selection Committee and the ADE Director on July 28, 1995. Until the test validation has been completed, no additional progress can occur on this objective. For the progress being made on the test validation process see Section VII. of this report In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team. Additionally, the LRSD Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation was provided a copy of the test validation report. 61 xv. STANDARDIZED TEST SELECTION TO DETERMINE LRSD LOAN FORGIVENESS (Continued) A. Meet with and propose to the representatives of the LRSD that the current Stanford 8 standardized test, following a bias-free validation study, be used to measure the Districts' progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that the district had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The Director of the ADE 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 Director of the ADE, ADE Assistant Director of Technical Assistance, and ADE Assistant Director of Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for the meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. In February 1997, a memorandum was sent to the Assistant Directors of Technical Assistance and Planning and Curriculum which summarized the test validation and variables subcommittee work and outlined the next step of formalizing an agreement with the LRSD on the use of the SAT-8 and the choice of raw or scaled scores as the metric. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow ADE to move forward in this matter. 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. 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. 62 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS A. Fully implement the Extended COE Improvement Plan Process in all schools in the three Pulaski County school districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. 8. Conduct the Extended COE School Improvement Plan peer review process in 20% of the schools each year (every school every five years) and provide peer review team recommendations to the schools reviewed. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. C. Receive from all schools, annual reports on progress toward meeting recommendations of School Improvement Plans. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In June 1995, ADE personnel reviewed the Extended COE packet and prepared for holistic reviews of the Cycle 5 schools. 63 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In July 1995, year-end reports were finalized by the field service specialists. Plans to review the draft Cycle 5 school improvement plans, and plans for technical review visits in the 95/96 school year were discussed. In August 1995, holistic reviews of the Cycle 5 school improvement plans were conducted. A school improvement conference was conducted.  In October 1995, computer programs used by Effective Schools proponents were ordered for review, and a draft monitoring checklist for ECOE was developed. In November 1995, two meetings were held to plan for 95/96 monitoring. Onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits, and technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, technical assistance visits were conducted, and monitoring occurred in all schools in the Districts. Technical review visits continued. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits in the Districts were completed. The field service specialists completed the midyear monitoring reports and prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. In March 1996, unannounced visits and peer team two-day visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Written reports of two-day team visits were prepared, and field service specialists provided assistance to schools on their school improvement plans. In April and May 1996, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and monitoring forms were scanned for inclusion in the July monitoring report. Team visits were completed, and the annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, the data from the announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed with the Court, and copies were distributed to the parties. All Cycle 5 school improvement plans were monitored. Team visit reports were included in the Semiannual Monitoring Report. In August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts regarding announced 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. 64 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 (Continued) In September 1996, recommendations on the monitoring schedule and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed with tentative training schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, a meeting was held with the Districts to identify, update\nand modify the schools in Cycles 1 - 5. Monitoring packets for the Cycle 1 schools were presented during the Principal's Monitoring Workshops. Technical assistance continued to be provided to the Cycle 1 schools regarding their school improvement goals through December 1996. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and were completed in December 1996. The ECOE monitoring reports on the Cycle 1 school improvement plans were included in the Semiannual Monitoring Report and presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties in January 1997. In February 1997, the field service specialists prepared for the spring peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools and the annual NCA reports. From February through August 1997, technical assistance was provided as progress reports were evaluated and when specific requests were made. The NLRSD Cycle 1 ECOE team visits were completed in March 1997. Cycle 5 schools submitted their progress reports from their FY 95/96 team visits, and the outcomes will be reviewed and compiled for inclusion in the PMT after all have been received. Team visits were completed in April 1997 for the PCSSD. The LRSD prepared for their team visits, and Cycle 5 school progress reports were received. An expanded team meeting of Team V was held on April 7, 1997 to provide training for monitoring activities and evaluating school improvement plans during team visits. A presentation was made on Act 338 of 1991. 65 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) ECOE team visits were scheduled, and all Cycle 1 peer team external visits were conducted as of May 1997. As of June 1997, all Cycle 1 schools had their ECOE team reports provided to them for their review, and information was mailed to the Cycle 5 schools regarding their progress reports. The July 15-17, 1997 School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs and emphasized the COE school improvement process. The conference focused on Phase II of COE and the need for the continuation of school improvement. The field service specialists provided technical assistance throughout the conference on school improvement activities and plans and answered questions from delegates. As of August 1997, dates for the ECOE team visits of the Cycle 2 schools were established for FY 97/98, and progress reports were in the final stages. Technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals at the Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop held on September 10, 1997. In October 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted along with the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools. The field service representatives discussed the ECOE process with principals, ECOE steering committees, and faculty and worked with teachers on analyzing perceptual surveys. Additionally, the need for a database on achievement was emphasized, and guidance was provided on school improvement plans. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted along with the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools. 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. Technical assistance visits were also conducted, and copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. In December 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding the school improvement process and consensus building. Additionally, the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. 66 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance visits were conducted on the school improvement process, finalizing school improvement plans, and external team visits. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was given regarding the ECOE team visits, team building, and the school improvement process. Unannounced monitoring visits continued in April 1998, and technical assistance was provided to the Districts regarding the ECOE process. Unannounced monitoring visits were completed in May 1998, and technical assistance was provided to the Districts regarding the ECOE process. The Semiannual Extended COE Monitoring Data Report was completed and presented to ADE Administrative Team in June 1998. 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 Leaming, 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 August 1998, the dates were established for Extended COE Team visits for the 1998-99 school year. Further assistance to schools is dependent on the results of monitoring visits, ECOE team visits, revisions in school improvement plans, and requests made to staff. During September 1998, representatives from ADE provided technical assistance to the Steering Committees at Fuller Jr. Highin PCSSD\nBadgett, Bale1 Otter Creek, Wakefield, and Williams Magnet inLRSD and Poplar Street in NLRSD. Technical assistance training sessions included(1) Steering structure and Extended COE Process, (2) Peer Team Visit preparation, (3) Mission statement development, and {4) ECOE protocol Additionally, the staff in-service coordinator of LRSD reviewed plans for a Saturday in-service concerning all LRSD personnel who have not gone through the ECOE process, 67 XVII. DATA COLLECTION A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31, 1989 Monitoring Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Data was collected in May 1995 from all schools during the unannounced visits. Information that was unavailable during the announced visits was collected during the unannounced monitoring visits. In June 1995, data was collected from the Districts and analyzed for inclusion in the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. In July 1995, data from perceptual surveys was reviewed. In August 1995, the data elements to be reviewed and the data collection process for FY 95/96 were articulated to the Districts. In September 1995, the data collection format for the 95/96 school year was distributed to the Districts. Financial information for FY 93/94 and FY 94/95 was requested from the Districts, and principals were given inservice training regarding FY 95/96 monitoring. The Districts provided fourth quarter data on discipline, testing, nonpromotes, and budget for inclusion in the February 1996 Semiannual Monitoring Report. A workshop to develop a common terminology for monitoring purposes was conducted on October 17, 1995 with the Districts. The workshop identified the data available in the Districts to fulfill the requirements of the Allen Letter's 14 elements. The group correlated the data elements to the five monitoring forms. Monitoring data was verified for inclusion in the February Semiannual Monitoring Report. Data on nonpromotes was analyzed for inclusion in the February Semiannual Monitoring Report. Announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995. The preliminary February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were presented to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education, Announced monitoring visits were completed on January 26, 1996. Unannounced monitoring visits began in late February 1996 for the Cycle 5 schools in the Districts and were completed in April 1996. 68 XVII. DATA COLLECTION (Continued) A Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31 , 1989 Monitoring Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) A supplemental report to the February 1, 1996 Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed with the Court on April 8, 1996. Data requests for information were forwarded to the Districts. Information was reviewed, analyzed, and formatted for inclusion in the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. The data received from the Districts was analyzed and reviewed. Instructional program reporting was clarified after the Districts and ADE desegregation staff collaboratively established a definition. All data collected for the July 1996 Semiannual Report was disaggregated, analyzed, and displayed in color graphic form for reporting. In August 1996, the Districts were provided with the monitoring requirements and expectations for the 96/97 school year. In September 1996, monitoring formats were revised. Technical assistance was provided to the LRSD on data collection and formatting of certified staffing data. Monitoring packets for the Cycle 1 schools were developed in October 1996 and presented during the Principal's Monitoring Workshops. In November and December 1996, data was received, reviewed, and formatted for the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was finalized in January 1997 and presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee of the Arkansas General Assembly, and the parties. In February 1997, the format for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was developed, and Cycle 1 SAT-9 test data was obtained from the ADE's Assessment Section. In March 1997, data forms were sent to the Districts to assist with the submission of information for the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. Data was also collected through existing reports submitted for the annual report. 69 XVII. DATA COLLECTION (Continued) A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31, 1989 Monitoring Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) In April 1997, the Districts were notified that the deadline for data collection submission was April 24, 1997. As of May 14, 1997, all data was received from the Districts. In June 1997, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized and presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee on June 25, 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the Court and copies were distributed to the State Board of Edu\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1005","title":"\"Arkansas School and Educational Service Cooperative, Financial Accounting Manual,\" Arkansas Department of Education","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-05"],"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--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School management and organization","Accounting"],"dcterms_title":["\"Arkansas School and Educational Service Cooperative, Financial Accounting Manual,\" Arkansas Department of Education"],"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/1005"],"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\nLegal documents, correspondence, newspaper clippings, notes\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI STATE OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS SCHOOL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COOPERATIVE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING MANUAL ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY MAY1999 - Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Development of School Accounting Development of Handbook II Revised Purpose and Benefits of this Manual ., Basis of Accounting ., Cash Basis Accounting ' Accrual Basis Accounting 3 Single Entry/Double Entry Accounting 3 Chapter 2 Account Classification Structure -+ Types of Accounting Transactions -+ Classifications of Expenditures and Other Uses of Funds ..1. Classifications of State Level Reporting - Required \u0026amp; Optional 5 Fund -- Table I: Fund Classifications 5 Source ofFund -- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications 6 Location11.EA )\number Classifications 13 Function --Table III: Function Classifications J..1 - Object -- Table rv: Object Classifications -,- Program and Subject Area Classifications 35 Re\\'enue -- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications 36 Balance Sheet -- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications 52 Chapter 3 Definitions of Account Classifications -6 Fund Definitions 56 Source ofFund Definitions 5- Location Definitions 5- Function Definitions 5- Object Definitions 81 Revenue Definitions 9-4 Balance Sheet Account Definitions 122 Chapter 4 A Guide for a :\\'tinimum Property Accounting System 129 Chapter 5 Glossary 135 -1- Denlopment of School Accounting Chapter 1 I~TRODl1CTIO~ In 1953. the U.S. Department of Education (CSDE) began work on a series 0r\"publicat1ons entitled the State Educational Records and Reports Senes. These publications too form as six handbooks designed to assist both state and local educational agencies in collecting. recording and reporting information about elementary and secondary school operations. Handbook II of the series, Financial A.ccounting for Local and State School S\\srems: Standard Receipt and Expendirure Accounts, was published in 1957. Since that time it has been the basis for development of most local and state school financial accounting systems. Several years after the handbooks initial publication, it became e\\'ident that a comprehensi\\'e teaching and reference guide and procedural manual for school accounting\\\\ as desirable. In cooperation with the Association of School Business Officials. CSDE published Handbook II-B. Principles of Public School Accounting, in 1967. Denlopment of Handbook II Revised In 19-3_ a nationwide cooperati\\'e effort by the educational community culr::inated in the - publication of Handbook II Revised. Financial Accountin2.: Classification 2.nd Standard Terminologv for Local and State School Svstems. A national steering comr:'.mee. under con:~::.c: with CSDE, developed the first draft of Handbook II Re,ised. A second contract was negotiated to conduct l O regional review conrerences and prepare additional drafts of the handbook. After it was reviewed by representati\\'es from the sponsonr.g associations in each region, a second draft was prepared. The second draft was sent to all state education agencies. approximately 2.000 large local education agencies, the national steering committee and selected consultants for extensive re\\iev,\nand testing. Suggestions for modifications and improvements were received and, when feasible. incorporated into the final publication. A number of related projects and conferences were incorporated into the final draft of Handbook II Revised. Handbook II Revised represented a significant departure from its predecessors in terms of the accounting theory it embodied. It recommended that, to the extent practicable, local school districts utilize accrual-based accounting techniques. -1- In 1990, the United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement modified Handbook II Revised and entitled the reYision. Handbook II R'. Handbook II R2 reflected changes and clarifications in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Arkansas Department of Education has developed its reYised financial accounting system for local school districts as an adaptation of Handbook II R2. Purpose and Benefits of this Manual A primary concern of a public agency is the ability to effectively manage their funds. This manual provides an accounting system to effectively manage local school district funds. Consistency in state and local reporting is another concern of public entities. The classifications contained in this manual provide mutually exclusive, discrete dimensions and categories to describe financial transactions. The logic of the classification system enhances coding and improves comparability. The adoption of the manual by Arkansas school districts \\vill provide consistency in local school district financial reporting throughout the state. This manual enables a school district to incorporate educational philosophy and management functions into its financial operation. It can be adapted to provide financial data for selfcontained classes or an open school program. It can account for a special education programs on the basis of type of service or on the type of disability basis. It can accommodate independent school or grade level budgeting as well as centralized budgeting. It is designed to assist in expanding rather than constraining the potential for innovative and effective educational program management. Basis of Accounting The basis of accounting refers to the point in time when revenues. expenditures or expenses (as appropriate), and the related assets and liabilities are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. The basis of accounting determines the timing \\Vith which the accounting system recognizes transactions. -2- Cash Basis Accounting Cash basis accounting recognizes transactions when cash is receiYed or disbursed. In a cash basis accounting system, the financial condition of the district is measured primarily by the size of the system's cash balance. All other assets and liabilities are recognized only to the extent they have arisen from prior cash transactions. )\nates and bonds payable and mterfund loan receivables and payables are recognized. but accounts receiYable and accounts payable :ire not. Cash basis accounting provides infonnation about the district's financial operations by repomng changes in their cash balance. A weakness of cash basis accounting is that it does not recognize accounts receivable. accounts payable and other accrued items. Cash basis accounting does not match resources used to resources provided and results in financial statements that do not represent a complete financial position. Financial statements prepared using cash basis accounting are not \\ery useful because it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the district is operating within their means. Accrual Basis Accounting The accrual basis of accounting is regarded as the superior method of accounting for economic resources. This method allows the district to detennine their financial position and results of operations by measuring economic resources and obligations. Changes in these factors can be measured as the changes occur, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Governmental Accounting. Auditing and Financial Reporting (G.-i...AFR) recommends the use of - accrual basis accounting to the fullest extent practicable. Governmental fund revenues and expenditures should be recorded on the modified accrual basis. Re\\enues should be recordec when they become available and measurable. Expenditures should be recorded when incurrec. if measurable. Single Entry/Double Entry Accounting A single entry accounting system is easily illustrated by the check registe:- in a checkbook. ..\\n entry is recorded for each cash receipt or cash disbursement. The cash account is increased or decreased by each transaction. Single entry accounting systems operate in a like manner. A double entry accounting system requires that for every entry made to the debit side of an account a corresponding entry must be-made to the credit side of another account. Double entry accounting involves maintaining a balance between assets and liabilities, reserves and fund equities. The double entry system has two advantages. The district can prepare a balance sheet which reports their financial status on a specific date, and the use of a double entry system provides a set of checks and balances within the accounting system. -3- Chapter 2 ACCOUJ\\'T CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE Types of Accounting Transactions The accounting classification structure provides the state guidelines for recording the three basic types of accounting transactions: revenues and other uses of funds\nexpenditures and other uses of funds\nand transactions that affect the balance sheet only. Each transaction is recorded using codes from a combination of classifications depending on the type of transaction. For each type of transaction. the classifications and codes \\\\ithin each have been selected to satisfy the following conditions. (I) The \\,ide variety of types and sizes of Arkansas school districts makes the use of the full charts of accounts impractical in many instances. A more streamlined and efficient \\ersion of the charts is required in these instances. (2) At the same time. certain minimum state and federal reporting requirements must be followed by all local and state school officials. The follov.ing chart of accounts offers the lowest level of detail and maintenance while still meeting minimum state and federal reporting requirements. Classification of Expenditures and Other Uses of Funds Expenditure classifications are divided into two groups: those required for state le\nel reporting\nand those provided as optional to allow more detailed reporting at the district le\\el. The state level reporting requirements for expenditures are comprised of the following: Fund\nSource of Funds\nFunction\nLocation\nand Object. Optional classifications provided for use at the district level include the following: Program: and Subject Area. -4- Classifications Required for State Level Reporting E1!ml Fund accounting is organized around a set of funds where each fund is cre:i.ted for :i. unique purpose. Each fund maintains a complete set of self-balancing accounts which show its assets. liabilities. reserves. fund balances and expenditures. Table I: Fund Classifications Dllk 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C)assjfication Teacher Salary Fund Operating Fund Building Fund Debt Service Fund Capital Outlay/Dedicated M\u0026amp;O Fund Federal Grants Fund Activity Fund Food Service Fund Fixed Asset Fund -5- - Source of Fund Source of fund allows the district to segregate revenues and expenditures by a specific funding source, authority or purpose. Source of fund is used to accumulate financial information for grants that require the funds to be accounted for separately because their use is restricted. This category of reporting may be used at the discretion of the district. If a district chooses to utilize this category, the district must use the source of fund codes specified below. Table II: Source of Fund Classifications 000 Unrestricted Revenue from Local Sources 001-199 Reserved for school district use 201-399 Restricted Revenue from State Sources Adult Education 201 32110 Adult Basic Education 202 32120 Adult General Education 203 32130 Workplace Adult Education 205 321-+0 Other Regular Education 211 32211 Reading Program Inservice (McRAT. Reading Recovery, ELLA) 214 32214 Computer Based Education Program (322-+) 219 32219 Math \u0026amp; Science Equipment Grant 220 32220 Curriculum Frameworks 221 32221 Writing Assessment 222 32222 Career Education 227 32227 College Prep Enrichment Program (CPEP) 228 32228 Economic Education 230 32230 Parents as Teachers (PAD Project 231 32231 Parents as Teachers (PAT) Training Center 234 32234 Distant Learning 237 32237 Match Math \u0026amp; Science 239 32239 State IMPACT Funding for Technology -6- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) 240 250 255 260 265 270 271 275 276 277 278 279 280 291 295 300 305 307 310 315 320 ..,,,_.,..,, 325 330 335 340 342 344 345  346 350 355 32310 32330 32340 32350 3235: 32360 32361 32370 32371 32372 32374 32375 32380 32410 324:20 32430 32440 32442 32445 32450 32455 32458 32460 32470 32475 32480 32485 32488 32490 32491 32495 32520 32590 Special Education Children with Disabilities - Super,ision. Extd Ye:ir. Foster C:ire Children ,,ithout Disabilities - Residential Tre:1tment Children with Disabilities - Residential Treatment Early Childhood Special Education Special Education Catastrophic Loss Funding Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - AEGIS Progr:irn. Go,ernor s School Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Advance Placement AlternatiYe Learning Environment Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Residential Centers/Juvenile Detention Intervention Prevention C:irnegie :'viath Based Education Aid to Human Development Centers Workforce Education Workforce Center Grant Workforce Capital Equipment Grant Coordinated Comp Workforce Education - Special ~eeds Technical Preparatory Coordination Technical Preparatory Learning Workplace Readiness Tech Prep Secondary Workforce Center Counseling Adult Center Suppon Shon-term Adult Skill Training Youth Apprenticeship Traditional Apprenticeship Arkansas Education Service Center Workforce New Program Start-up Teenage Outreach Parenting Program Principles of Technology Workforce Rehabilitation Workforce Education High Tech Training Center School Food Service State Matching (3250) Other -7- - Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) Educational Service Cooperatins 360 32610 Educational Sen-ice Cooper:iti\\'e Funding Early Childhood Programs 365 32710 Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) 366 32711 K-3 Summer School 367 32712 K-3 Regular School 368 32713 Early Childhood Curriculum Specialist 370 32720 K-3 At Risk 371 32725 Arkansas Crusade for Math \u0026amp; Science K-3 375 32730 Model Rural Consortium Grant 376 32735 Early Childhood - Parent In\\'olvement 380 32740 Infant/Toddler Program (DHS) 381 32745 Smart Start 385 32790 Other Magnet School Programs 386 32811 Pulaski County :\\ifagnet School Re,\ne:me - 387 32812 M-to-M Revenue 388 32813 Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transponation Other Non-Instructional Programs 390 32910 Workers' Comp Funding 392 32912 General Facilities Funding 393 32913 Growth Facilities Funding 394 32915 Debt Service Supplement 395 32916 DHS Human Service Worker Initiative 396 32917 Department of Health 399 32990 Other Grants and Aid from the State -8- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) Restricted Aid Direct from Federal Government Elementary/Secondary Education Programs -+05 -+3 l l 0 Artists in Residence 410 -+3120 Community Education 415 -+3130 Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse PreYention 4::!0 -+3140 ational EndO\\\\ment for the Humanities 4') - 43150 Bilingual Education _:, 430 43160 ROTC - Reserve Officers Training Corp 435 43170 Troops to Teachers 440 43180 Satellite Education Research Commission 445 43185 National Science Foundation 446 -+3190 Presidential A ward for Math \u0026amp; Science 447 43191 Community Service Learning Workers .-\\ssistance 448 43192 Math Crusade Indian Education Programs 449 43610 Indian Education (42-+2) Desegregation Programs - 450 43710 Magnet School ( 4::!21 ) 455 43720 Office of Civil Rights ( 422:2) Other Restricted Aid Direct from the Federal Government 460 43910 National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Title III. Parts 1 \u0026amp; ::! 465 43920 Major Disaster - Repair \u0026amp; Equipment 470 43930 Public Law 815 - Construction 475 43940 Federal Low Income Housing 477 43942 Housing \u0026amp; Community Development Act of 1974 480 43950 Resource Conservation \u0026amp; Development 485 43960 Exxon Energy Grant 490 43970 School Health \u0026amp; Nutrition 492 43972 Summer School Health \u0026amp; :-l'utrition Program 494 43974 Commodities 495 43975 Cash in Lieu of Commodities - Not Through State ( 4486) 496 43976 Rural Utilities Service Grant (USDA) -9- - - Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) 501 45110 502 45111 503 45112 504 45113 505 45114 506 45115 507 45116 508 45117 509 45118 510 45120 511 45121 512 45122 520 45130 521 45131 522 45132 530 J5140 540 45150 545 J5155 550 J5\\60 555 45165 560 45170 570 45310 571 45311 572 45312 573 45313 574 45314 575 45315 576 45316 577 45317 578 45318 580 45319 590 45320 591 45321 592 45322 595 45325 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State Elementary/Secondary Education Act (ESEA) ESE:\\ Title I Regular - Comp Education ESE . .\\ Title I tv[igrant Education ESEA Title I Service Center\n-.iigrant Students ESEA Title I Program Improvement Grant ESEA Title I Capital Expenses - Grants to Pri\\ate Schools Even Stan Migrant Education Grant ESEA Title I Handicapped Elem \u0026amp; Secondary Act of 1965 Even Stan Family Literacy Program Learn and Serve America ESEA Title I Neglected \u0026amp; Delinquent Children Title I Summer Challenge Title I Comprehensive School Reform Development Program ESEA Title VI - At-Risk Students ESEA Title VI - Technical Assistance \u0026amp; Special Projects Title VI - Classroom Reduction Act of 1999 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance . .\\ct for Children Job Training Pannership Act. Title II. Section 123 Job Training Partnership . .\\ct. Title III Title XX: Social Security Act Education for Economic Security . .\\ct - Basic Skills Improvement DHS - Childcare Assistance Grant Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 Basic Grant - Formula Grant Entitlement Leadership Projects - Competitive Awards Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers \u0026amp; Single Pregnant Women Sex Equity Programs for Criminal Offenders Vocational Education Suppon Programs - Comrnunit: -Based Consumer \u0026amp; Homemaking Education Technical Preparatory Education - Title III Part E Supplemental Grants for Improvement Activities - Title III Pan F Teenage Outreach Parenting Program Special . eeds Delta Initiative Strive Grant Technical Literacy Challenge Fund Grant - Title III Part A -10- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) - Adult Education 600 45410 Direct \u0026amp; Equitable 605 45420 Demonstration Projects \u0026amp; Teacher Training 610 45430 Correctional Adult Education Program 615 45440 Model Resource Center 620 45450 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless A.ssistance .. .\\c t fo r .. \\dults 625 45460 Employment for Disadvantaged Youth - Stay-in-School Progr:!..':: 630 45470 Adult Basic Education 635 45480 Women's Educational Equity . .\\ct of 1988. Title IX School Food Services 640 45510 Lunch Reimbursement Through . ..\\DE 641 45511 Lunch Reimbursement Through DHS 645 45520 Breakfast Reimbursement Through . ..\\DE 646 45521 Breakfast Reimbursement Through DHS 650 45530 Special Milk Reimbursement Through ADE 651 45531 Special Milk Reimbursement Through DHS 655 45540 Snack Reimbursement Through . ..\\DE 656 45541 Snack Reimbursement Through DHS 660 45550 Food Service Equipment Assistance - 665 45560 Cash in Lieu of Commodities 670 45580 ~utrition Education \u0026amp; Training Program C',:ET) 671 45585 Comprehensive Health (HA T)C',:ifty Nutrition) 675 45590 Other Food Service Revenue Special Education 700 45610 IDEA Title VI-B Education of Handicapped 701 45612 IDEA Title VI-B Area Services 702 45613 IDEA Title VI-B Pass Through Funding 703 45614 IDEA Title VI-B Head Start 710 45630 IDEA Early Childhood, Section 619 715 45640 Title VI-B Special Education Transition Project 720 45650 Sliver Grant -11- Table II: Source of Fund Classifications (Continued) 750 753 755 760 765 770 775 780 781 785 786 787 790 45910 45915 45920 45930 45940 45950 45960 45970 45971 45980 45981 45982 45990 Other Restricted Federal Aid Through State Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act Adult Refugee Fund Eisenhower Math \u0026amp; Science Project Environmental Education Goals 2000 Home Instruction Program Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)_ National Diffusion Network (NDN) State Facilitator Project Drug Abuse Prevention Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities. Title IV Comprehensive School Health - Aids Education Act Local Delinquency Prevention Title V School Health Program Coordinator Other Restrict Federal Grants Through the State -12- Location/I,EA Number The tenn location is used to denote the location of education acti\\'ities for org:inizational purposes. In most cases, location denotes individual schools, but it can be used to designate cost centers which will enable budgets and expenditures to be made for each school or location. Location coding is required for reporting purposes due to changes effected during the 1999 Legislative Session. Districts should use the last three digits of the school's LEA to specify the location for the transaction. -13- Function The function describes the activity being perfonned when a service is provided or a materio.l object is received. The functions of a district are classified into five broad areas: instruction: support services\noperation of non-instructional services: facilities acquisition and construction services: and other outlays. Items in italics denote additional detail for coding transactions which you may choose to incorporate into your system but is not required for state and federal reporting purposes. For reporting purposes, all districts must code to the lowest detail level not italicized. Table III: Function Classifications 1000 Instruction (100) 1100 Regular Programs/Elementary-Secondary ( 110) 1103 K-3 Summer School Remediation 1105 Preschool (115) 1110 Kindergarten (11 1) 1120 Elementary (112) 1130 Middle/Junior High (113) 1140 High School (1 !-!) 1150 Athletics ( 115) 1160 Student Activities (116) 1170 Summer School 1180 Teacher Bonus (One Time) (118) 1190 Other Regular (l_\nnderpayments) (119) -14- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1200 Special Education (120) 1210 Itinerant Instruction ( 121) 1211 Consulting Teachers 1212 Itinerant Speech Pathologist 1213 Braille lnsrructors 121-1 Home Bound 1215 Educational Interpreters for the Deaf 1220 Resource Room ( 122) 1230 Special Class - 1:15 Ratio (123) 1240 Special Class - I: 10 Ratio (124) 1250 Special Class - I :6 Ratio (125) 125 3 Integrated Classroom 1 :\n.:6 Regular Classroom 1260 Separate Day School - Private ( 126) 1265 Pre-referral 1266 Post dismissal 1267 Section 504 eligible 1270 Residential Day School - Private (127) 1280 Other - Private ( 128) 1290 Preschool - Special Needs (129) 1295 Separate Day School - Public ( 12A) 1299 Other - Special Education -15- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1300 Workforce Education Programs (130) 1310 Workforce Agriculture ( 131) 1320 Marketing and Distributive Education (13'.:) 1330 Business/Office Occupations (133) 1340 Health Careers/Occupations (134) 1350 Trade and Industrial ( including Industrial .~s) (135) 1360 Home Economics (136) 1370 Career Orientation (137) 1380 General Cooperative (138) 1390 Special Needs (139) 1395 Tech Prep 1596 Workplace Readiness 139- Regional Technical Coordination 1399 Other Workforce Projects 1400 Adult/Continuing Education Program ( 140) 1410 Adult Basic Education ( 141) 1420 Adult General Education (142) 1430 Adult Workforce Education (143) 1440 Special Projects (144) 1490 Other Adult/Continuing Education Programs (149) -16- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) - 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1500 Compensatory Education Programs ( 150) 1510 Basic Skills ( 151 ) 1515 School Improvement 1520 Dropout/Dropout Prevention (152) 1525 Technology 1530 Language Arts (153) 1535 Instructional \u0026amp; Educational Materials 1540 Educational Refonn 1545 At-Risk 1550 Eariy Childhood Education ( 15 5) - 1555 Literacy 1560 Reading ( 156) 1570 Mathematics/Science (157) 1590 Other Compensatory Education Programs ( 15 9) -17- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 1000 Instruction (Continued) 1900 Other Instructional Programs ( 190) 1910 Gifted and Talented Children ( 191) 1915 ~1usic 1920 Computers 1930 English as a Second Language 1950 Alternative Learning Environment 1990 Other Instructional Programs ( 199) 2000 Support Services (2 00) 2100 Support Se:,ices - Students (210) 2110 Attendance and Social Work Services (211) :: 111 Supervision of Auendance \u0026amp; Social Trork Sen-ices 211:: Atrendance : 113 Social Work : 11.1 Srudent Accounting 2119 Orher Auendance and Sociai Work Services 2120 Guidance Services (212) 2121 2122 2113 212-4 2125 2126 2129 Supervision of Guidance Services Counseling Appraisal lnformarion Record Maintenance Placemenr Orher Guidance Services -18- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senrices (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students (Continued) 2130 Health Services (213) 2131 Superrision o_( Healrh Senices 2132 .\\,fedical 2133 Dental 213-1 .Vursing 2139 Other Health Services 2140 Psychological Services (214) 21-11 Supervision of Psychological Sen-ices 21-12 Psychological Tesiing 21-13 Psychological Counseling 21-14 Psychorherapy 2149 Orher Psychological Sen'ices 2150 Speech Pathology and Audiology Services (: 15) 2151 Supenision o_f Speech Parhology \u0026amp; Audiology Sc..-.:ices 2152 Speech Parhology 2153 Audiology 215-1 Hearing Impaired lnrerprerer 2159 Or her Speech Pathology and Audiology Senices 2160 Physical and Occupational Therapy (216) 2190 Other Support Ser\\'ices - Students (219) 2200 Support Services - Instructional Staff ( 220) 2210 Curriculum Supervision (Improvement of Instructional Services) (221) 2211 Supervision of Improvement of lnsrructional Ser:ices 2212 lnsrructional and Curriculum Developmenr 2213 lnsrructional Staff Training 2214 lnsrructional Staff Advisory Services 2215 Drug Free Schools 2219 Orher Improvement of Instructional Services -19- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Services (Continued) 2200 Supp011 Services - Instructional Staff (Continued) 2220 Educational Media Services (222) 2221 2222 ''..., \"'I ___ ) 222-1 2225 2229 Supervision of Educational .\\fedia Senices School Library Audiovisual Educational Television Computer-Assisted Instruction Other Educational }vfedia Services 2290 Other Support Services - Instructional Staff (229) 2300 Support Services - General Administration (230) 2310 Board of Education Services (231 ) 23 11 Supervision of Board of Education Services 2 312 Board Secrerar:,,yClerk 2313 Board Treasurer :\n3  -I Elections 23 15 Legal 23 16 Sraff Relations and .\\\"egoriarion C 32 3) 2317 Audit Services 23 18 Reappraisal of Property 2319 Other Board of Education Services 2320 Executive Administration Sel\"\\'ices (23'.:) 2321 Office ofrhe Superinrendem or Educarionai Cooperati\\e 2322 Communiry Relations 232-1 Stare and Federal Relations 2329 Other Executive Administration Services 23 80 Office of Desegregation 2390 Other Support Services - General Administration -20- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senices (Continued) 2400 Support Services - School Administration (240) 2410 Office of the Principal (241) 2490 Other Support Services - School Administration c:40) 2500 Support Services - Business (250) 2501 Supervision ofBusiness SerYices (251) 2510 Fiscal Services (252) 2 511 Supenision of Fiscal Services (: 5: I I 2512 Budgering (2522) 2513 Receiring and Disbursing Funds I :5 :3i 251-1 Payroll C52-I) 2515 Financiai Accounring (25251 ]516 Internal A.udiring (2526) 251- Properry Accounting (252-\n\") 2519 Other Fiscal Senices (2529) 2520 Purchasing Ser.ices (2572) 2530 Warehousing and Distributing Services (2573) 2531 Supenision of Warehousing and Disrribwing Services I: 5-1 J 2535 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment 2540 Printing, Publishing and Duplicating Ser\\'ices (257.1) 2590 Other Support Services - Business (259) -21- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senices (Continued) 2600 Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services (254) 2610 Supervision of Operation \u0026amp; ~!aintenance of Plant Se:-ices (2541) 2620 Operation of Building Services (25-C) 2630 Care and Upkeep of Grounds Services (25-13) 2640 Care and Upkeep of Equipment Services (25-1-1) 2650 Vehicle Operation and Maintenance Services (Other than Student Transportation Vehicles) (25-15) 2660 Security Services (2546) 2690 Other Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services (25.19) 2700 Student Transportation Services (255) 2710 Supervision of Student Transportation Smices (255 ! ) 2720 Vehicle Operation (2552) 2730 Monitoring (2553) 2740 Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance (255-1) 2790 Other Student Transportation Services (25 59) 2800 Support Services  Central (260) 280 I Supervision of Central Support Services (2610) 2810 Planning, Research, Development and Eva! (PRD\u0026amp;E) Services (2620) 2811 Supervision of PRD\u0026amp;E Services (262 l) 2812 Development Services (2622) 2813 Evaluation Services (2623) -22- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Services (Continued) :?.800 Support SerYices - Central (Continued) 2810 Planning, Research. Development and EYal Ser.ices , C0minued) ] 1 ./ Planning Services (161./) ]815 Research Ser\\'ices (16::5) ]819 Other PRD\u0026amp;E Services (1619) 2820 Information Services (:?.630) 2821 Supervision of Information Services (::631 i 2822 Internal Information (2632) 2823 Public Information (2633) ]82./ Management Information (non -dara process:1:g ::63J) 2829 Other Information Services (]6391 2830 Staff Services c::640) 2831 Supenision of Staff Services (]6.!! 1 2832 Recruitment and Placement (26J:: ]833 SraffAccounring (26./3) 283./ lnservice Training (classified sral} C6J.!\n2835 Health (26./5) ]839 Other Sraff Senices (26./9) 2840 Data Processing - Administrative Services (2660) 2841 Supervision of Administrative Dara Process.1:g Services (2661) 28./2 Systems Analysis (2662) 28./3 Programming (2663) 284./ Operations (266./) 2849 Other Administrative Dara Processing Senices (2669) 2870 Technology Services -23- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 2000 Support Senrices (Continued) 2800 Support Ser\\'ices - Central (Continued) :?.880 Statistical Ser\nices (2650) 1881 Supervision of Statistical Sen'ices (:65 I) 288] Statistical Analysis (1651) 1883 Statistical Reporting Services (1653) 2889 Other Statistical Services (1659) 2890 Other Support Services - Central (2690) 2900 Other Support Services (290) 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services 3100 Food Services Operations (25 6) 3110 Supervision of School Food Services (2561) 3120 Food Preparation and Dispensing Senices t:56:?.) 3130 Food Delivery Services (2563) 3140 Food Management Contract Sen'ices 3190 Other Food Smices (2569) 3200 Other Enterprise Operations 3300 Community Services Operations (300) 3310 Supervision of Community Services (310) 3320 Community Recreation Services (320) 3330 Civic Services (330) 3340 Public Library Services (340) -24- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services (Continued) 3300 Community Services Operations (Continued) 3350 Custody and C:ire of Children Ser\\'ices (350) 33: 1 Welfare Activities (360) 3352 !\\'on-public School Public Sen:ice , r o) 3353 Parent Centers 335-1 Instruction Program (380) 3390 Other Community Services (390) 3400 Other Non-Instructional Services 4000 Facilities Acquisition \u0026amp; Construction Senices (253) 4100 Supervision of Facilities Acquisition \u0026amp; Construction Ser\\'ices t:531 ) 4200 Site Acquisition Services (253:) 4300 Site Impro\\'ement Ser\nices 4400 Architecture and Engineering Services (2533) 4500 Educational Specifications Development Services (:534) 4600 Building . .\\cquisition and Construction Services 4610 Instructional Areas (2535) 4620 Non-Instructional Areas (2536) 4700 Building Improvements Services 4 710 Instructional Areas 4720 Non-Instructional Areas 4900 Other Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services (2539) -25- Table III: Function Classifications (Continued) 5000 Other Uses (Governmental Funds Only) 5100 LEA Indebtedness (500) 5110 Bonded Indebtedness (510) 5120 Non-Bonded Debt (Revolving Loans) (5:0) 5130 Current Loans (530) 5140 Postdated Warrants (540) 5150 Installment/Lease Purchase Payments (5:0) 5160 School Board Association Anticipated Ta--. ~ote (560) 5190 Other Indebtedness 5200 Fund Transfers (430) 5300 Payment to Other LEA's (\\Vithin the State) (410) 5400 Payment to Other LEA's (Outside the State) c..1:0) 5 500 Indirect Costs ( 440) 5900 Other )ion-Programmed Costs ( 490) 5901 Payment to State for Overpayment of Funds -26- QbjW This classification is used to describe the service or commodity obtained as ::i. result of ::i. specific expenditure. The major categories of objects are further broken do\\\\TI into sub-objects to allO\\\\ for greater detail. The major category designation is often used as ::i. c::i.tegory summary that should not be used for posting purposes. Items in italics denote additional detail for coding transactions which you m::i.~ choose t0 incorporate into your system but is not required for state and fede,al reporting purposes. For reporting purposes, all districts must code to the lowest detail level not italicized. Table IV: Object Classifications 61000 Personal Senices  Salaries (100) 61100 Regular Employees ( 110) 61110 Certified (110) 61120 Classified (120) 61200 Temporary Employees 61210 Certified 61220 Classified 61300 Overtime 61400 Sabbatical Leave 61500 Workshops (150) 61510 Certified 61520 Classified 61700 Substitutes 61710 Certified ( 130) 61720 Classified 61800 Unused Sick Leave 6' 1810 Certified 61820 Classified -27- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 61000 Personal Services - Salaries (100) 61900 Other 61910 Severance Certified 61920 Severance Classiried 61930 Early Retirement Incentive Certified 61940 Early Retirement Incentive Classified 61950 Annuity ff-Drop 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits 62100 Group Insurance (240) 62110 Certified 62120 Classified 62200 Social Security (210) 62210 Certified 62220 Classified 62250 y!edicare 62260 Certified 62270 Classified 62300 Teacher Retirement Contributions (220) 62310 Certified 62320 Classified 62400 Tuition Reimbursement 62410 Certified 62420 Classified 62500 Unemployment Compensation (250) 62510 Certified 62520 Classified -28- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 62000 Personal Senices - Employee Benefits (Continued) 62600 Workers Compensation t260) 62610 Certified 62620 Classified 62700 Health Benefits 62710 Certified 62720 Classified 62800 Public Retirement Contributions (230) 62820 Classified 62900 Other Employee Benefits (290) 62910 Certified 62920 Classified 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Senices (310) 63100 Official/ Administrative 63110 Staff Service (31 ..:J 63120 .\\1anagement Service - Consulting (315\n63130 Board of Educarion Services (31 8) 63200 Professional-Educational 63210 Instruction Services (311) 63220 Instructional Program Improvement Services (312) 63230 Consulting - Educational 63300 Other Professional 63310 Pupil Services (313) 63320 Engineering 63330 Accounting 63340 Legal -29- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Senices (Continued) 63300 Other Professional (Continued) 63350 ,\\fedical 63360 Information Technology 63370 Architectural 63400 Technical 63./10 Data Processing Services (316) 63410 Statistical Services (317) 63900 Other Purchased Professional and Technical Senices 64000 Purchased Property Services (320) 64100 Utility Services 6./1 JO Water-'Sewer (323) 6-C00 Cleaning Smices (324) 6-4110 Disposal,Sanitation (313) 6./230 Custodial 6./2./0 Lawn Care 64300 Repair and \\ifaintenance Services 6./310 Buildings and Grounds (315) 6-1320 Equipment and Vehicle (326) 64400 Rentals 64410 Rental of Land and Buildings (3 2 j 64420 Rental of Equipment and Vehicles (328) 64500 Construction Services 64900 Other Purchased Property Services (329) -30- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 65000 Other Purchased Senices 65100 Student Transportation Services (330) 65110 Studem Transporrarion Purchast!d_fi\"om LE.-l 1111hlll 1\n1c Sra1e 65120 Srudent Transporrarion Purchasd_tiom LE.-l owsrd.: riw S1a1c 65190 Studenr Transporration Purchasedjiom Orher Sourc.:s 65200 Insurance Other than Employee Benefits (640) 65210 Property Insurance 65220 Liability Insurance 65230 Fidelity Bond Premiums 652./0 Fleet Insurance 65250 Accident Insurance 65290 Other Insurance 6:300 Communications (340) 65310 Telephone 653:0 Postage 65400 Advertising (350) 65500 Printing and Binding (360) 65600 Tuition (370) 65610 To Other LEA wirhin 1he Srare 65620 To Orher LEA oucside the Srate 65630 To Priva1e Schools 656./0 Educational Jnrermediate Agency within rhe State 65650 Educational Intermediate Agency outsra\"e the State 65690 Other 65700 Food Service Management (380) -31- Table IV: Object Classifications (Continued) 65000 Other Purchased Senices (Continued) 65800 Travel (332) 65810 Cerr(fied 65820 Classified 65830 Out of District Certified 658-10 Out of District Classified 65850 Out of State Certified 65860 Out of State Class((led 65870 Non-Employee 65880 .'vfeals 65890 Lodging 65900 Miscellaneous Purchased Services (390) 65910 Ser\\'ices Purchased Locally 65920 Services Purchased from LEA within the Stare 65930 Services Purchased from LEA outside the Stare 66000 Supplies and Materials (400) 66100 General Supplies and Materials (-n 0) 66:00 Energy ( 460) 66210 Natural Gas (31 1) 66~20 Electriciry (322) 66230 Butane/Propane (-163) 662-10 Oil (-162) 66250 Coal/Wood (-161) 66260 Gasoline/Diesel (J6-I) 66290 Other 66300 Food 66400 Books and Periodicals 66410 Textbooks (-120) 66420 Library Books (430) 66430 Periodicals (./40) 66440 Audiovisual Materials (450) -32- Table I\\': Object Classifications (Continued) 66000 Supplies and Materials (Continued) 66500 Technology Supplies 66510 Sofnrare 66520 Other 66600 Building Materials 66700 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment (-PO) 66900 Other Supplies and Materials ( 490) 67000 Property ( 500) 67100 Land and Improvements (510,530) 67200 Buildings (Existing Structures) (520/570) 67210 Library Books (\\ew Libraries only) (560) 67300 Equipment (540) 6-310 .'vlachinery (5-10) 67320 Vehicles (550) 6-330 Furniture and Fixtures (5.J O) 67390 Other Equipmenr (5-10) 67500 Technology Equipment -33- Table I\\': Object Classifications (Continued) 68000 Other Objects ( 600) 68100 Dues and Fees (630) 68200 Judgments against the LEA. ( 6.50) 68300 Interest (6:~0) 68400 Indirect Cost (670) 68800 Taxes 68810 Tax on Resale Items 68820 Improvement Tax (660) 68830 Property Tax 68900 Yiiscellaneous Expenditures 69000 Other lises of Funds 69100 Redemption of Principal ( 610) 69200 Housing Authority Obligations 69300 Fund Transfers (Pennanent) (710) 693 IO Transfer to Salary Fund 69320 Transfer to Operating Fund 69330 Transfer to Building Fund 69340 Transfer to Debt Service Fund 69350 Transfer to Capital Outlay Fund 69360 Transfer to Federal Grants Fund 69370 Transfer to Student Activity Fund 69380 Transfer to Food Service Fund 69400 Program Funding Return 69500 Transits ( Flow-Through Money) 69900 Loan Payments To -34- ~u\\,ject Are:i :ind Progr:im (Opt10nal classitications for use by districts) A subject area classification is used for local accounting purpos..:s .  -\\ny district choosing to 1 e this classification should develop subject area classiiication  m relation to their needs. The use of this classification is at the discretion of the district. A program is a plan of activities and procedures designed to accomplish an vbJective. The use: of this classification allo\\,s expenditures related to a specific prog~ammatic area to be dismbute.:: across the appropriate functional classiiications. TlHS is specirically releYant for progr:ims t!~3t relate to direct instruction as well as support serYicc:s. Any distri t choosing to use this classification should develop program classifi ation: in accord:mce \\\\ ith their needs. The use oi this classification is at the discretion of the district or cooperati\\e. The Arkansas Department of Education (Department) reserYes the right in the future to designate specific coding requirements. ii needed. to comply with reporting requirements imposed on :he Department. -35 - Revenue Classifications Revenue Revenue is defined as an increase in an asset ,vhich does not increase any liability, does not represent the recovery of any expenditure and does not represent the reduction of a liability that would result in a corresponding increase in another liability. This section of classifications includes \"Other Sources\" which are cash inflows but are not considered rewnue, e.g .. interfund transfers, bond proceeds, insurance proceeds, etc. The classifications required to meet state level reporting requirements for re\\'enue are comprised of the following: Fund Source of Fund Revenue Code Table V: Revenue Code Classifications 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (1000) I 1000 Taxes ( 1100) 11100 Property Taxes 11110 Property Taxes - Current ( 1111) 11120 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Recei,ed by June 30 (1112) 11130 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Recei\\'ed July I- Dec 31 (I I IA) 11140 Property Taxes - Delinquent (1113) 11150 Excess Commission ( 1181) 11 I 60 Land Redemption (Include State Land Sales) (I I 82) 11200 Sales and Use Tax 11300 Income Tax I I 400 Penalties and Interest on Taxes 11900 Other Taxes -36- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 12000 Revenue From Local Governmental Units Other than LEAs t\\~00) 12100 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes 12900 Other 13000 Tuition (1300) 13100 School Tuition from Individuals 131 JO Tuition from Regular Day School (I 311) 13120 Tuition from Summer School (1331 ) 13130 Tuition from Adult Education (1321) 13i-!0 Tuitionfrom Day Care (1313) 13Jj0 Veterans Tuition (1323) 13190 Tuition from Other Programs (1319 1329 1339) 13200 Tuition from Other LE:\\.'s Within the State 13210 Tuition from Regular Day School (1312) 13220 Tuition from Summer School (133-:1 13230 TuitionfromAdulr Education (13221 132.JO Tuition from Day Care (1313) 132j0 Veterans Tuition (132 3) 13190 Tuition from Or her Programs (1319 1329 13391 13300 Tuition from Other LEA.'s Outside the State 13310 Tuitionfrom Regular Day School (1319/1329 1339) 13320 Tuition from Summer School (1339) 13330 Tuition from Adult Education (1329) 13340 Tuition from Day Care (1313) J 3350 Veterans Tuition (1323) 13390 Tuitionfrom Other Programs (1319/1329/1339) 13900 Tuition from Other Sources (1319/1329/1339) -37- Table\\': Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 14000 Transportation Fees (1400) 14100 Transportation Fees from Individuals 1-1110 Feesfrom Regular Day School (I-Ill! I 4120 Fees from Summer School (1-12 I) 1-1130 Fees from Adult Education 141-10 Feesfrom Vocational Education 14190 Fees from Other Programs 14200 Transportation Fees from Other LEA's Within the State 1-12 JO Fees from Regular Day School (]-II 2) 1-1220 Fees from Summer School (1-122) 1-1230 Fees from Adult Education 1-12-10 Feesfrom Vocational Educarion 1-1290 Fees from Other Programs 1-1300 Transporration Fees from Other LEA s Owside rhc S1a1e 1-13 IO Fees from Regular Day School (1-111) 1-1320 Fees from Summer School (1-122) 1-1330 Fees from Adult Education 1-13-10 Feesfrom Vocational Educarion 1-1390 Fees from Other Programs 14900 Transportation Fees from Other Sources 15000 Earnings on Investments (1500) 15100 Interest on Investments ( 1510) 15200 Profits on Sale of Buildings (1520) 15900 Other Earnings on Investments (1590) -38- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 16000 Food Service (1600) 16100 Daily Sales (1610) 16110 Daily Sales - School Lunch Program 16120 Daily Sales - School Brea~1ast Program 16130 Daily Sales - Special Milk Program 16200 Daily Sales - Non-Reimbursable Programs 162 JO Student(] 61 OJ 16215 A La Carte Income (161:) 16220 Adult (1620) 16300 Special Functions Contract Meals (1625) 16900 Other Food Service ReYenue (1690) 16910 Pepsi/Coke Fund 17000 Srudent ActiYities ( 1700) 17100 Admissions ( 1710) 17110 Athletics (1711 ) 17120 Other School - Sponsored Events ( 1712) 17130 Student Organizations - Sponsored hents 8.:. .-\\ctivities (l 713 ) 17200 Sales (1730) 17210 School Sponsored Sales (pictures, workbooks. etc.) (1731 ) 17220 Student Sponsored Sales (candy, candles, etc.)( 1732) 17300 Organization Membership Dues \u0026amp; Fees (1740) 17310 Student Organization Membership Dues (1741) 17320 Teacher Organization Membership Dues ( 1742) 17400 Fees Charged Students (Fines, etc.) (1720) -39- Table\\': Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Rcnnue from Local Sources (Continued) ! 7000 Student Activities (Continued) 17500 Contracted Services (1750) 17510 ArhleticGuaranrees(J-:51) 17590 Other Contracted Services (1-:59) 17900 Other Student Activity Revenue (1790) 18000 Revenue from Community Service Activities 18100 Athletic 18900 Other Community Service Activities 19000 Other Revenue from Local Sources ( 1900) 19100 Rentals (1910) 19110 16th Secrion Land Rent (1911) 19120 Other Rent Income From Land Owned b_i: the LEA ( 1911) 19130 LEA Buildings and Facilities (1913) 191-10 Rental of Equipment and Vehicles (191-1) 19200 Contributions and Donations From Private Sources (19:0) 19300 Sales of Supplies and Materials (1933) 19400 Textbook Sales and Rentals ( 1800) 19410 Secondary Sales (18100) I 9430 Secondary Textbook Rentals 19450 Elementary Sales (I 820) 19470 Elementary Textbook Rentals 19490 Other Sales/Rentals (I 890) -40- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 10000 Revenue from Local Sources (Continued) 19000 Other ReYenue from Local Sources (Continued) 19500 SerYices Provided LEAs (Other than tuition \u0026amp; transponation) ll940) 19510 Sen-ices Provided Other LEA s Trithin the State 19511 Test Scoring 19 512 Speech Therapist 19513 Equipment Repair 1951-1 Special Education Appraisal Senices 19515 LEA 's Supervisor Program 19516 Stajf De,elopment 1951- G[fted and Talented Reading Senice 19518 Print Shop 19519 lv!edia Services 19550 Transits (Flow-Through Yioney) 19580 SerYices ProYided Other LEA s Outside the State 19600 SerYices Provided Other Local GoYerrunental l:nits 19700 Services ProYided Other Funds ( e.g .. printing. etc.) 19800 Refunds of Prior Year Expenditures (1950) 19900 Miscellaneous Revenue from Local Sources (1990) 20000 Revenue from Intermediate Sources 21000 Unrestricted Revenue from the County (2100) 21100 County General Apportionment (2110) 11200 Severance Tax (2120) 21900 Other Revenue from County (2190) -41- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (3000) 31000 Unrestricted Grants-in-Aid (3100) 31100 State Equalization Aid (3110) 31200 Additional Base Funding 313 00 Consolidation Incentive 31400 High Cost Transportation Aid (3140) 31450 Student Gro'wth Funding 31500 Isolated Aid 31600 Incentive Funding 31650 ReYenue Loss Funding (formerly Catastrophic Loss) 3 1900 Other (3190) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources 32100 Adult Education 32110 Adult Basic Education 32120 Adult General Education 32130 Workplace Adult Education 32140 Other -42- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32200 Regular Education 32211 Reading Program Inservice (McR...\\ T. Reading Reco,ery. ELL.\\) 32214 Computer Based Education Program 32219 Math \u0026amp; Science Equipment Grant 32220 Curriculum Frameworks 32221 \\\\'riting Assessment 32222 Career Education 32227 College Prep Enrichment Program (CPEP) 32228 Economic Education 32230 Parents as Teachers (P . .\\ T) Project 32231 Parents as Teachers (P . .\\ T) Training Center 32234 Distant Leaming 32237 Match Math \u0026amp; Science 32239 State IMPACT Funding for Technology 32300 Special Education : :3 IO Children with Disabilities - SuperYision. Extended Year. Foster Care (3231) 32330 Children without Disabilities - Residential Treatment (3233) 32340 Children with Disabilities - Residential Treatment (3234) 32350 Early Childhood Special Education 32355 Special Education Catastrophic Loss Funding 32360 Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - AEGIS Program. GoYemors School 32361 Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Advance Placement : 23 70 Altemati ve Leaming Environment 323 71 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 323 72 Residential Centers/Juvenile Detention 32374 Intervention Prevention 32375 Carnegie Math Based Education 32380 Aid to Human Development Centers -43- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32400 Workforce Education 32410 Workforce Center Grant 32420 Workforce Capital Equipment Grant 32430 Coordinated Comp Workforce Education - Special Needs 32440 Technical Preparatory Coordination 32442 Technical Preparatory Learning 32445 Workplace Readiness Tech Prep 32450 Secondary Workforce Center Counseling 32455 Adult Center Support 32458 Short-term Adult Skill Training 32460 Youth Apprenticeship 32470 Traditional Apprenticeship 32475 Arkansas Education Service Center 32480 Workforce New Program Start-up 32485 Teenage Outreach Parenting Program 32488 Principles of Technology 3:2490 Workforce Rehabilitation 32491 Workforce Education 32495 High Tech Training Center 32500 School Food Service (3250) 32520 State Matching 32590 Other 32600 Educational Service Cooperatives 32610 Educational Service Cooperative Funding 32700 Early Childhood Programs 32710 Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) 32711 K-3 Summer School 32712 K-3 Regular School 32713 Early Childhood Curriculum Specialist 32720 K-3 At Risk 32725 Arkansas Crusade for Math \u0026amp; Science K-3 -44- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 30000 Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32000 Restricted Revenue from State Sources (Continued) 32700 Early Childhood Programs (Continued) 32730 Model Rural Consortium Grant 32735 Early Childhood - Parent Involvement 32740 Infant/Toddler Program (DHS) 32745 Smart Start 32790 Other 32800 Magnet School Programs 32811 Pulaski County Magnet School Revenue 32812 M-to-M Revenue 32813 Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transportation 32900 Other Non-Instructional Programs 32910 Workers' Comp Funding 32912 General Facilities Funding 32913 Growth Facilities Funding 32915 Debt Service Supplement 32916 DHS Human Service Worker Initiative 32917 Department of Health 32990 Other Grants and Aid from the State 40000 Revenue from Federal Sources (4000) 41000 Unrestricted Aid Direct from Federal Government (4100) I 41100 School Federal Assistance - M\u0026amp;O ( PL 81-874, 93-380) (4110) 41200 Wildlife Refuge (4120) 41300 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes (4130) 41900 Other Unrestricted Revenue ( 4190) -45- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 40000 Revenue from Federal Sources (Continued) 42000 Unrestricted Aid From the Federal Government Through the State ( 4200) 42100 Forest Reserve (4310) 42200 Flood Control (4320) 42300 Mineral Leases (4330) 42400 Federal Grazing (4340) 42500 Impact Aid (4350) 42900 Other Unrestricted Revenue (4390) 43000 Restricted Aid Direct from Federal Government (4200) 43100 Elementary/Secondary Education Programs 43110 Artists in Residence 43120 Community Education 43130 Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Prevention 43140 National Endowment for the Humanities 43150 Bilingual Education 43160 ROTC - Reserve Officers' Training Corp 43170 Troops to Teachers 43180 Satellite Education Research Commission 43185 National Science Foundation 43190 Presidential Award for Math \u0026amp; Science 4~ 191 Community Service Leaming Workers Assistance 43192 Math Crusade 43600 Indian Education Programs 43610 Indian Education (4242) 43700 Desegregation Programs 43710 MagnetSchool(4221) 43720 Office of Civil Rights (4222) -46- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 40000 Revenue from Federal Sources (Continued) 43000 Restricted Aid Direct from Federal Government (Continued) 43900 Other Restricted Aid Direct from the Federal Government 439 IO National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Title III. Parts 1 \u0026amp; 2 43920 Major Disaster - Repair \u0026amp; Equipment 43930 Public Law 815 - Construction 43940 Federal Low Income Housing 43942 Housing \u0026amp; Community Development Act of 1974 43950 Resource Conservation \u0026amp; Development 43960 Exxon Energy Grant 43970 School Health \u0026amp; utrition 43972 Summer School Health \u0026amp; Nutrition Program 43974 Commodities 43975 Cash in Lieu of Commodities - Not Through State (4486) 43976 Rural Utilities Service Grant (USDA) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State 45100 Elementary/Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 45110 ESEA Title I Regular - Comp Education 45111 ESEA Title I Migrant Education 45112 ESEA Title I Service Center Migrant Students 45113 ESEA Title I Program Improvement Grant 45114 ESEA Title I Capital Expenses - Grants to Private Schools 4511 S Even Start Migrant Education Grant 45116 ESEA Title I Handicapped Elem \u0026amp; Secondary Act of 1965 45117 Even Start Family Literacy Program 45118 Learn and Serve America 45120 ESEA Title I Neglected \u0026amp; Delinquent Children 45121 Title I Summer Challenge 45122 Title I Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program 45130 ESEA Title VI - At-Risk Students 45131 ESEA Title VI - Technical Assistance \u0026amp; Special Projects 45132 Title VI - Classroom Reduction Act of 1999 45140 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act for Children 45150 Job Training Partnership Act, Title II, Section 123 45155 Job Training Partnership Act, Title III 45160 Title XX Social Security Act -47- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federa.l Government Through State (Continued) 45100 Elementary/Secondary Education Act (Continued) 45165 Education for Economic Security Act - Basic Skills Improvement 45170 DHS - Childcare Assistance Grant 45300 Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 45310 Basic Grant - Formula Grant Entitlement 45311 Leadership Projects - Competitive Awards 45312 Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers \u0026amp; Single Pregnant Women 45313 Sex Equity 45314 Programs for Criminal Offenders 45315 Vocational Education Support - Community-Based 45316 Consumer \u0026amp; Homemaking Education 45317 Technical Preparatory Education - Title III Part E 45318 Supplemental Grants for Improvement Activities - Title III Part F 45319 Teenage Outreach Parenting Program 45320 Special Needs 45321 Delta Initiative 45322 Strive Grant 45325 Technical Literacy Challenge Fund Grant - Title III Part A 45400 Adult Education 45410 Direct \u0026amp; Equitable 45420 Demonstration Projects \u0026amp; Teacher Training 45430 Correctional Adult Education Program 45440 Model Resource Center 45450 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act for Adults 45460 Employment for Disadvantaged Youth - Stay-in-School Program 45470 Adult Basic Education 45480 Women's Educational Equity Act of 1988, Title IX 45500 School Food Services 45510 Lunch Reimbursement Through ADE 45511 Lunch Reimbursement Through DHS 45520 Breakfast Reimbursement Through ADE 45521 Breakfast Reimbursement Through DHS -48- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State (Continued) 45500 School Food Services (Continued) 45530 Special Mille Reimbursement Through ADE 45531 Special Milk Reimbursement Through DHS 45540 Snack Reimbursement Through ADE 45541 Snack Reimbursement Through DHS 45550 Food Service Equipment Assistance 45560 Cash in Lieu of Commodities 45580 Nutrition Education \u0026amp; Training Program (NET) 45585 Comprehensive Health (HAT) (Nifty Nutrition) 45590 Other Food Service Revenue 45600 Special Education 45610 IDEA Title VI-B Education of Handicapped 45612 IDEA Title VI-B Area Services 45613 IDEA Title VI-B Pass Through Funding 45614 IDEA Title VI-B Head Start 45630 IDEA Early Childhood, Section 619 45640 Title VI-B Special Education Transition Project 45650 Sliver Grant 45900 Other Restricted Federal Aid Through State 45910 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act 45915 Adult Refugee Fund 45920 Eisenhower Math \u0026amp; Science Project 45930 Environmental Education 45940 Goals 2000 45950 Home Instruction Program Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 45960 National Diffusion Network (NDN) State Facilitator Project 45970 Drug Abuse Prevention -49- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 45000 Restricted Aid from the Federal Government Through State(Continued) 45900 Other Restricted Federal Aid Through State (Continued) 45971 Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities. Title IV 45980 Comprehensive School Health - Aids Education Act 45981 Local Delinquency Prevention Title V 45982 School Health Program Coordinator 45990 Other Restricted Federal Grants Through State 47000 Grants-In-Aid From Federal Government Through Intermediate Agency 48000 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes 49000 Revenue for/on Behalf of the LEA 49100 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (4495) 49150 Federal Flood Control 50000 Other Sources - Nonrevenue 51000 Financing Sources (Nonrevenue) (1970) 51100 Proceeds from Sale of Bonds (1971) 51200 Revolving Loans (1972) 51300 Postdated Warrants ( I 973) 51400 Current Loans (1974) 51500 Installment/Lease Purchase 51600 Temporary State Loan (1975) 51700 School Board Association Anticipation Tax Note (1976) 51800 Refunding Savings 51900 Miscellaneous Nonrevenue Sources -50- Table V: Revenue Code Classifications (Continued) 52000 Interfund Transfers (Permanent Transfers) (1960) 52100 Transfer from Salary Fund (1961) 52200 Transfer from Operating Fund ( 1962) 52300 Transfer from Building Fund (1963) 52400 Transfer from Debt Service Fund (1964) 52500 Transfer from Capital Outlay Fund 52600 Transfer from Federal Grants Fund (1965) 52700 Transfer from Student Activity Fund ( 1966) 52800 Transfer from Food Service Fund (1967) 52900 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 52950 Other 53000 Gains or Losses on Sales of Fixed Assets (Nonrevenue) (1930) 53100 SaleofEquipment(l931) 53200 Sale of Building and Grounds (1932) 53400 Compensation for Loss of Fixed Assets (1934) Source of fund classifications for the revenue codes listed in Table V are detailed in Table II . -51- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications Assets and Other Debits Current Assets 01000 Cash 01010 Cash in Bank (101) 01020 Petty Cash (102) 01050 Cash with Fiscal Agents (104) 01110 Investments 01120 Certificates of Deposit 01140 Interest Receivable on Investments 01180 Accrued Interest on Investments 01210 Taxes Receivable (110) 01230 Tax Liens Receivable 01410 Intergovernmental Receivable ( 140) 01510 Loans Receivable 01530 Accounts Receivable ( 120) 01580 Bonds Receivable (121) 01600 Due from other Funds (130) 01680 Advances to other Funds ( 150) 01710 Inventories for Consumption ( 1 70) 01720 Inventories for Resale ( 171) 01810 Prepaid Expenses ( 192) 01850 Deposits (191) -52- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications (Continued) 01890 Other Current Assets 01910 Longterm Investments 01920 Unamortized Premiums on Investments 01930 Unamortized Discounts on Investments ( contra account) Fixed Assets (for use in the Fixed Asset Account Group) 02110 Sites (201) 02210 Site Improvements (203) 02310 Buildings \u0026amp; Building Improvements 02410 Machinery \u0026amp; Equipment (204) 02510 Construction-in-Progress (205) Budgeting Accounts \u0026amp; Other Debits 03040 Bonds Authorized - Unissued (303) 03050 Amount Available for Debt Service (304) 03060 Amount to be Provided for Retirement of Longterm Debt (305) Liabilities, Reserves \u0026amp; Fund Balances Current Liabilities 04000 Vouchers Payable (401) 04020 Accounts Payable ( 402) 04050 Taxes Payable 04060 Claims \u0026amp; Judgments Payable (403) 04070 Contracts Payable (404) -53- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications (Continued) 04080 Construction Contracts Payable (405) 04090 Construction Contracts Payable - Retainage 041 l O Intergovernmental Accounts Payable 04200 Due to Other Funds ( 411) 04280 Advances from Other Funds 04330 Due to Revolving Loan Fund (421) 04410 Matured Bonds Payable ( 441) 04420 Matured Bond Interest Payable ( 442) 04500 Interest Payable - Current (502) 04610 Salaries Payable 04711 Payroll Deductions \u0026amp; Withholding (450) 04712 State Withholding (451) 04713 Federal Withholding (452) 04714 Social Security Payable (453) 04715 Teacher Retirement Payable (454) 04716 Public Employee Retirement Payable (455) 04717 Medicate Payable 04718 Other Payroll Deductions (456) 04810 Deferred Revenue (473) 04920 Due to Fiscal Agent (471) 04930 Bonds Payable - Current (501) 04940 Notes Payable - Current 04990 Other Current Liabilities 05010 Unamortized Premiums on Bonds Sold (472) -54- Table VI: Balance Sheet Account Classifications (Continued) 05020 Unamortized Discounts on Bonds Sold ( 193) 05110 Bonds Payable - oncurrent 05120 Notes Payable - oncurrent Budgeting Accounts and Other Credits 06010 Appropriations (Expenditure Budget Control) (601) 06020 Expenditures (Expenditure Control) (602) 06030 Encumbrances (Encumbrance Control) (603) 06040 Payroll Encumbrance Control 06050 Estimated Revenues (301) 06060 Revenues (Credit) (302) Fund Equity 07110 Investment in General Fixed Assets (705) 07510 Reserved for Inventories (702) 07530 Reserved for Encumbrances (701) 07540 Payroll Reserve for Encumbrances 07600 Reserved - Fund Balance (703) 07700 Umeserved - Fund Balance (704) 07900 Fund Balance Budget -55- Chapter 3 DEFINITIONS OF ACCOUNT CLASSIFICATIONS This chapter consists of definitions of the account classifications and detailed descriptions of fund, location, function, object, revenue and balance sheet classifications. Fund Definitions Fund accounting is organized around a set of funds where each fund is created for a unique purpose. Each fund maintains a complete set of self-balancing accounts which show its assets, liabilities, reserves, fund balances and expenditures. Included in this section are fund definitions. 1 Teacher Salary Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures for payment of salaries for certified personnel, certified substitutes, tuition and fringe benefits as defined by statute 6-17-908. Certified personnel salaries from federal program funds are excluded. 2 Operating Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures for current operating expenses other than those that relate to the purposes set out for the other funds listed. 3 Building Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures of specific building projects. 4 Debt Service Fund. Set of accounts used to record local tax receipts and expenditures for the retirement of bonded debt. 5 Capital Outlay/Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures of building projects funded by millages voted and passed specifically for capital outlay and dedicated M\u0026amp;O purposes. 6 Federal Grants Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures restricted to federally sponsored projects. 7 Activity Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures for pupil activities. 8 Food Service Fund. Set of accounts used to record the receipts and expenditures of the food service operations. 9 Fixed Asset Fund. Set of self-balancing accounts indicating the investment in fixed assets. -56- Source of Fund Definitions This classification is used to identify expenditures in relation to specific revenue sources. Source A of fund codes should be used wherever specialized reporting and budgetary control are required. W A three digit code is used for source of fund classifications as specified in Table II. Where the need for separate source of fund codes ( e.g., building fund) are not necessary. the classification code will be 000. Source of fund code definitions are the same as their corresponding revenue code definitions which are listed later in this chapter. Location CLEA Number) Definitions The term location is used to denote the location of education activities for organizational purposes. In most cases, location denotes individual schools, but it can be used to designate cost centers which will enable budgets and expenditures to be made for each school or location. Districts should use the last three digits of the school's LEA to specify the location for the transaction. Function Definitions The function describes the activity being performed when a service is provided or a material object is received. The functions of a district are classified into five broad areas: instruction: support services\noperation of non-instructional services\nfacilities acquisition and construction services\nand other outlays. Included in this section are definitions of each function. 1000 Instruction. Instruction includes the activities dealing directly with teaching students or - interaction between teacher and pupils. Teaching may be provided for pupils in a school classroom, in a home or hospital and in other learning situations such as co-curricular activities. 1100 Regular Programs/Elementary-Secondary. Regular instruction activities designed for students preschool through high school. 1103 K-3 Summer School Remediation. Summer school for students kindergarten through grade 3. 1105 Preschool. Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) provides learning experiences for educationally deprived children ages 3-5. 1110 Kindergarten. Leaming experiences for students 5 and 6 years old. 1120 Elementary. Learning experiences generally for students in grades 1 through 6 but may include up to grade 8. -57- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1100 Regular Programs/Elementary-Secondary. (Continued) 1130 Middle/Junior High. Leaming experiences for grades 5 through 9. 1140 High School. Leaming experiences generally for grades 9 through 12 but may include grades 7 and 8. 1150 Athletics. Activities associated with the district's regularly organized sports programs. 1160 Student Activities. Co-curricular activities of the district which can be separately identified from other regular programs. 1170 Summer School. Leaming experiences supplemented in the summer for students that did not achieve a certain level of proficiency during the regular school year. 1180 Teacher Bonus. One time bonus to teachers and not subject to teacher retirement. 1190 Other Regular. Prior year underpayments and any other regular programs not classified above. 1200 Special Education. Instructional activities designed primarily to deal with special needs. The special program service area includes pre-primary, elementary and secondary students who are handicapped and in need of special education and related services as defined in program standards. 1210 Itinerant Instruction. Instruction provided by an educational specialist who serves handicapped children with disabilities and their teachers in generally more than one school, in their homes or in hospitals. 1211 Consulting Teachers. 1212 Itinerant Speech Pathologist. 1213 Braille Instructors. 1214 Home Bound. 1215 Educational Interpreters for the Deaf. -58- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1200 Special Education. (Continued) 1220 Resource Room. Services are provided by a resource teacher who works with students with disabilities assigned to the regular classroom more than halfof the school day. 1230 Special Class - 1: 15 Ratio. A student with a disability where the student is assigned to a special class for at least half of the school day. 1240 Special Class - 1: 10 Ratio. A severely impaired student with a disability where the student is assigned to a special class for at least half of the school day. 1250 Special Class - 1 :6 Ratio. A severely impaired student with a disability where the student is assigned to a special class at least half of the school day due to programming needs that necessitate a low pupil-to-teacher ratio. 1260 1253 Integrated Classroom. 1256 Regular Classroom. Separate Day School - Private. Purchased services only. A student with a disability who spends at least half of the school day in a private day school for contracted services since the student's needs cannot be met in a regular school. 1265 Pre-referral. 1266 Post dismissal. 1267 Section 504 Eligible. 1270 Residential Day School - Private. Purchased services only. A student with a disability who requires residential services in order to receive appropriate special education services where at least half of the school day is spent in a private residential school for contracted services. -59- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1200 Special Education. (Continued) 1280 Other Private. Purchased services only. A student with a disability who requires instruction provided by private agencies or individuals not specified above. 1285 Extended Year. Extension of special education programming beyond the regular school year. 1290 Preschool - Special Needs. A preschool student with a disability who receives special education instruction in a public or private preschool program. 1295 Separate Day School - Public. A preschool student with a disability who spends at least half of the school day in a public day school since their needs cannot be met in a regular school. 1299 Other Special Education. Special education instructional programs not included above. 1300 Workforce Education Programs. Learning experiences which will provide individuals with the opportunity to develop the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities needed for employment in an occupational area. 1310 Workforce Agriculture. Learning experiences that provide opportunities for students to prepare for or improve their competency in agricultural operations. 1320 Marketing \u0026amp; Distributive Education. Learning experiences that prepare students to enter or improve their competency level in distributive occupations. 1330 Business/Office Occupations. Learning experiences that allow students to gain an overall understanding of business principles and practices and prepare them for employment in office occupations. 1340 Health Careers/Occupations. Learning experiences that prepare students with the knowledge, skills and abilities required in health professions. -60- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1300 Workforce Education Programs. (Continued) 1350 Trade and Industrial (including Industrial Arts). Learning experiences that allow students to acquire an overall understanding of industry and technology or prepare students for entry into skilled or semi-skilled occupations in trade and industry. 1360 Home Economics. Learning experiences that prepare students with the requisite knowledge, understanding and skills for entry into home economic occupations. 13 70 Career Orientation. Learning experiences which provide students with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the workplace and occupational tracks to enable them to make intelligent career decisions. 1380 General Cooperative. Learning and working experiences which provide students with knowledge and skills in occupational programs and the opportunity to acquire on- the- job training experience. 1390 Special Needs 1395 Tech Prep. Learning experiences which provide a systematic A technical education between secondary and post secondary WI' institutions leading to two-year associate degrees, certificates or apprenticeship training programs. 13 96 Workplace Readiness. A one semester course designed to teach the skills and attributes needed to succeed in the changing workplace. 1397 Regional Technical Coordination. 1399 Other Workforce Projects. Other vocational education programs not described above. -61- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1400 Adult/Continuing Education Program. Learning experiences designed to develop knowledge and skills to meet educational objectives for adults. Programs include activities to foster the development of the fundamental tools of learning to prepare for a new or different career. 14 IO Adult Basic Education. Instructional services offered to adults, 16 years or older, that enable them to acquire the academic skills which are equivalent to an eighth grade graduate. Additionally, foreign-born adults can be extended the opportunity to learn English as a second language. 1420 Adult General Education. 1430 Adult Workforce Education. Vocational education programs for adults for the purpose of upgrading occupational skills. 1440 Special Projects. These are special grant programs that fund the development of innovations, demonstration, research and teacher training in adult education. 1490 Other Adult/Continuing Education Programs. Other adult and continuing - education programs not described above. 1500 Compensatory Education Programs. Those instructional activities designed primarily to meet the educational needs of pupils who are judged to be underachievers or educationally deprived. All compensatory education must be supplemental to the normal instruction in the areas covered. In cases of joint programs that substitute for normal instruction, only the excess cost may be charged to compensatory education. 15 IO Basic Skills. Special training in two or more of the basic skills of language arts, reading and/or mathematics given under a single set of coordinated instructional activities. 1515 School Improvement. 1520 Dropout/Dropout Prevention. Specialized instructional and support services designed to utilize cultural, ethnic, or vocational interests to encourage students to stay in school or to encourage re-entry of dropouts into educational activities. -62- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1500 Compensatory Education Programs. (Continued) 1525 Technology. 1530 Language Arts. Specialized instructional services in language to supplement the regular English or other language subjects. 1535 Instructional \u0026amp; Educational Materials. 1540 Educational Reform. 1545 At-Risk. 1550 Early Childhood Education. Specialized educational activities and services for students from preschool through the first grade. The program must be designed to compensate for the lack of early childhood learning opportunities arising from environmental constraints. 1555 Literacy. 1560 Reading. Specialized instruction services designed to meet the educational needs of educationally deprived children in conjunction with or in addition to regular reading programs. 1570 Mathematics/Science. Specialized instruction services designed to meet the educational needs of educationally deprived children in conjunction with or in addition to regular mathematics programs. 1590 Other Compensatory Education Programs. Other compensatory education programs not classified. 1900 Other Instructional Programs. Any instructional program not classified above. 1910 Gifted and Talented Children. Programs designed to meet the special educational needs of the gifted and talented at the elementary and secondary levels. 1915 Music. 1 920 Computers. -63- 1000 Instruction. (Continued) 1900 Other Instructional Programs. (Continued) 1930 English as a Second Language. Programs for students for whom English is not their first language. and those who need assistance in English to be successful in school. 1950 Alternative Learning Environment. 1990 Other Instructional Programs. Other programs not described above. 2000 Support Services. Services which provide administrative, technical and logistical support to facilitate and enhance instruction and community services and non-program charges. 2100 Support Services - Students. Activities designed to assess and improve the welfare of students and supplement the teaching process. 2110 Attendance and Social Work Services. Activities designed to improve student attendance at school and attempt to prevent or solve student problems involving the home, the school and the community. 2111 Supervision of Attendance and Social Work Services. The activities associated with supervising and managing attendance and social work. 2112 Attendance. The activities associated with identifying nonattendance patterns, promoting improved attitudes toward attendance, analyzing causes of nonattendance, acting early on nonattendance problems and enforcing compulsory attendance laws. 2113 Social Work. The activities associated with investigating and diagnosing student problems arising out of the home, school or community case work, group work services for the child and/or parent, interpreting the problems of students for other staff members, and promoting modification of the circumstances surrounding the student relating to the problem. -64- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2110 Attendance and Social Work Services. (Continued) 2114 Student Accounting. Activities of acquiring and maintaining records of school attendance, home. family characteristics and census data, portions of which become a part of the student's cumulative record. 21 19 Other Attendance and Social Work Services. Attendance and social work services other than those described above. 2120 Guidance Services. Activities involving counseling students and parents, consulting with staff on learning problems. student evaluations, assisting with student educational and career plans, assisting in student personal and social development, providing referral assistance, and working with other staff members involving student guidance programs. 2121 Supervision of Guidance Services. Activities associated with directing, managing, and supervising guidance services. 2122 Counseling. Activities concerned with the relationship between A one or more counselors and one or more students. These activities W, are designed to help students: understand their educational, personal and occupational strengths and limitations\nrelate their abilities and aptitudes to educational and career opportunities\nutilize their abilities in formulating realistic plans\nand achieve satisfying personal development. 2123 Appraisal. Activities used in assisting students in assessing their progress in career development. 2124 Information. Activities for disseminating educational, occupational, and personal information to acquaint students with the curriculum and educational and vocational opportunities and requirements. 2125 Record Maintenance. Activities for compiling, maintaining and interpreting cumulative student records. -65- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2120 Guidance Services. (Continued) 2126 Placement. Activities that help place students in appropriate situations while they are in school. 2129 Other Guidance Services. Guidance services which are not classified above. 2130 Health Services. Physical and mental health services which are not direct instruction. Included are activities that provide students with appropriate medical, dental and nursing services. 2131 Supervision of Health Services. Activities associated with directing and managing health services. 2132 Medical. Activities concerned with the physical and mental health of students. 2133 Dental. Activities associated with dental screening, dental care and orthodontic activities. 2134 Nursing. Activities associated with nursing, such as health inspection, treatment of minor injuries and referrals for other health services. 2139 Other Health Services. Health services not classified above. 2140 Psychological Services. Activities concerned with administering psychological tests and interpreting the results, gathering and interpreting information about student behavior, working with other staff members in planning school programs to meet the special needs of students as indicated by psychological tests\nand planning and managing a program of psychological services, including psychological counseling for students, staff and parents. 2141 Supervision of Psychological Services. Directing, managing and supervising the activities associated with psychological services. -66- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2140 Psychological Services. (Continued) 2142 Psychological Testing. Activities concerned with administering psychological tests, standardized tests. and inventory assessments of ability, aptitude, achievement, interests and personality and their interpretation. 2143 Psychological Counseling. Activities that take place between a school psychologist or other qualified person as counselor and one or more students in which the students are helped to clarify and resolve adjustment problems and interpersonal relationships. 2144 Psychotherapy. Activities that provide a therapeutic relationship between a qualified mental health professional and one or more students in which students are helped to clarify and resolve emotional problems. 2149 Other Psychological Services. Other activities associated with psychological services not classified above. 2150 Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. Activities which identify. assess, and treat children with speech, hearing and language impairments. 2151 Supervision of Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. Activities associated with directing, managing and supervising speech pathology and audiology services. 2152 Speech Pathology. Activities that identify children with speech and language disorders\ndiagnosis and appraise specific speech and language disorders\nrefer problems for medical or other professjonal attention\nprovide required speech treatment services\nand provide counseling as appropriate. 2153 Audiology. Activities that identify children with hearing loss\ndetermine the range, nature and degree of hearing function\nrefer problems for medical attention\ninvolve auditory training, speech reading (lip reading) and speech conservation\nadminister programs of hearing conservation\nand provide counseling as appropriate. -67- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2100 Support Services - Students. (Continued) 2150 Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. (Continued) 2154 Hearing Impaired Interpreter. Activities associated with the interpretation and analysis of speech and hearing impaired students. 2159 Other Speech Pathology and Audiology Services. Other activities associated with speech pathology and audiology services not classified above. 2 I 60 Physical and Occupational Therapy. Services provided by a qualified physical therapist directed toward improving, developing or restoring function impaired or loss through illness, injury or deprivation. 2190 Other Support Services - Students. Other support services students not classified above. 2200 Support Services - Instructional Staff. Activities associated with assisting the instructional staff with the learning process. 2210 Curriculum Supervision (Improvement of Instructional Services). Activities consisting of assisting instructional staff in planning, developing and evaluating student learning experiences. 2211 Supervision oflmprovement oflnstructional Services. Activities associated with directing, managing and supervising the improvement of instructional services. 2212 Instruction and Curriculum Development. Activities that aid teachers in developing the curriculum, preparing and utilizing special curriculum materials, and understanding and appreciating the various techniques which stimulate and motivate students. 2213 Instructional Staff Training. Activities that contribute to the professional growth and competency of the instructional staff. 2214 Instructional Staff Advisory Services. Activities designed to aid teachers and program supervisors in developing, monitoring and evaluating curriculum and specialized learning experiences -68- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2200 Support Services - Instructional Staff. (Continued) 2210 Curriculum Supervision. (Continued) 2215 Drug Free Schools. 2219 Other Improvement of Instructional Services. Activities for improving instruction other than those classified above. 2220 Educational Media Services. Activities using all teaching and learning resources, including hardware and content materials. 2221 Supervision of Educational Media Services. Activities concerned with directing, managing and supervising educational media services. 2222 School Library. Activities such as: selecting. acquiring, preparing. cataloging and circulating printed materials\nplanning the use of the library by teachers and students\nand guiding individuals in their use of library books and materials. 2223 Audiovisual. Activities such as selecting. preparing, caring for and making available equipment, films, filmstrips, transparencies, tapes. - TV programs and other similar materials to staff members. 2224 Educational Television. Activities concerned with planning, programming, writing and presenting educational programs by closed circuit or broadcast television. 2225 Computer-Assisted Instruction. Activities concerned with planning, programming, writing and presenting educational projects which have been especially programmed for computer use as the principal medium of instruction. 2229 Other Educational Media Services. Educational media services other than those classified above. 2290 Other Support Services - Instructional Staff. Services supporting the instructional staff not classified above. -69- 2000 Support Senices. (Continued) 2300 Support Services - General Administration. Activities concerned with establishing and administering district policy. 23 IO Board of Education Services. The activities of the district board of education. 2311 Supervision of Board of Education Services. Activities concerned with directing and managing the general operation of the district board of education. 2312 Board Secretary/Clerk. The activities required to perform the duties of the secretary /clerk of the board of education. 2313 Board Treasurer. The activities required to perform the duties of treasurer of the board of education. 2314 Elections. Services rendered in connection with elections of officers and bond elections. 2315 Legal. Legal counseling provided to the board of education. 2316 Staff Relations and Negotiation. Activities concerned with staff relations and the responsibilities for contractual negotiations with both instructional and non-instructional personnel. 2317 Audit Services. Independent audit services provided to board of education. 2318 Reappraisal of Property. Services connected with the reappraisal of property within the school district. 2319 Other Board of Education Services. Board of education services which are not classified above. 2320 Executive Administration Services. Activities associated with the overall general administration of the district. 2321 Office of the Superintendent or Educational Cooperative. The activities performed by the superintendent and assistant superintendents in directing and managing the district. -70- . 2000 Support Seniices. (Continued) 2300 Support Services - General Administration. (Continued) 2320 Executive Administration Services. (Continued) 2322 Community Relations. The activities and programs developed and operated to improve school/community relations. 2324 State and Federal Relations. Activities associated with developing and maintaining good relationships with state and federal officials. 2329 Other Executive Administration Services. Other general executive administrative services not classified above. 2380 Office of Desegregation. 2390 Other Support Services - General Administration. Other support services for general administration not included above. 2400 Support Services - School Administration. Activities concerned with the administrative functions of a school. 2410 Office of the Principal. Activities concerned with directing and managing A school operations by the principal, assistant principals and other assistants. W, 2490 Other Support Services - School Administration. Other school administration services not classified above. 2500 Support Services - Business. Activities concerned with paying, transporting, exchanging and maintaining goods and services for the district. 2501 Supervision of Business Services. The activities of directing, managing and supervising areas of business services . 2510 Fiscal Services. Those activities concerned with the fiscal operations of the district. 2511 Supervision of Fiscal Services. The activities of directing, managing and supervising the areas of fiscal services. 2512 Budgeting. Activities concerned with budget planning, formulation, control and analysis. -71- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2500 Support Services - Business. (Continued) 2510 Fiscal Services. (Continued) 2513 Receiving and Disbursing Funds. Activities concerned with funds received and disbursed. 2514 Payroll. The activities associated with making periodically payments to employees for services rendered, including federal income tax withholding, retirement and social security. 2515 Financial Accounting. Those activities concerned with maintaining records of the financial operations and transactions of the district 2516 Internal Auditing. Those activities concerned with verifying the reliability of the accounting system, safeguarding assets and evaluating the adequacy of internal controls. 2517 Property Accounting. Those activities concerned with preparing and maintaining current inventory records of land, buildings and equipment. 2519 Other Fiscal Services. Includes fiscal services not classified above. 2520 Purchasing Services. Activities concerned with purchasing supplies, furniture, equipment and materials used in schools and school system operations. 2530 Warehousing and Distributing Services. 2531 Supervision of Warehousing and Distributing Services. The activities of directing and supervising the warehousing and distributing of supplies, furniture, equipment, materials and mail. 2535 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment. Adjustments to inventories due to consumption or loss. -72- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2500 Support Services - Business. (Continued) 2540 Printing, Publishing and Duplicating Services. The activities associated with printing and publishing administrative publications. 2590 Other Support Services - Business. Includes uther business related support services not included above. 2600 Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services. Those activities concerned with operating and maintaining the plant, grounds, buildings and equipment. 2610 Supervision of Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services. The activities of directing, managing and supervising the operations and maintenance of the school plant. 2620 Operation of Building Services. Activities concerned with the daily operation and maintenance of the plant and buildings. 2630 Care and Upkeep of Grounds Services. The activities of maintaining the grounds and improvements. 2640 Care and Upkeep of Equipment Services. The activities of maintaining the district's equipment. 2650 Vehicle Operation and Maintenance Services (Other than Student Transportation Vehicles). The activities of maintaining general purpose vehicles such as trucks, tractors, graders and staff vehicles. 2660 Security Services. Those activities concerned with maintaining order and safety in school buildings and on school grounds. 2690 Other Operation and Maintenance of Plant Services. Includes operation and maintenance of plant services not classified above. 2700 Student Transportation Services. Those activities concerned with the transporting students to and from school. 2710 Supervision of Student Transportation Services. Activities pertaining to directing and managing student transportation services. -73- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2700 Student Transportation Services. (Continued) 2720 Vehicle Operation. Activities of operating vehicles for student transportation purposes. 2730 Monitoring. Those activities concerned with monitoring pupils in the process of being transported. 2740 Vehicle Servicing and Maintenance. Those activities of maintaining and servicing student transportation vehicles. 2790 Other Student Transportation Services. Includes student transportation services not classified above. 2800 Support Services - Central. Activities, other than general administration, which support each of the other instructional and supporting services programs. 2801 Supervision of Central Support Services. Supervision of those activities concerned with directing and managing central support services. 2810  Planning, Research, Development and Evaluation (PRD\u0026amp;E) Services. Those activities associated with conducting and managing programs of planning, research development and evaluation of the district. 2811 Supervision of PRD\u0026amp;E Services. The activities involved in directing managing and supervising the programs of planning, research development and evaluation of the district. 2812 Development Services. Includes research and development for improving educational programs. 2813 Evaluation Services. Includes activities concerned with evaluating whether goals were achieved. 2814 Planning Services. Includes activities concerned with selecting or identifying long range goals and priorities and the methods for achieving them. -74- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2800 Support Services - Central. (Continued) 2810 Planning, Research, Development and Evaluation (PRD\u0026amp;E) Services. (Continued) 2815 Research Services. Includes activities concerned with the systematic study and investigation of various aspects of education. 2819 Other PRD\u0026amp;E Services. Includes planning, research, development and evaluation services not classified above. 2820 Information Services. Those activities concerned with writing, editing and other preparation necessary to disseminate educational and administrative information for students, staff or the public. 2821 Supervision of Information Services. The activities of directing and managing information services. 2822 Internal Information. Those activities concerned with wTiting. editing and providing administrative information to students and staff. 2823 Public Information. Those activities concerned with writing, editing and other preparation necessary to disseminate educational and administrative information to the public. 2824 Management Information (Non-data processing). Activities concerned with providing management with relevant information to enable effective decision making. 2829 Other Information Services. Those activities concerned with information services not classified above. 2830 Staff Services. Those activities concerned with staff services of the district. 2831 Supervision of Staff Services. The activities of directing and managing staff services. 2832 Recruitment and Placement. Those activities concerned with employing and assigning personnel. -75- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2800 Support Services - Central. (Continued) 2830 Staff Services. (Continued) 2833 Staff Accounting. Services provided in C')nnection with recording information regarding district employees. 2834 Inservice Training (Classified Staff). The activities developed by the district for providing training to classified staff. 2835 Health. Those activities concerned with medical, dental and nursing services provided to district employees. 2839 Other Staff Services. Staff services not included above. 2840 Data Processing - Administrative Services. Those activities concerned with maintaining and preparing information for reporting purposes. 2841 Supervision of Administrative Data Processing Services. Those activities concerned with directing and managing data processing services. 2842 Systems Analysis. Those activities concerned with the development of data processing procedures or application regarding computer applications and equipment. 2843 Programming. Those activities involved in the development of computer applications. 2844 Operations. Activities involving operating business and data processing machines. 2849 Other Administrative Data Processing Services. Those activities concerned with data processing not classified above. 2870 Technology Services. -76- 2000 Support Services. (Continued) 2800 Support Services - Central. (Continued). 2880 Statistical Services. 2881 Supervision of Statistical Services. Directing. supervising and managing the activities associated with statistical services. 2882 Statistical Analysis. Activities concerned with the use of statistical data to aid in decision making. 2883 Statistical Reporting Services. Activities concerned with assimilating statistical data and preparing reports for internal and external use. 2889 Other Statistical Services. Statistical services not classified above. 2890 Other Support Services - Central. Administrative services which support instructional and supporting services programs. 2900 Other Supporting Services. Supporting services not classified above. 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services. Activities concerned with providing noninstructional services to students, staff or the community. 3100 Food Services Operations. Activities concerned with preparing and serving meals. lunches, or snacks in connection with school activities and food delivery. 3110 Supervision of School Food Services. Directing, supervising and managing the activities associated with school food services. 3120 Food Preparation and Dispensing Services. Those activities concerned with preparing and serving regular and incidental meals. lunches or snacks to pupils and staff. 3130 Food Delivery Services. The activities concerned with delivering food to the school. 3140 Food Management Contract Services. Those activities concerned with a commercial enterprise or a non-profit organization which is contracted to manage an aspect of the school food service. 3190 Other Food Services. Includes food service activities not classified above. -77- 3000 Operation of Non-Instructional Services. (Continued) 3200 Other Enterprise Operations. Activities financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. 3300 Community Services Operations. Activities concerned with providing community services to students, staff or other community participants. 3400 3310 Supervision of Community Services. Directing, supervising and managing activities associated with school and community activities. 3320 Community Recreation Services. Those activities concerned with providing recreation for the community. 3330 Civic Services. Those activities of providing services for civic affairs or organizations. 3340 Public Library Services. Activities related to the operation of the public libraries by a school district or through the district's library collection. 3350 Custody and Care of Children Services. Providing programs for children in residential day schools or childcare centers which are not part of or directly related to the district's instructional programs and the attendance is not included in the district's attendance figures. 3351 Welfare Activities. Providing for the personal needs of individuals who have been designated as needy by an appropriate governmental entity. 3352 Non-Public School Public Service. Activities concerned with providing instructional services, attendance and social work services. health services and transportation services for non-public school pupils. 3353 Parent Centers. 3354 Instruction Program. 3390 Other Community Services. Other community services not classified above. Other Non-Instructional Services. -78- 4000 Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services. Those activities concerned with site acquisition services, site improvement services, architectural and engineering services and A building construction and improvement services . W 4100 Supervision of Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services. Supervising, managing and directing activities concerned with acquisition and construction of district sites and buildings. 4200 Site Acquisition Services. Activities concerned with acquiring new sites. 4300 Site Improvement Services. Activities concerned with improving and maintaining existing site improvements. 4400 Architecture and Engineering Services. The activities of architects and engineers related to land acquisition and improvements to buildings. 4500 Educational Specifications Development Services. Those activities concerned with preparing and interpreting architectural and engineering specifications of buildings. 4600 Building Acquisition and Construction Services. Those activities concerned with building acquisition and construction for instructional and non-instructional areas. 4610 Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with building acquisition and construction of instructional areas. 4620 Non-Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with building acquisition and construction of non-instructional areas. 4700 Building Improvements Services. Those activities concerned with initial installation or extension of service systems, built-in equipment and additions to buildings. 4710 Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with initial installation or extension of services systems, built-in equipment and additions to buildings of instructional areas. 4720 Non-Instructional Areas. Those activities concerned with initial installation or extension of service systems, built-in equipment and additions to buildings of non-instruqtional areas. 4900 Other Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services. Facilities acquisition and construction activities not classified above. -79- 5000 Other Uses. 5100 LEA Indebtedness. The servicing of the district's debt, including principal, interest and fiscal fees. 5110 Bonded Indebtedness. Debt retired by specific millages voted by the electorate. 5120 Non-Bonded Debt (Revolving Loans). Revolving Loan Fund debt and other non-bonded debt serviced from the operating fund. 5130 Current Loans. Indebtedness with a term of no more than one year. 5140 Postdated Warrants. Indebtedness incurred in the form of postdated warrants for a term of not more than eight (8) years unless for energy conservation measures. 5150 Installment/Lease Purchase Payments. Indebtedness not to exceed more than eight (8) years unless for energy conservation measures. 5160 School Board Association Anticipated Tax Note. A bank note borrowed from the State School Boards Association. 5190 Other Indebtedness. 5200 Fund Transfers. Money transferred from one fund to another fund. 5300 Payment to Other LEA's (Within the State). These are payments generally for tuition and transportation or other services provided to students from a district other than the resident district. 5400 Payment to Other LEA's (Outside the State). These are payments generally for tuition and transportation or other services provided to students from a district other than the resident district and outside the State. 5500 Indirect Costs. Costs incurred that are not directly attributable to a specific school or for a specific activity or function. 5900 Other Non-Programmed Costs. Costs not classified above. 5901 Payment to State for Overpayment of Funds. -80- Object Definitions Object classifications are used to describe a service or commodity obtained as a result of a specific - expenditure. The major categories of objects are broken down into sub-objec,s to allow for greater detail. The major category designation is often used as a category summary that should not be used for posting purposes. For posting purposes, the lowest level shown for a category heading or subheading should be used by the district or cooperative. The folloving definitions are provided for each object classification. 61000 Personal Services - Salaries. Compensation paid to permanent and temporary employees of the districts. 61100 Regular Employees 61110 Certified. Salary expenditures paid to certified employees from the teacher salary fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61120 Classified. Salary expenditures paid to noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61200 Temporary Employees. Salary expenditures for work performed on a temporary basis, excluding substitute teachers. 61210 Certified. Salary expenditures paid to certified employees from the operatir A fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. W, 61220 Classified. Salary expenditures paid to noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61300 Overtime. Amounts paid to permanent and temporary employees for work performed in addition to the normal work period for which the employee is compensated. 61400 Sabbatical Leave. Amounts paid by to employees on sabbatical leave. 61500 Workshops. 61510 Certified. 61520 Classified. -81- 61000 Personal Services - Salaries (Continued) 61700 Substitutes. Salary expenditures for work performed by substitute teachers. 61710 Certified. Salary expenditures for certified substitute teachers payable from the teacher salary fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61720 Classified. Salary expenditures for noncertified substitute teachers normally paid from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61800 Unused Sick Leave. Costs incurred due to an employee retiring, being terminated or as an benefit when an employee accumulates over the maximum amount eligible to be carried forward in a year. 61810 Certified. Expenditures paid to certified personnel from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61820 Classified. Expenditures paid to noncertified personnel usually from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 61900 Other. The costs paid for severance or early retirement incentive. 61910 Severance Certified. 61920 Severance Classified. 61930 Early Retirement Incentive Certified. 61940 Early Retirement Incentive Classified. 61950 Annuityff-Drop 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits. Costs paid on behalf of employees not included as part of an employee's gross salary. 62100 Group Insurance. Employer's share of group insurance. 62110 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62120 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. -82- 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits. (Continued) 62200 Social Security. Employer's share of Social Security of 6.2 percent, including the - amount reimbursed for employees assigned to federal programs. 622 l 0 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund. unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62220 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62250 Medicare. Employer's share of Medicare of 1.45 percent, including the amount reimbursed for employees assigned to federal programs. 62260 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62270 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62300 Teacher Retirement Contributions. Employer's share of retirement payments, including the amount reimbursed for employees assigned to federal programs. 62310 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified personnel from the operating fund A unless funded by a federally sponsored program. W' 62320 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored. 62400 Tuition ReimbursemenL Amounts paid to employees qualifying for tuition reimbursement based upon district policy. 62410 Certified. Expenditures paid to certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62420 Classified. Expenditures paid to noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. -83- 62000 Personal Services - Employee Benefits. (Continued) 62500 Unemployment Compensation. Employer's cost of unemployment compensation. 62510 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62520 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62600 Worker's Compensation. Employer's cost of worker's compensation for its employees. 62610 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62620 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62700 Health Benefits. Employer's cost for health benefits for its employees. 62 710 Certified. Expenditures paid for certified employees from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62720 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62800 Public Retirement Contributions. Employer's share ofretirement payments. 62820 Classified. Expenditures paid for noncertified employees from the operating fund or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62900 Other Employee Benefits. Employer's cost of employee benefits not classified above. 62910 Certified. Expenditures for certified employees paid from the operating fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. 62920 Classified. Expenditures for noncertified employees paid from the operating or building fund, unless funded by a federally sponsored program. -84- 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Services. Services performed by persons with specific expertise in a specialized field. 63100 Official/ Administrative. Professional services provided in order to assist in the district in business and financial management, elections and tax assessing and collecting services. 63110 Staff Service . Professional services performed in order to assist in employing and assigning staff. 63120 Management Service - Consulting. Professional services provided in order to assist management in board policy or the operation of the district. 6313 0 Board Of Education Services. Professional services provided in order to assist the local school board. 63200 Professional-Educational. Professional services supporting instructional programs and their administration. 63210 Instruction Services. Services provided by a professional directly engaged in providing learning experiences for students. 63220 Instructional Program Improvement Services. Professional services provided in order to assist teachers and supervisors in the teaching process. 63230 Consulting - Educational. Consulting services provided in educational fields. 63300 Other Professional. Professional services not classified above. 63 310 Pupil Services. Professional services provided in order to assist students and their parents in solving problems to supplement the teaching process. 63320 Engineering. 63330 Accounting. 63340 Legal. 63350 Medical. 63360 Information Technology. 63370 Architectural. -85- 63000 Purchased Professional and Technical Services. (Continued) 63400 Technical. Services provided which require specialized knowledge in a technical field. 63410 Data Processing Services. 63420 Statistical Services. Technical services perfonned to assist in providing statistical data and analysis. 63900 Other Purchased Professional and Technical Services. Professional and technical services not classified above. 64000 Purchased Property Services. Services purchased to operate, repair, maintain and rent property owned or used by the district. 64100 Utility Services. Expenditures for utility services, excluding energy and telephone services, from a private or public utility company. 64110 Water/Sewer. Expenditures for water and sewage services from a private or public utility company. 64200 Cleaning Services. Contracted services for sanitation, custodial and lawn care . 64210 Disposal/Sanitation. Expenditures for garbage collection services provided by an outside company. 64230 Custodial. Contracted expenditures for custodial services. 64240 Lawn Care. Contracted expenditures for lawn and grounds upkeep, minor landscaping and nursery services. 64300 Repair and Maintenance Services. Contracted expenditures for repairs and maintenance services, including contracts and agreements covering the upkeep of buildings and equipment. 64310 Buildings and Grounds. Contracted expenditures for repairs and maintenance services for preventive maintenance or restoring a building to its original condition. 64320 Equipment and Vehicle. Contracted expenditures for repairs and maintenance service for preventive maintenance or restoring equipment and vehicles to their original condition. -86- 64000 Purchased Property Services. (Continued) 64400 Rentals. Costs for renting or leasing land, buildings, equipment and vehicles. - 64410 Rental of Land and Buildings. Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for temporary and long-term use. 64420 Rental of Equipment and Vehicles. Expenditures for leasing and renting of vehicles and equipment for temporary and long-term use. 64500 Construction Services. Contracted services paid to contractors for constructing, renovating and remodeling. 64900 Other Purchased Property Services. Other services not classified above. 65000 Other Purchased Services. Contracted services not classified previously. 65100 Student Transportation Services. Contracted services for transporting children to and from school and other activities. 65110 65120 Student Transportation Purchased from LEA within the State. Expenditures incurred for services provided by another district to transport students to and from school and school-related events. Student Transportation Purchased from LEA outside the State. Expenditure~incurred for services provided by a district outside the state to transport students to and from school and school-related events. 65190 Student Transportation Purchased from Other Sources. Contracted services provided by persons or agencies other than school districts for transporting students to and from school-related events. 65200 Insurance Other than Employee Benefits. Expenditures for property, liability, fidelity, fleet and accident insurance coverage. 65210 Property Insurance. Expenditures for insurance on property owned or leased by the district: 65220 Liability Insurance. Expenditures for insurance coverage against losses or payments in lieu of insurance resulting from judgments awarded against the district with the exception of pupil transportation insurance. -87- 65000 Other Purchased Services. (Continued) 65200 Insurance Other than Employee Benefits. (Continued) 65230 Fidelity Bond Premiums. Expenditures for fidelity bonds or in lieu of fidelity bonds guaranteeing against losses resulting from the actions of the treasurer and district personnel. 65240 Fleet Insurance. Expenditures for insurance on pupil transportation vehicles whether owned by the district or the contractor. 65250 Accident Insurance. Expenditures for insurance on student activities. 65290 Other Insurance. Expenditures for insurance not classified above. 65300 Communications. Telephone and postage services provided to the district. 65310 Telephone. 65320 Postage. 65400 Advertising. Expenditures for printed or broadcasted material for recruitment purposes, posting of legal notices and the sale of equipment or other items. 65500 Printing and Binding. Expenditures for the design, printing and binding of district publications. 65600 Tuition. Expenditures to reimburse an educational agency for services provided to students of the district. 65610 To Other LEA within the State. 65620 To Other LEA outside the State. 65630 To Private Schools. 65640 Educational Intermediate Agency within the State. 65650 Educational Intermediate Agency outside the State. 65690 Other. -88- 65000 Other Purchased Services. (Continued) 65700 Food Service Management. Contracted services provided for the operation of the local food service facility. 65800 Travel. Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel and other expenses associated with business travel for the district. 65 8 IO Certified. 65820 Classified. 65830 Out of District Certified. 65840 Out of District Classified. 65850 Out of State Certified. 65860 Out of State Classified. 65870 Non-Employee. 65880 Meals. 65890 Lodging. 65900 Miscellaneous Purchased Services. Purchased services not classified. 65910 Services Purchased Locally. Expenditures for services not classified previously. 65920 Services Purchased from LEA within the State. Payments to another school district or cooperative within the State for services rendered, excluding tuition and transportation fees. 65930 Services Purchased from LEA outside the State. Payments to a school district outside the State for services rendered, excluding tuition and transportation fees. -89- 66000 Supplies and Materials. Expenditures for supplies and materials. 66100 General Supplies and Materials. Expenditures fot supplies and materials used in the operation of the district, including freight and cartage. 66200 Energy. Expenditures for natural gas, oil, coal, gasoline and electricity provided by a utility company or private entity. 66210 Natural Gas. Expenditures for natural gas provided from a private or public utility company. 66220 Electricity. Expenditures for electric services from a private or public utility company. 66230 Butane/Propane. Expenditures for butane or propane. 66240 Oil. Expenditures for oil used for heating and lubrication. 66250 Coal/Wood. Expenditures for coal or wood used for heating. 66260 Gasoline/Diesel. Expenditures for gasoline and diesel. 66290 Other. Expenditures for energy cost not classified above. 66300 Food. Expenditures for food used in the school food services program. 66400 Books and Periodicals. Expenditures for books, textbooks and periodicals prescribed and available for general use, including reference books. 66410 Textbooks. Expenditures for prescribed books and workbooks, including binding and repairs, which are purchased for students furnished free or resold. 66420 Library Books. Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use by students, including reference books. 66430 Periodicals. Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use by the school library. 66440 Audiovisual Materials. Expenditures for optical and electronic devices, including related supplies, which are designed to enhance learning through the combined senses of hearing and sight. -90- 66000 Supplies and Materials. (Continued) 66500 Technology Supplies. 66510 Software. Any administrative or instructional software. 66520 Other. Any supplies such as paper, ribbon, cables. 66600 Building Materials. 66700 Warehouse Inventory Adjustment. Expenditures which are the result of a deficit of items held in inventory. 156900 Other Supplies and Materials. 67000 Property. Expenditures for the acquisition ofland, buildings, improvements of grounds, construction of buildings, additions to buildings, remodeling of buildings, initial equipment and replacement of equipment. 67100 Land and Improvements. Expenditures for the purchase and improvement of the land consisting of landscaping, installing hydrants, and construction of sidewalks, 67200 sewers, storm drains, etc. Buildings. Expenditures for acquiring existing buildings included but not limited tr a installment or lease principal payments resulting in the acquisition of buildings\nW, building construction\nmajor structural alterations\nand initial or additional installation of heating and ventilating systems, fire protection systems and other service systems. 67210 Library Books (New Libraries only). Expenditures for the initial purchase of books for a new library or material acquisitions involving a major expansion of the library. 67300 Equipment. Expenditures for the initial, additional and replacement of equipment. furniture, fixtures and machinery. 67310 Machinery. Expenditures for machinery equipment. 67320 Vehicles. Expenditures for vehicles. -91- 67000 Property. (Continued) 67300 Equipment. (Continued) 67330 Furniture and Fixtures. Expenditures for furniture and fixtures. 67390 Other Equipment. Expenditures for equipment not classified above. 67500 Technology Equipment. 68000 Other Objects. Amounts paid for goods and services not otherwise classified above. This includes expenditures for the retirement of debt, interest on debt, dues and fees, and insurance premiums. 68100 Dues and Fees. Expenditures for memberships in professional organizations or payments to a paying agent for services rendered. 68200 Judgments against the LEA. Expenditures for current funds for judgments against the district as a result of a lawsuit and issued by a court of law, excluding judgments regarding delinquent debt, not covered by liability insurance but eligible for insurance coverage. 68300 Interest. Expenditures for interest due on serial bonds, Revolving Loan Bonds, certificate of deposit loans from the Revolving Loan Fund, postdated warrants and other negotiable instruments with financial institutions. 68400 Indirect Cost. Costs incurred that are not directly attributable to a specific school or for a specific activity or function. 68800 Taxes. Amounts levied/assessed by governmental agencies. 68810 Tax on Resale Items. 68820 Improvement Tax. 68830 Property Tax. 68900 Miscellaneous Expenditures. Amounts paid for goods or services not classified above. -92- 69000 Other Uses of Funds. These codes are used to classify transactions which are not recorded as expenditures to the district but require budgetary or accounting control, including but nora limited to retirement of principal and interest on long term debt. housing authority W obligations and fund transfers. 69100 Redemption of Principal. Expenditures of LEA funds to retire the principal on serial bonds, revolving loan fund bonds, certificate of deposit loans from the revolving fund, postdated warrants and school board anticipated tax notes. 69200 Housing Authority Obligations. Outlays from current funds to satisfy housing authority obligations of the district. 69300 Fund Transfers (Permanent). This category represents transactions conveying money from one fund to another. 69310 Transfer to Salary Fund. 69320 Transfer to Operating Fund. 69330 Transfer to Building Fund. 69340 Transfer to Debt Service Fund. 69350 Transfer to Capital Outlay Fund. 69360 Transfer to Federal Grants Fund. 69370 Transfer to Student Activity Fund. 69380 Transfer to Food Service Fund. 69400 Program Funding Return 69500 Transits (Flow-Through Money). This category represents transactions which convey money to the recipient (person or agency). This includes transactions which place grant-in-aid, stipends and transportation for other district use. 69900 Loan Payments To. This category is to be used for transfer transactions which are not classified above. -93- Revenue Definitions Revenue is defined as an increase in an asset which does not increase any liability, does not represent the recovery of any expenditure and does not represent the reduction of a liability that would result in a corresponding increase in another liability. The following definitions are provided for all revenue classifications. 10000 Revenue from Local Sources 11000 Taxes. Compulsory charges levied by a governmental entity for the purpose of financing services for the common benefit. 11100 Property Taxes. Taxes levied as a result of a vote by the electorate of a millage rate on personal property, real estate and utilities. 11110 Property Taxes - Current. Taxes received from the general levy for the current year. 11120 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Received by June 30. Forty percent of the net proceeds of local school taxes not dedicated to debt service received in January through June. 11130 Property Taxes - 40 Percent Pullback Received July 1- Dec 31. Forty percent of the net proceeds oflocal school taxes not dedicated for debt service received in July through December. 11140 Property Taxes - Delinquent. Taxes received during the current year from the general levy for prior years. 11150 Excess Commission. Amounts received from commissions in excess of the treasurer's salary for the cost of operating the treasurer's office. 11160 Land Redemption (Include State Land Sales). Amounts received from the sale of land on which delinquent taxes have not been paid. 11200 Sales and Use Tax. I 1300 Income Tax. 11400 Penalties and Interest on Taxes. Revenue from penalties and interest on delinquent taxes from the due date of actual payment. 11900 Other Taxes. -94- 10000 _Revenue from Local Sources. (Continued) 12000 Revenue From Local Governmental Units Other than LEA's. 12100 Revenue in Lieu of Taxes. Payments made by another local governmental unit to the district in lieu of taxes that the governmental unit would have had to pay if its property or other tax base were subject to taxation. 12900 Other. Amounts received from all other local governmental entitied not mentioned above. 13000 Tuition. Amount received from students, their parents, welfare agencies. pri\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1676","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-05"],"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--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School discipline","Students","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1676"],"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":["36 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.  MAY 11 1999 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORma IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, No. LR-C-82-866 ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY t O 1999 JAMES1W. M\\CORMACK, CLERK By: \\_ ,~ U ['\\ MO ,y' OEP CLERK Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District - Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The 3261 Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education - (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval; instead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission, the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833 .33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998, the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC' s request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $185,000. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 24, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this J'-day of 1.--- 1999. IA?.,\"'~ '-BfIBFm(}\"\"\"-t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET 1H XMPUA~ woi; ~if 58 ANDIOR ?9(1) fRCP )N b -I .. !Y .1C ~ 3 ?~{~j~~if~ .nna Grady Crear Executive Director ' C January 6, 1999 . 7 (501) 758-01156 ' , I\", r  I. ;~;~;.~~j~~~~tt~:: ~.-  ii; I _..\"S, , .,_~ ,./~--; ,.-- . :..- -:- -: .... :.\"'-~  .' *~ - ', -2- January 6, 1999 ~.. , I ~ :(.;'~ { - contribution $92,5001$7S,OOO, plus the additional $17,5001. The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231. lnaeose in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~f Magnet ReYiew Committee .  . cc: ..;.,. ,. j J \"\\ .. , -~ : ;i  ? .; EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ AQ1.!AL ~ ~ 8MQUNT FRINGE BENERTS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 20,819.94 lndudes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental tn the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PRQFES~IQNAL ~ TECHNI~ Sc\u0026Yl!:ES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 1s.ooo Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category indudes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. - Because of additional professional services required as a resuh of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TV ads, etcJ and the Website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new prindpals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAJNTENA~E QF tQUleMcNT ~ VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 1.400 l,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expected. - - MRC EXPENDITURES !Continued) Poge2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACIIJAI. ~ ~ ~Q!.!MI RENTAL QE LANO ANO ~!.!!LOI~ 14,256 14.256 14,256 14.256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is Sl.188.0011.296 square feet) and will remain that amount. TRAVEL QUT OF [)ISJRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6.000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The re~ amount is requested to bring travel funds back to the 1991-98 budgeted amount. POSTAGE 2.000 2,492.25 2,500 2,500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries. bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other moilouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE 3,500 3,418.31 3,500 *4.225 lndudes monthly billings and long distance charges. Internet access monthly charges. and FAX expenses. The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's computer system. and the telephone/communication costs wil go up in this category. - MRC EXPENOOURES IContinuedl Poge3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 \"1998-99 ~ ACil.!Al. aJ.!.C2QfI RfY!ill2 AMOUNI ADVERTISING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. with new prindpals in place in several of the magnet schools. new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place. a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING ANO BINDING 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3,200 This category ties in with - advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment. ore handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount has been increased to handle large proieefs related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new prindpa/s, and curriculum changes. - MRC EXPENOOURES !Continued) Poge4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACil.!AI. .eJ.!.QQfI ~ AMQUNT QTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also indude the cost for our fiscal agent. oue to increased meeting adiYities, Magnet Fair expenses. all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental i\u003cJbs, this amount has been increased from the 1997-98 budget. SUPI\\IES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1.405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIQDICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities le.g .. Education Week. Arkan~s Democrat-Gazette, Arkan~s Times, Magnet Schools of America materials!. Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. The amount requested hos been adiusted to keep in line 'Mfh the 1997-98 actual expenses. MRC EX?ENQIIURB IConttnuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 a.u..coo: ~ a.u..coo: CAPIT Al Olffi.AY 1,500 733.45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such OS a copier, computer. or office furniture. with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the office. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOT AL EXPENDITURES 81,972 96,437 .77 79,251 SALARIES ~ ZQ.7~9,00 7Q749 TOTALS 150,000 167. 186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year. ofter final negotiations ore completed. and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if. and how much. an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Page5 1998-99 ~ AMO!.!NI *3,700 114,251 70,749 185,000 ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STA TE RECEIVED MAY 1 2 1999 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the \"Districts\") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See - Exhibit A to \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribut the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers. - For the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. 5. There remain issues to be resolved by this Court, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the state should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by the other school districts in the state. It is not necessary for the Court to resolve those issues at this time in order to provide the relief the districts seek in this motion. 2 I , WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an adjustment in June, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each June based on current year actual participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 11 th day of May, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 1 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT M.i\\Y l ::J 1999 May 19, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Coun Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor 'A ' ;:- ... I\\' ., ... .J 1v,~~ ; ; ,. -~c0c., _. , ,....,, c -- .  - .. ~J7,:1 \\\\,,.1(\\ . -.\" , By: I - -  1(\\ Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et aL DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' \"MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES\" In this motion the Districts ask for immediate payment of their teacher - retirement and health insurance damages for the 1998-99 school year. To date those payments have not been made, and no \"immediate\" payment should be ordered, for two reasons. First, no calculations for FY 1999 payments can be made, even under the meH1.0dology set fort.'h in Court's Exl-dbit 504, because the information necessary to calculate the retirement and health insurance \"remedy'\" for FY 1999 is not yet available and will not be available until at least the end of FY 1999. The methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 requires, among other things, each District's and the total statewide health insurance costs for all school districts for the entire fiscal year. For FY 1999, this information will not be available until some time after the fiscal year has concluded. Further, the methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 also requires that retirement and 1 health insurance costs attributable to ODM employees for the entire fiscal year be excluded from the calculation. To date LRSD has not provided that information to ADE for FY 1999, and that information will not be available until after the fiscal year has ended. Second, this Court has before it issues concerning the calculation of the appropriate \"remedy'' that should be resolved before any further payments to the Districts are ordered. In addition to the Districts' baseless claims that they are entitled to prejudgment interest and to \"damages\" that would result in payments to them in excess of 100% of their retirement and health insurance costs, the Districts are apparently still not satisfied with the source data that forms the basis of the calculations set forth in Exhibit 504. See the Districts' \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999, in which the Districts state that they believe Exhibit 504 \"should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.\" In short, the Districts continue to dispute various issues concerning the appropriate \"remedy'' and no further payments should be ordered until those issues have been resolved by this Court 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant A y General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 25, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN l 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG 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 May, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Att e General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED ST ATES 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 Arl\u003cansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month. August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 1999 Based on the information available at April 30, 1999, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1501","title":"Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1999-05"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","Education, Elementary","School attendance","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Student suspension","Parents","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock 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/1501"],"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":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":["181 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1686","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-04"],"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--20th century","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1686"],"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":["52 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.  ... 1q ... ,~ , , 1 \\':1  ' ' '  . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT}Df ~SAS WESTERN D~I't)i'r - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT gg APR -S lit1 I I '\"'.; PLAINTIFF JAME3 Vf. MCC~! ff:;~.r\u003e  .-1  .. VS. NO. J!;:i-~g:zls6~0fr, T. :::. BY- -0...,.E.,,..Pl.i.\",,i. ':' CU:b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST APR UNITARY COMMITMENTS OFFICE OF . . . DESEGREGATION MONlTDRIMG Kathenne Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through theIT attorneys, Roacheff - Law Firm, for their Motion, states: 1. The Motion of PCSSD for release from Federal Court supervision and post unitary commitments was received in this office on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. On that date and before the mail had run, counsel for these Intervenors had left for depositions in Helena, Arkansas on March 31 and April 1, 1999. Upon returning on April 2, 1999, Intervenors counsel actually received and read the PCSSD Petition. 2. All three Districts' employee organizations (LRCTA, NLRCTA and PACT) were off work\u003c April 2, 1999 through the Easter weekend. Therefore, it is impossible for these Intervenors to respond in the time allowed if they do so choose to respond. skp9 l 2.500.doc WHEREFORE, these Intervenors pray that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension of time, within which to file any response to the PCSSD Petition and for all other relief to which they be entitled. Respectfully submitted, :o, :_ ~ .Ct~..4u. ~ - - - - ---- --- Richard W. Roachell, #78132 Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following this 5th day of April, 1999. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 skp9 I 2.500.doc M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste 2200 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 -~-r ~kansas 72'f\\  ~ \\' --~ \" lc .. J..r..\\..\\- Richard W. Roachell FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS e omc1: 1J~ DESEGREGATION MOWOH\\NG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR O 6 1I \"'j'\"j'\"J JAMES w. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \\) \\ l,1,,J :\\ 1\\ C I ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * lntervenors, * * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * lntervenors, * ORDER The motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension oftime until and including April 20, 1999 in which to fiie a response to the PCSSD petition for reiease from federai court supervision is hereby granted. The Knight Intervenors' motion for an extension oftime to file a response to PCSSD's motion is likewise granted and they, too, shall have until and including April 20, 1999 in which to respond to PCSSD's motion. !TIS SO ORDERED this (;.Aday of cf 4, f_ I 999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUANJE vm-~ RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FACP m :f: ~ ~ z:'.'.1' ev.-e_t:_ ___ DEP CLERK u.fo!bfcPuAr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 161999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ey: -------=~::-,-::-,,.,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAI~~~ilfAK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. , RECEIVED APR 19 19B~ omce=.o;r DfSf61111TJCN MO'Ntfffifll@ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release From court supervision and Post-unitary commitments The PCSSD has renewed its effort to secure the entry of an order \"declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and releas[ing] [the district] from further court supervision.\" The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court: ( i) deny .. _ the specific relief sought by the PCSSD, (ii) treat the totality of the new PCSSD submission, in accord with its terms, as a request to substitute a new plan for the current plans, and (iii) declare that the new plan can be approved as a revised settlement agreement, except for its provisions defining the duration of the court's jurisdiction by reference to an arbitrary date rather than by reference to sustained, adequate compliance with the plan's terms. The current petition, of course, omits some important prior 1 I I I I I I I I I history. First. On October 14, 1997, the PCSSD filed an almost identical \"Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervi si on.\" l Secon d . . On Decem be r 2, 1997, th e Jos h ua Intervenors filed their opposition to the petition, setting forth the legal standards deemed to apply to its resolution and discussing the various facets of the system's operation, which the district had addressed. Third. The -Joshua Intervenors undertook written discovery and took numerous depositions. Fourth. The court conducted a three-day hearing on the petition in the period June 29 to July 1, 1998. Fifth. After the hearing, the Joshua Intervenors and the PCSSD each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as comments on the submission of the other party. Sixth. On September 28, 1998, upon learning of renewed settlement discussions, the court denied the petition without prejudice, and cited the system's right to refile the petition should settlement efforts fail. Seventh. The system has refiled its petition. This history and the congruence of the two versions of the petition shed light on what need n2t: be done at this time. That is, there is no need to conduct new discovery, have a new evidentiary hearing, or file again contentions regarding the content of the 1998 hearing and relevant aspe~ts of th record. 1 The  current document differs in only two ways, substantively. The second paragraph and the attachment concerning the so-called post-unitary commitments are new. At pages 27-28, in the discussion on discipline, a chart which appeared in the first version of the petition has been omitted. The reason for this omission may be that the chart was deemed to depict the racial disparities in discipline too graphically. 2 Intervenors have already addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has 11 [not] earned unitary status [or] release ... from further court supervision. 11 Intervenors rely upon their prior submissions, filed on December 2, 1997 (opposition), September 1, 1998 (proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law), and September 16, 1998 (comments on PCSSD findings and conclusions). But for the PCSSD's inclusion in its Petition of what it labels \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments\" (March 9, 1999), Intervenors could rest on the foregoing argument. The commitments document requires a response, however. Indeed, it provides a vehicle to improve upon the poor record of implementation revealed by the proceedings following the filing of the first version of the petition. Provisions concerning the continuation of this court's jurisdiction are a central feature of the commitments document. The submission is~ a compilation of policies and practices to be followed after this court's jurisdiction ends. The language to which intervenors refer is as follows (at 8-9): A. scope of This Cominitment (1) This Commitment shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; 3 (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and (e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Commitment. N. continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its term, as described in Parts N, P and Q. Nothing in this Commitment shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Commitment in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua Intervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. [Sub-parts (a) to (c) omitted] (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations S~rvice, the Joshua Intervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Commitment. o. The scope of compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include. the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Commitment, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Commitment ... 4 Q. unitary status The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. Upon execution of this Colllillitment, the PCSSD will petition the court for the district's immediate release from court supervision, subject however to the terms of this Commitment. Provided, however, that the PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. In short, the commitments document sets forth the anticipation of the PCSSD that the court's jurisdiction will continue and addresses the manner in which that jurisdiction will be invoked, as well as the types of compliance issues which may be raised. Furthermore, the substantive portions of the document further identify the areas of potential court activity by setting forth provisions addressing discipline (at 3), multicultural education (at 4), school facilities (at 4), school resources (at - 5), staff (at 6), personnel (at 6), student achievement (at 6 and attachment), etc. The court, intervenors respectfully submit, should treat the commitments document as what its terms show it to be -- a request by the PCSSD to substitute a new plan as the basis for the system's remedial obligations. Respectfully, the court should rule that the motion could be granted, if the terms of the commitments document (revised plan) were modified so that the duration of the court's jurisdiction depended upon the quality of implementation rather than an arbitrary time period. (This topic 5 is discussed below.) 2 Substitution of the new plan would be beneficial. A review of its substantive features reveals a focus upon areas shown by the hearings last summer to require a renewed and more-targeted emphasis, such as discipline, facilities and student achievement . 3 While briefer than the current plans, the plan identifies many specific remedial activities. The system would be required to focus its monitoring efforts on the steps required by the new plan, develop a plan to do so, and identify the persons responsible for implementation of particular features. See page 7, N.(l). There would be no impeding of ODM monitoring. The system would continue to provide the data which ODM has used for many of its reports. See pages 7-8, N.(3). ODM could also test compliance with the various specific activities promised by the district. Lastly, intervenors feel certain that the PCSSD would respond positively to ODM re~ests to participate in the various projects identified in the proposal. Intervenors' approach finds support in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case of April 10, 1998, approving the joint motion of the LRSD and these intervenors for a revised plan for the LRSD. At a general level, the order evidences that the earlier plans are not cast in concrete. 2 The need for approval by the court was and is obvious. The PCSSD could not expect to invest the court with jurisdiction and delineate the scope of that jurisdiction, unilaterally. 3 See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ... ,\" 9-1-98, at 8-14 (discipline), 14-18 (facilities), and 23-38 (student achievement). 6 This court approved the LRSD revision as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua\" (at 3), or, alternatively, as \"a modification of the 1990 Plan\" (at 5). The former approach, relying upon the standard set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), may be deemed applicable here. See Mem. Opin. and Order at 3-5 (standard applied). The PCSSD has put forward a new consent decree or settlement agreement and the Intervenors have indicated, in this response, that they agree to its approval, with one exception dealing with the duration of the court's jurisdiction. This court, as explained in the opi nion last year dealing with the LRSD revision, can not pick and choose among the parts of the parties' proposal. Mem. at 4. It may identify those parts deemed to warrant approval, suggest modifications, and leave it to a party or the parties to demonstrate that the court's objections have been satisfi~d . .Ig. The reasons why the provisions with which each party agrees should be approved are as follows. The law strongly favors such agreements. Isl- at 3. ODM monitoring can continue unimpeded. Mat 5. The revised proposal \"is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Isl- at 5. Indeed, the revision \"furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\" .Ig. at 7. This leaves the matter of the duration of the commitment. The commitment provides in Part N.(l) that this court 7 shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its tern, as described in Parts N, P and Q. (emphasis added). Part P. provides: The Term of the commitment The term of this conunitment shall begin upon court approval and shall terminate as of June 30, 2001. The last part of the agreement pertinent in assessing the duration of the court's jurisdiction, as proposed by the PCSSD, is Part N.(3), which reads: (3) Notwithstanding Part 2, invocation by June 30, 2001 of the process described in Part N shall be regarded as timely invocation of the entire process. Under these provisions, as a .totality, the term of the court's jurisdiction could extend beyond June 30, 2001, if the Joshua Intervenors had invoked the Part N.(2} process for raising compliance issues before that date. In this event, the term would depend on any period of relie_f., after June 30, 2001, entered by the court, to compensate for any earlier period of noncompliance. Nevertheless, the duration of jurisdiction would not necessarily be measured by the adequacy of compliance. And that is objectionable to intervenors. Three sources, two from this case, support intervenors' argument that the duration of jurisdiction should be geared to the attainment of sustained and adequate compliance. First. In LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th cir. 1990), in the opinion first approving the settlement, the court alluded to the need of the parties to \"scrupulously and diligently carry out the 8 ,---------------------- - - --- - - - ----- -- -- -- -- settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \" Second. In the key decision addressing the duration of jurisdiction, outside the realm of agreed plans, the Supreme Court in Freeman y. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 134-35 {1992), identified one relevant factor as 0 whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; ... \"Third.The revised plan for the LRSD allows the Joshua Intervenors to secure the continuation of the plan by demonstrating, before it expires, that the LRSD has not substantially complied with its terms. The LRSD is to submit a written report, addressing overall implementation, to facilitate consideration of the matter. In summary, in each instance, the focus is upon strong - compliance with substantive standards. Jurisdiction does not end - after an arbitrary time period, without regard to the quality of implementation. conclusion The Joshua Intervenors respectfully -request that the court: (1.) deny the petition of the PCSSD seeking a declaration of unitary status and a release from court supervision, for the reasons expressed by the intervenors in their submissions in response to the earlier version of the PCSSD petition; (2.) declare that the commitment document is acceptable as an amended settlement agreement, except for the provisions concerning the duration of the court's jurisdiction, to the extent that the duration of the court's jurisdiction does not 9 - . turn on the achievement of sustained, adequate compliance; and . ~ (3.) allow the parties to correct the defects in the commitment document (revised agreement) and refile it for approval. Rob rtPressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. # 405900 Respectfully submitted, Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ark. # 405900 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 JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JIit. 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 NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY 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: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBS ITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wr i ter's Oi recl Dial No . 501-2121273 mjones(l)wlj .com April 30, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J, SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRI STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES 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. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed is a copy of Reply of PCSSD to the Joshua lntervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 100174-v1 Cordially, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY OF PCSSD TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS UNITARY STATUS Several comments are in order concerning the Joshua response. In opposing a declaration of unitary status, Joshua asserts that it has \"[a]lready addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has [not] earned unitary status ... \" Joshua Response, page 3. (emphasis added). The PCSSD submits that this is not at all what the evidence showed. At most, the evidence showed that in certain areas the PCSSD had not achieved the ambitious statistical outcomes it sought through implementation of its plan. There was no showing of any material failure of implementation in any respect. Indeed, the Board member witnesses called by Joshua testified only generally that they did not believe the PCSSD 100117-v1 was \"ready\" for unitary status, but none testified concerning any specific failure of plan implementation. The statement quoted in paragraph 1 is at the least a tacit acknowledgment by Joshua that the focus of the Court's analysis is properly plan implementation, not statistical outcomes or statistical achievements, however important they are as educational and social issues. This is still a lawsuit which must be evaluated by legal standards. Indeed, all parties understood the role of the Court when they executed the releases of all claims which state in pertinent part that: \"This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX417 at pages 1 and 2] Joshua's acknowledgment, when coupled with another recent development, should make the legal path for this Court clear. This Court approved the \"new\" Little Rock plan in an order dated April 10, 1998. A portion of the Little Rock plan approved specifically states that: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD .shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. LRSD Revised Plan at page 14, note 2 Further, as part of the analysis the Court made to approve the revised Little Rock plan, this Court noted: More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, 2 regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. (Citing the goals concerning achievement disparity) Order at page 6. CONTINUING JURISDICTION Joshua presumes that unitary status will be denied, that the 1990 plan would continue in effect unless replaced by the \"Commitment\" and therefore this Court should treat the Commitment as a proposed new plan. On the other hand, the PCSSD is seeking a termination of federal court supervision except in the financial areas and as otherwise specified in the revised Little Rock plan and in the PCSSD Commitment. Of course, this Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over the unilateral PCSSD Commitment if it so chooses. To the extent any party might urge such - relinquishment as a \"change\" in the PCSSD submission, it will agree to that change. Inviting the Court to retain jurisdiction was seen by the PCSSD as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision, particularly as regards the 1990 plan and declaring the PCSSD unitary in respect of that plan. At the same time, the PCSSD Commitment would institute a new process of dispute and compliance resolution calculated to avoid the necessity of district court intervention except as a last resort. (Please see Commitment at pp. 8-9) THE DURATION OF THE COMMITMENT Again, in the context of asking the Court to treat the PCSSD as a plan - amendment, Joshua complains that the ending date of the PCSSD Commitment, June 30, 2001, is too brief and that the term of the Court's jurisdiction, as envisioned by Joshua, should not necessarily end when the Commitment expires. 3 The term of the PCSSD Commitment is identical to that of the LRSD Revised Plan, both ending at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Indeed, the PCSSD Commitment is slightly longer extending until June 30, 2001, and, as observed by Joshua, susceptible to extension, as a practical matter, if Joshua demonstrates or claims non-compliance before June 30, 2001 . Interestingly, the April 10, 1998 order approving the Revised Plan of the ,LRSD is entirely silent as concerns the duration of that Plan and voices no concern about it whatsoever. Since the LRSD Revised Plan and the PCSSD Commitment operate basically in the same fashion as concern jurisdiction and the term of the Plan and Commitment, Joshua's arguments and concerns in this regard as respects the PCSSD - are simply unwarranted and unnecessary. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD should be declared unitary and its Commitment approved as part of that declaration and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By_~~~:::J...~:...C==:=._--- 6060) County Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 3a , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 5 , e RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 Offif,HJ ~MUlfflRIIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR ;72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely ~~ Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ I - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESf6REGATJON MDNfTDRJNB 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, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1013","title":"\"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' MGT of America, Incorporation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1999-03-25"],"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--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock School District","Education--Finance","School management and organization","School administrators","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"A Management Study of the Little Rock School District,'' MGT of America, Incorporation"],"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/1013"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n- rica A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Study Methodology ............................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District... ....................... 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation ............................. 2-1 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District... ....................... 2-6 2.3 Current Central Office Structure .......................................................... 2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Community and Enrollment Characteristics .......................................... 3-2 3.2 Central Office Staffing ........................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Central Office Organizational Structure .............................................. 3-1 O 3.4 District Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Central Office Administrator Survey Results ......................................... 4-1 4.2 Principal Survey Results ....................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Teacher Survey Results ..................................................................... .4-12 4.4 Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys ............................................................................... 4-1 6 4.5 Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems ................................................................... .4-29 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................. 5-1 AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 Superintendent's Office .......................... : ............................................. 5-3 5.2 Division of School Services ................................................................. 5-1 O 5.3 Division of Instruction .......................................................................... 5-15 5.4 Operations Division ............................................................................. 5-30 5.5 Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .......... 5-35 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Management and Organization .............................................. 6-1 6.2 Budget Processes and Financial Reporting .......................................... 6-8 6.3 Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data ............................................. 6-28 6.4 Assessment of Operating Costs .......................................................... 6-69 6.5 Assessment of Fund Balance ............................................................. 6-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes ........................................................................ 6-99 6.7 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ............................................................................ 6-115 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ...................... 7-1 7.1 lntroduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Funding for New Construction ............................................................... 7-4 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair .................................................. 7-21 7.4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 7 -25 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ............................ 8-1 8.1 Technology Plan ................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Technology Committee ......................................................................... 8-5 8.3 Staffing ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.4 lnfrastructure ....................................................................................... 8-10 8.5 Hardware ............................................................................................ 8-11 8.6 Staff Development .............................................................................. 8-17 8. 7 Technical Support ............................................................................... 8-23 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............. 8-27 8.9 Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance .............................................................. 8-30 9.0 NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES .............................................................. 9-1 9.1 Honors and Enrichment ........................................................................ 9-4 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement. ................................................... 9-9 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY ..... 9-14 9.4 Reading/Language Arts ...................................................................... 9-17 9.5 English as a Second Language .......................................................... 9-22 9.6 Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Leaming Center .......... 9-26 9.7 Computer Literacy ............................................................................... 9-30 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation .............................. 9-32 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 9-35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1 .1 Study Methodology ............................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District... ....................... 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ......................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation ............................. 2-1 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District... ....................... 2-6 2.3 Current Central Office Structure .......................................................... 2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Community and Enrollment Characteristics .......................................... 3-2 3.2 Central Office Staffing ........................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Central Office Organizational Structure .............................................. 3-10 3.4 District Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Central Office Administrator Survey Results ........................................ .4-1 4.2 Principal Survey Results ...................................................................... .4-7 4.3 Teacher Survey Results ..................................................................... .4-12 4.4 Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys ............................................................................... 4-16 4.5 Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems ................................................................... .4-29 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ............................. 5-1 AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 Superintendent's Office ......................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Division of School Services ................................................................. 5-1 O 5.3 Division of Instruction .......................................................................... 5-15 5.4 Operations Division ............................................................................. 5-30 5.5 Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .......... 5-35 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Management and Organization ....................................... ....... 6-1 6.2 Budget Processes and Financial Reporting .......................................... 6-8 6.3 Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data ............................................. 6-28 6.4 Assessment of Operating Costs .......................................................... 6-69 6.5 Assessment of Fund Balance ............................................................. 6-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes .............. ...... .................... ................................ 6-99 6.7 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ................................. ........................................... 6-115 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................. 6-116 7.0 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR ...................... 7-1 7 .1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Funding for New Construction ........................................................... .. .. 7-4 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair .................................................. 7-21 7 .4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............................................................................. 7-25 8.0 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ............................ 8-1 8.1 Technology Plan ................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Technology Committee ............................................... .......................... 8-5 8.3 Staffing ................................................................................................. 8-8 8.4 Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 8-1 O 8.5 Hardware ............................................................................................ 8-11 8.6 Staff Development ..... .. ................................ .. .. .... .. ............................. 8-17 8.7 Technical Support ............................................................................... 8-23 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations .............. 8-27 8.9 Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance ................... .. ..... .. ......... .. ....................... 8-30 9.0 NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES .......... ........... ......................................... 9-1 9.1 Honors and Enrichment ........... .. .................................. ......................... 9-4 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement. ..... .. ................................. ..... ...... 9-9 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY ..... 9-14 9.4 Reading/Language Arts ............................... .. ..................................... 9-17 9.5 English as a Second Language .......................................................... 9-22 9.6 Alternative_ Education: The New Accelerated Leaming Center .......... 9-26 9.7 Computer Literacy ............................................................................... 9-30 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation .............................. 9-32 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ..................... .. ............................. .......................... 9-35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSD's budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansas's largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page I Executive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study . MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page Ii Executive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review Du ring the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page Ill Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Maior Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and noninstructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page Iv Executive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a \"management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position.\" The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future.\" The LRSD's financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGT's recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v Executive Summary should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGT's recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. AREA Ill: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers' preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3D\\lntemational in 1995 {which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each school's ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL IN/TIA TIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District {LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place 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. At the time of MGT's December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place --- A Vision tor the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii Executive Summary The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instruction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSD's short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning --- support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each student's success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viii Executive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for a/locating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Team's effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the district's various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page Ix Executive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LASO shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LASO schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of \"model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the lower end of the technology scale. This strategy should be accomplished by incorporating the following:  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels pf technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Pagex Executive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and l'v1arketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations finn, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xi Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xii Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11, 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSD's budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansas's largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page I Executive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge tor the Management Study The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to detem1ine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas:  the management structure of the Little Rock School District\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instructional initiatives\nand  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This infom1ation was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report, Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page ii Executive Summary including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review Du ring the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: I  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page Iii Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Maior Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and noninstructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page iv Executive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. ,__ ___ . ___ AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance\nidentify potentially new or increased revenue sources\nstreamline operational practices and responsibilities\nredistribute resources, including personnel\nbalance revenue and expenditures\nexamine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance\neliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases\nimplement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices\nenhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships\nand implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a \"management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position.\" The RFP asked the consultant to \"analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future.\" The LRSD's financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGT's recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding fom,ula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-evaluation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v Executive Summary should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit\nhowever, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGT's recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teacher's union for expected settlement revenues. AREA Ill: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCT/ON, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastructure to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers' preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi Executive Summary The facilities study conducted by 3O\\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline\nthis has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities. In some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each school's ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL IN/TIA TIVES Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LASO) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place 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. At the time of MGT's December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place --- A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii Executive Summary The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include:  Honors and Enrichment  Math Achievement  Computer Literacy  Early Childhood Initiatives  Reading/Language Arts  English as a Second Language  Alternative Education There is an enonnous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instruction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSD's short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning --- support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each student's success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to detennine. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, \"Desegregation.\" The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page viii Executive Summary allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors\nschool personnel\ndistrict technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff\na corporate representative\na representative from higher education\nand a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Team's effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the district's various technology initiatives. The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers\nhowever, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being ottered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page Ix Executive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LASO shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LASO schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of \"model\" technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the lower end of the technology scale. This strategy should be accomplished by incorporating the following:  establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement\n annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard\nand  provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways:  it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology\nand  it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Pagex Executive Summary The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xi Executive Summary The Importance of Implementation The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xii Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11 , 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers. ..  Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and infonnation collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted fonnal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., received a contract to conduct a management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Schools, as well as the Little Rock School District and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in early March 1999. The study team adhered to the project schedule contained in Exhibit 1-1. During this period, every effort was made to minimize disruptions to schools and to the central office. Employee input was a major feature of the process for this management study. In Section 1 .1 , we describe the various mechanisms we used to maximize both internal and external stakeholder involvement. As stated in the Alliance's Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the study was to complete a comprehensive management review of the following areas, at a minimum:  the management structure\n the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions\n the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals\n a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts\n the current financial position\n the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives, and  the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. We wish to thank Mr. Odies Wilson, President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, for his efforts in facilitating this study. We also wish to thank the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District, Superintendent Carnine, and the hundreds of LRSD employees and community residents who provided information to us as we prepared for and conducted the management study. Finally, we specifically express our gratitude to Dr. Victor Anderson who was appointed by the Superintendent to serve as our Project Manager for the management study. His assistance was invaluable throughout the entire project. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1 Introduction EXHIBIT 1-1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE October 15, 1998 November 1998 November 2-6, 1998 December 7-11, 1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12, 1999 March 1 , 1999 March 1-24, 1999 March 25, 1999 Source: Created by MGT, 1999. MGT of America, Inc. ACTIVITY Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines.  Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies.  Produced profile tables.  Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers.  Conducted central office administrators, teachers and principals surveys.  Analyzed survey data and information collected. Visited the Little Rock School District to:  conduct diagnostic review  collect existing data from system  interview Board members  interview administrative and support staff  conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page 1-2 Introduction 1.1 Study Methodology This section of the introductory chapter describes the methodology we used to prepare for and conduct the management study. Our methodology primarily involved a focused use of MGT's audit guidelines following the analysis of both existing data and new information obtained through various means of employee input. Each of the strategies we used is described below. 1. 1. 1 Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and beginning our on-site review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these activities were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various functions and operations we would study in the Little Rock School District. Examples of existing materials we obtained include:  Board policies and administrative procedures\n state-level reports\n comparative district, region, and state demographics, financial, and performance data\n A Plan for Success (1996 Report) of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools\n University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) Report entitled Plan Talk,  3D/lntemational Facilities Study\n documents form the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\n accreditation reports\n federal program and compliance reports\n annual performance reports\n independent financial audits\n several district plans for curriculum and instruction\n longitudinal test data\n communications and marketing plan\n school improvement plans\n facility needs assessment and plan\nMGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3 Introduction  annual budgets\n job descriptions\n salary schedules\n peIBonnelhandbooks\nand  agendas, minutes, and background materials for Board meetings. We analyzed data from each of these sources and used the information as a starting point for collecting additional data during our on-site visits in November and December. 1. 1.2 Diagnostic Review During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the school district. 1.1.3 Employee Surveys To secure the involvement of central office administrators, school principals, assistant principals, and teachers in the focus and scope of the management study, three surveys were prepared and disseminated in November 1998. Through the use of anonymous surveys, administrators and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the school system. These surveys were similar in format and content to provide a database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers vary. Survey results are discussed in-depth in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.1.4 Conducting the Formal On-Site Study During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following:  Central Office Management and Structure  Financial Management  Funding for Facilities Use and Management  Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology  Funding for Instructional Initiatives under Revised Desegregation Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGT's Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4 Introduction Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, teachers, and students. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in The Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by one of nine members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. 1.2 Current Environment in the Little Rock School District The Request for Proposals (RFP) for this management study states that: In a positive spirit of cooperation, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools has assembled a coalition that includes the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, Fifty for the Future, the Little Rock School District and others. This coalition has united to move our school district forward and improve the quality of education for all children served by the district. The coalition requests proposals for a management study and an evaluation of the school district's current financial position. The results of the study will be used by the coalition to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in our community. This spirit of cooperation between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local education agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources in support of its urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership is one that the Little Rock community can be proud of and one which should be emulated in urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified in the RFP. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs approximately 3,800 people. The LRSD budget is approximately $164,000,000. As a public school system, the district is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5 Introduction who directs an organizational structure that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. In 1996, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools prepared a report entitled A Plan for Success. The introduction of this report states that the LRSD is at a crossroads with continued declines in student enrollment, increased financial pressures, and the seeming inability by the LRSD leadership to work together. Despite those problems, the Little Rock community embraced the Little Rock School District and charged that the recommendations in A Plan for Success are based on shared goals between the community and the school district. . . . the Little Rock School District should strive for a high quality, integrated educational system with strong community support . . . . recommendations are offered with the intent of working with the Little Rock School District in any possible way to help identify problems as well as serve as problem solvers ourselves. We hope that the school administration, members of the LRSD School Board, the litigants, and other members of the Little Rock community will find new energy and a renewed sense of hope as we strive to help bring about an even more excellent public school system equipped to provide the highest quality education to every student in our district. Among the significant recommendations of the 1996 report were the following:  The LRSD must recognize the relationship between student enrollment and school finance.  Student enrollment can be increased through aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District.  Criteria must be developed for closing outdated and underutilized schools.  A new area elementary school should be constructed.  Racial balances should be relaxed to relieve the overcapacity in some schools.  Mediation between the Board of Directors and the district administration should be sought. MGT found that several of the above initiatives were underway when we commenced this management study. A new Board of Directors had been elected, a new Superintendent had been appointed, and, for the most part, the relationship among Board members and between the Superintendent and the Board of Directors was good. These 1996 Plan for Success recommendations relating to facilities, finance, and instructional initiatives will be addressed in the chapters which follow in this report as we respond to MGT's charge for this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6 Introduction There is, however, one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in A Plan for Success and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has the following nine major objectives which, it accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliance's recommendation to market the Little Rock School District:  Objective 1 : Conduct ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families. Use the research results to improve the district.  Objective 2: Create a new image for the district that focuses on its strengths and offer those strengths to its students.  Objective 3: Establish a Communications Advisory Committee to provide professional advice and resources in communications and marketing activities.  Objective 4: Establish Marketing Teams within each school building.  Objective 5: Communicate regularly with LRSD families.  Objective 6: Establish regular and timely communications with all LRSD employees.  Objective 7: Establish a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families.  Objective 8: Develop and maintain relationships with the Central Arkansas news media.  Objective 9: Actively schedule LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7 Introduction Unfortunately, at the time of MGT's study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plan's objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. Subsequent chapters in this report respond to each of the directives of the RFP:  Chapter 2 describes the management and organization structure, staffing patterns, and utilization of personnel in the LRSD.  Chapter 3 compares the management structure in LRSD to selected comparable urban school districts.  Chapter 4 provides the results of MGT surveys of LRSD employees.  Chapter 5 analyzes the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions in the Little Rock School District.  Chapter 6 assesses the current financial position of the district and the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives.  Chapters 7, 8, and 9 address the funding for facilities, technology, and institutional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation Plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-8 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) faces an array of challenging circumstances as it moves toward unitary status in the next two years. This chapter explores some of these circumstances, including the current environment of the district and the management structure of the central office. The major sections of this chapter are:  Historical Background and Future of Desegregation  Current Environment of the District  Current Central Office Organizational Structure 2.1 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation The Little Rock School District has a long history of desegregation, perhaps the longest of any school district. The desegregation process, out of which the Little Rock School District will soon emerge, began in 1954, when, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court found racially-segregated public schools to be unconstitutional. For many districts, the process of defining and enforcing integration continues even today and Little Rock is no exception. For three years after the Brown decision, the Little Rock School Board moved towards a phased integration - first the high schools, then the lower grades. Foreshadowing the current litigious environment, the NAACP filed suit, claiming the district failed to comply with the Court's order of \"all deliberate speed.\" The suit failed, but formed a precedent of all sides in the Little Rock school community stepping in with legal action at nearly every development in the district. Then, at the start of the 1957 school year, came the events that made Little Rock national news in the struggle for equal access to education. Television images from those tense days are replayed in American History classrooms and on websites across the country as nine African-American students were prevented from entering Central High School by the Governor of Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. President Eisenhower and the United States Army had to intervene, but it was not until 1959 that all legal maneuverings on the part of the segregationists failed and the Little Rock high schools reopened. In the 1970s, the federal courts finally settled on an acceptable framework for desegregation. They found in the 1960s that essentially voluntary integration was not achieving its goals, so the courts moved to desegregation plans that ordered school districts to achieve \"racial balance\" in each school. Thus, if a school district was 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American, each school within the district had to be 65 percent white and 35 percent African-American in its student composition. The concept of racial balance, as ordered by the courts, led to busing of students across towns and exorbitant costs for school districts. In many districts, racial balance became MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1 Background on the Little Rock School District the only issue, as administrators and courts lost sight of the original goal of integration --- to ensure equal opportunity. The Little Rock School District has struggled with lawsuit after lawsuit and the subsequently altered pupil assignment plans as it has sought to achieve the mandated goal of racial balance. Until very recently, administrators had to contend with the legacies of the Clark case, the 1982 consolidation case, and the consent decree of 1989 as they sought to operate and manage a school district under the watchful eye of court supervision. And they had to deal with the reality of changing demographics, as the student population within the district boundaries has become increasingly more African-American, further removing the goal of racial balance. An end may be at hand to the friction born of integration and lately metamorphosed into the debate over busing versus neighborhood schools in Little Rock. As announced in the April 29, 1998 edition of Education Week, a new consent decree has replaced the 1989 decree. This decree \"does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan\" but will allow an end to judicial oversight in 2001 if the district upholds what is commonly called the \"Revised Plan.\" The Revised Plan supersedes and extinguishes all prior agreements and orders related to desegregation with these exceptions:  the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989\n the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 28, 1987\n the order dated September 3, 1986 pertaining to the Magnet Review Comf'T}ittee\n the M-to-M (Minority-to-Majority) Transfer Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand  orders interpreting or enforcing these agreements and stipulations, as long as they are not inconsistent with the Revised Plan. At the heart of the Revised Plan is a lack of over-prescription, which was cited by many as the major difficulty with previous plans. The Revised Plan opens the door to a return to neighborhood schools, because it \"recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced\" (Section 3.8, Revised Plan). This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice, either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. The first obligation of the Little Rock School District under the Revised Plan is to: .. . in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against AfricanAmerican students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against MGT of America, Inc. Page2-2 Background on the Little Rock School District 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 (Section 2. 1, Revised Plan). In order to meet this obligation, the Revised Plan enumerates policies and programs the district must implement to ensure:  the hiring, assignment, and promotion of qualified AfricanAmericans\n an increased number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core subject teachers\n a uniform salary schedule\n desegregation of schools to the extent practicable through student assignment programs\n no racial discrimination in regard to special education referrals or student discipline\n the improvement and remediation in the academic achievement of African-American students\n improved student achievement through implementation of specific recommendations in the areas of early childhood education, reading/language arts, mathematics, computer literacy, incentive schools, alternative education, and scholarships\n parental and community involvement\nand  equitable maintenance and repair of facilities. The Revised Plan also allows the district attendance zones to be redrawn in accordance with these guidelines:  current satellite zones may be eliminated where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n students may attend neighborhood schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from 40 to 60 percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable\nand  students will attend high schools that are within 20 percentage points of the percentage of African-American students in the district as a whole and so that a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from the middle schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3 Background on the Little Rock School District Within the return to neighborhood schools, the Revised Plan allows a great deal of student choice in the school they attend. The plan allows numerous types of voluntary student transfers:  desegregation transfers (students at schools where their race is more than 60 percent of the student population may transfer to a school where their race is less than 40 percent of the student population)\n racial isolation transfers (a student in an essentially one-race school may transfer to another school that is racially balanced)\n magnet program transfer (students may transfer to a magnet school)\n employee's child transfer (students may transfer to the school where their parent works)\nand  special circumstances transfer (students may transfer due to unique circumstances at the discretion of the district). As stated in Section 1 0 of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year were transition periods. Full implementation of the Revised Plan is to begin with the second semester of the 1998-99 year. The actions of the district under the Revised Plan will end after the 2000-01 school year, when:  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 March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD'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 (Section 11.0, Revised Plan). The implications of the Revised Plan for the organization and operation of the Little Rock School District central office are many. Several positions within the central office have particular obligations to fulfill as a result of the Revised Plan and it is conceivable that, once unitary status is achieved in 2001, some central office restructuring will be desirable. As it relates to specific positions, the obligations of the Revised Plan are presented in Section 2.3 of this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-4 Background on the Little Rock School District 2. 1. 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring As part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the three Pulaski County school districts and the State of Arkansas, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) was formed as an arm of the United States District Court. The ODM is vested with \"the authority to monitor the school district compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modifications or additions to, such plans and agreements.\" The ODM is staffed with nine personnel - one monitor, five associate monitors, and three support personnel. The primary role of the ODM is to determine each party's compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Settlement Agreement. This role has grown to include monitoring the entire desegregation process in the three school districts. The ODM collects and analyzes information on the efforts each of the districts is making in reaching objectives specified in desegregation orders and court orders. 2.1.2 Joshua lntervenors Joshua lntervenors are advocates of African-American students, dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of minority students in all three Pulaski County school districts. The Joshua lntervenors are responsible for enforcing the lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan in the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. With respect to the Little Rock School District\nthe Joshua lntervenors have several responsibilities under the Revised Plan, including:  approving the desegregation and/or education expert to work with the district in the development of the programs, policies, and procedures t9 be implemented as part of the Revised Plan\n consulting to the district on the process or standard to be developed for assessing the equitable distribution of resources within the district's schools\nand  promoting, with the district, housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5 Background on the Little Rock School District 2.2 Current Environment of the Little Rock School District This section provides an overview of four environmental aspects of the Little Rock School District (LRSD):  Community Environment  Fiscal Environment  Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes  Strategic Plan 2.2. 1 Community Environment The Little Rock School District is the largest district in Arkansas, with nearly 25,000 students and almost 4,000 employees. The district is one of the 10 largest employers in the state. Established in 1853, the district now encompasses 49 schools - 35 elementary, eight junior highs, five senior high schools, and one vocational-technical center. It is one of three schools districts in Pulaski County, the most populous county in the state. Statewide, the US Department of Education determined that K-12 enrollment increased by 5.0 percent from 1990 to 1996. The Department estimates that Arkansas K-12 enrollment will increase again by 1 .3 percent from 1996 to 2002, but will decrease by 2.4 percent from 2002 to 2008. Exhibit 2-1 details enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District. As can be seen, enrollment has generally declined throughout the 1990s, in contrast to the trend seen elsewhere in the state. However, these enrollment figures tell only a portion of the story. In 1958, student enrollment was 74 percent white and 26 percent African-American. In 1996-97, those figures have almost reversed - the district is 33 percent white and 67 percent AfricanAmerican. However, the general Little Rock population is 65 percent white and just 34 percent African-American. This situation has come about due to an aging of the total population and an actual decline in the proportion of the population that is school age, while the number of African-American children has grown. In general, the parents of Little Rock school children are well educated. Almost 82 percent of Little Rock adults have completed high school, compared with 75 percent in the nation and 66 percent in the state. Almost 58 percent of Little Rock adults have some college, compared with 42 percent in the nation and just 34 percent in the state. This level of education holds true across the races as well, as Exhibit 2-2 illustrates. As shown, both white and African-American adults in Little Rock are better educated on the whole than adults in the state and nation. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-6 27,000 26,500 26,000 \"' ~----~- 25,500 25,000 24,500 EXHIBIT 2-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT FIGURES /------~ // , , \"\"\"-\" \"\"r~ \"'-,. ,, ''-....,,~~\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ ' \\ ' Background on the Little Rock School District t:o). I ... .......... ~-- ...... ~::i: I I ( I \\ l / 24,000 \\ '\\ / / 23,500 \\ '\\ I \\ , rc~ 23,000 22,500 22,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source: Little Rock School District website,www.lrsd.k12.ar.us/enrlment.htm. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADULT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT .. LITTLE ROCK STATE U.S . .. , RACE (%) {%) (%) African-American adults with some 43.1 24.5 35.1 college, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree White adults with some college, a 63.3 35.0 46.9 bachelor's, or an advanced degree Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. In general, Little Rock families are also fairly wealthy. The 1990 median family income in Little Rock was $34,347, just under the national median of $35,225, but far above the Arkansas median of $25,329. However, African-American families in Little Rock are earning much less than white families in the city, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-3. As the exhibit shows:  While African-American families in Little Rock did better than families elsewhere in the state, they still had median incomes less than the national median for their race. They earned just 94 percent of the national median for African-American families.  White families in Little Rock did far better than families elsewhere in the state and better than the national median for their race. They earned 11 0 percent of the national median for white families.  The income disparity between African-American and white Little Rock families is extreme. African-American families earned just 51 percent of white families in 1990. .. .. . ' RACE EXHIBIT 2-3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1990 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME LITTLE ROCK STATE African-American Families $21,103 $14 785 White Families $41,074 $26,939 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc. U.S. .. $22,429 $37,152 Page2-B Background on the Little Rock School District Based on the results of a survey conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in March and April of 1996, parents and community members in Little Rock support their public schools. Most African-American (66%) and white (72%) rated as excellent or good the school where their oldest child attends. In general, they believe that Little Rock schools are performing better than public schools across the nation. Most respondents, (52 percent of African-American families and 59 percent of white families), gave the Little Rock school buildings a grade of excellent or good. Perhaps most indicative of their level of support, most African-American (52%) and white (46%) families would vote for a tax increase to support the Little Rock School District. 2.2.2 Fiscal Overview of the Little Rock School District The total budget of the Little Rock School District in 1995-96 was approximately $141 million, divided over four major accounting funds - general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. The two main sources of funding for the district are local and state. However, the state funds come from three sources:  normal state appropriations\n an approximately $71 million settlement from the state as part of the 1989 desegregation litigation and resulting decree\nand  a loan of up to $20 million, also determined as part of the 1989 decree. These last two state funds are a source of financial concern. The final settlement payment of $683,125 from the $71 million was made in the 1996-97 school year. The $20 million in loan funds will shortly be exhausted, as these funds have been drawn from in 1991, 1992, 1993, and again in 1996, leaving just $5 million after the 1996-97 school year. There is currently no revenue source in sight that will begin to compensate for the loss of these fund sources. Exhibit 2-4 shows the recent trend in reliance on these funds. As the exhibit shows:  The Little Rock School District has substantially decreased its fund balances each school year, leaving little room for unexpected needs or contingency funds.  After three years without using them, the district was forced to utilize loan funds in 1996-97 to make up its budget shortfall.  The district has reduced its reliance on settlement and loan funds over the past four years, from over $9 million to $3.6 million. Doing so, however, has meant drawing from fund balances. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-9 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT USE OF NON-RECURRING REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING SCHOOL FUND ENDING FUND SETTLEMENT LOAN FUNDS . YEAR BALANCE BALANCE FUNDS EXPENDED EXPENDED 1993-94 $6,019,557 $4,794,251 $8,094,112 $0 1994-95 4,794,251 3,645,739 6,042,591 0 1995-96 3,645,739 915,442 3,829,942 0 1996-97 915,442 942,644 683,125 3,000,000 (budgeted) Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. Exhibit 2-5 compares the sources of LRSD revenues with the sources of revenue all other districts across the nation having the same per pupil expenditures. As the exhibit shows:  The Little Rock School District receives more than the national average in percentage received from local sources.  State revenues to the district are over seven percentage points below the national average.  The Little Rock School District receives twice the percentage of revenue from federal and other sources that other districts receive. Viewed from another angle, local sources of revenue provided over 70 percent of Little Rock's operating funds in 1996-97, which is a steady increase from their former 50 percent mark in 1989-90. Exhibit 2-6 shows the local revenues estimated for 1996, collectable in 1997. The $74.7 million figure shown represents an increase of about $5 million over estimated tax collections for 1996 due to property value reassessments concluded in 1996. State law requires such reassessments every five years. In its May 1998 employee newsletter, the Superintendent's Notepad included the comment that the Board heard a 1998-99 budget report that \"basically includes no new revenues for the coming year.\" Additionally, the report identified facilities needs totaling more than $114 million in repair and renovation, well in excess of the $70 million identified in a 1995 facilities study. The only way to fund these capital improvement projects would be to fund them locally, through a bond initiative. So, clearly, the fiscal environment of the district is at least fragile and possibly precarious. MGT of America, Inc. Page2-10 Background on the Little Rock School District EXHIBIT 2-5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 PERCENT OF REVENUES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES Little Rock School District National Average Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. MGT of America, Inc.  Federal \u0026amp; Other  State  Local Page 2-11 Background on the Little Rock School District CATEGORY Real Estate Personal Utilities - Real Property @ 15% Utilities - Personal Property @ 85% TOTAL EXHIBIT 2-6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED 1997 PROPERTY TAX YIELD ..  MILLAGE TAX ASSESSMENT RATE CHARGE $1,401,195,338 0.0414 $58,009,487 468,027,843 0.0419 19,610,367 13,016,161 0.0414 538,869 73,758,248 0.0419 3,090,471 $1,955,997,590 $81,249,193 Source: University of Arkansas at Little Rock report, February 1997. ESTIMATED COLLECTION (@92%) . $74,749,258 Complicating the fiscal environment of the Little Rock School District is the new state law, Act 915 of 1995. If a school district is determined to be in \"fiscal distress\" under this  law - having current year expenditures exceed current year revenues over a combined three-year period - the state could step in and take over the district. If a district in fiscal distress has no plans for correcting or is making insufficient progress in correcting the distress, the district will be taken over by the Arkansas Department of Education. Combined with the dwindling reserves of LRSD, this potential action could represent a real threat to the future local management of the district. 2.2.3 Ongoing and Pending School Organizational Changes As part of the Revised Plan, the district is moving from its current configuration of junior and senior high schools to middle schools for grades six through eight and high schools for grades nine through 12. This conversion will impact nearly every school, as some schools will need to become ninth grade only for a time, due to limited capacity at the high schools. Some schools will likely be closed as well, or converted to serve another grade sequence from its current sequence. Central office staff are assuming additional duties for the period of this conversion, including developing new middle school curricula, new administrative policies and procedures for the middle schools, and new student attendance zones. Also part of the Revised Plan, the district is undertaking the construction of two new elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens School. The new Stephens Elementary School will be completed first. Once it is ready for students, one of the district's older schools will be closed. While this may appear to be a simple issue, in Little Rock it will likely be a racially-charged issue as many of the most deteriorated schools are in traditionally African-American enclaves and they do not wish to lose their neighborhood school. The Revised Plan addresses this issue and forbids the district from closing \"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\" (Section 3.6, Revised Plan). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12 Background on the Little Rock School District In order to assist school leaders in increased school-based management opportunities, the central office staff are serving as \"brokers\" in addition to their regular positions. This program started in this school year, 1998-99, and will be fully implemented by the next school year. The purpose of the brokers is to provide technical assistance to school principals as they navigate the zoning and middle school changes, and as the emphasis in the district increases to more effectively empower school-based leadership. 2.2.4 Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District publication \"A Vision for the Future - Strategic Plan Update 1998\" is the guiding strategic plan for the district. It includes the district's mission statement, beliefs, objectives, parameters, and an action plan for each of its 11 strategies. These strategies are:  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":50,"next_page":51,"prev_page":49,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":588,"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}}]}}