{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1832","title":"Multiple court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2011-01-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1832"],"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":["88 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_209","title":"Annual Report, Carver Magnet Elementary School, MRC","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":["2011/2012"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools","Carver Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Annual Report, Carver Magnet Elementary School, MRC"],"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/209"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nStipulation Magnet Pnncapats ANNUAL REPO T to e MAG ET REVIEW CO E 2\"1 SCHOOL COMPOSITION SCHOOLC OMPOSITIONco nt. ...................,.... ........... 1112 7580 10-11 7350 08-10 70.38 08-09 851-4 07-08 5750 SCHOOL STAUCllJAAl. CHANGESnMPROVEMENTS RecycHngP rogram LRS --~ .. -llfll(llc.-w-a,\"-,_..,... , __ -~..., ._- - ., r __ .......,_, mw,. .--- .... .,.,... __ ................, ,, .....\"\".. ... ... \"\"'.--- \"\"---~ -,, ~\"r-- ... .,,._...,_ -.-~ C!I...,._._... ...... --- --.---- =:=:\"r-.--~_.,. .. ,......d..,..,.....u,u.,--. ..... ..,ftJl'II',- -~ J.oll,- __, HfW--~ .,,,...__, -..--- .,~ .. - -~- \"\"r .... _....,......, Recruitment SCHOOL HONORS/AWARDS \u0026amp;  Caver as one d the onlyelem~ atudent-predtieed yearbocka rv1ceAwar Karen Banks  AsiaCatn 4\" grade 1 place Central Region State Youth Art Show and LRSD Board Award Heifer Coloring Conte t  Jordan Moody Mr Carlock s 3\"' grade Attorney Gtwleral Art Awards Carver's Teacher ofthe Year Jason Crader LEGO Grant REACH Grant Karen Banks and Charlotte Cook  Attended the Space Educator's Confwence SEEC nHoullonTX  Karen Banka, New PTA P181idenfot r 20 2 1 -r:-,o-- Sara Brown  Achieved NllliclM B08ld Certificatioinn Early ChildhoodG llla'llllt. November2011  Attended the Arkanaas Ea,ty Childhood Aaaocialionm ..Ung in HatSpnnga  V, unteerad at Arkanaa ChildrenI Fun Q_aAy R Ch ldran s H011p11a1  Read entriel for two am9111N ationalB 08ld candidatea  r Linda Glenn  Attended Arkansas Reading Assoc1ati0n Conferencem Little Rock SWOW Conference  Lor Diffey and p la Sch g allanded the SchoolsW Walls Confer HotSpmga November2 012 Carver 1s a school where children come first! ACSIP Page 1 of 50 School Plan CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL 2100 E. SIXTH ST.,LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan 2011-2012 Carver is a school where children come first. Caring staff, parents, and community work together to ensure a quality academic, social and technological education for all students. Grade Span: K-5 Title I: Not Applicable School Improvement: MS Table of Contents Priority 1: Literacy Goal: Benchmark Test, IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in reading, particularly in our African American and economically disadvantaged subgroups (who are on school improvement year three and did not make standards for 2010-2011) by concentrating on the weak areas identified on the three year item by item analysis: comprehension (focused on inference, vocabulary and fluency), and writing open response (focused on content and style domains). Priority 2: Mathematics Goal: Benchmark Exam,IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in mathematics, especially in our African American subgroup(alert status) and our economically disadvantaged subgroup (alert status) by concentrating on weak areas identified by the three year Benchmark item analysis: measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Priority 3: Wellness Goal: All students, staff and parents will learn the importance of wellness through a variety of healthy lifestyle activities integrated into the regular curriculum and through wellness materials sent home. Priority 4: Discipline Goal: At least 95% of Carver students will be free of suspensions. Priority 5: Professional Development Goal: One hundred percent of Carver Magnet teachers will attend conferences/conventions/in-service trainings to equal 60 hours or above per person. Professional Development for 2011-2012 will focus on student needs from data assessments of Benchmark and IOWA to improve student achievement. Priority 6: Attendance/Parental Involvement Goal: The average daily attendance rate of Carver students will be 95% and for staff 95%. Parents will volunteer 50+ hours. To improve reading and writing skills and strategies for all students, particularly in our AfricanPriority 1 : American and economically disadvantaged subgroups. Supporting Data: 1. 2. Developmental Reading Assessment In 2008-2009 the DRA percentages for proficent and advance were Kindergarten 63%, First Grade 47%, Second Grade 71 %, Third Grade 64%, Fourth Grade 55%, and Fifth Grade 67%. Carver's total population that was proficent or advance was 67%. In 2009-2010 the DRA percentages for proficient and advanced were Kindergarten 66%, First Grade 93%, and Second Grade 56%. Carver's total popultaion K - 2nd grade is 71.67% proficient or advanced. In 2010-2011 the DRA was replaced with WRAP. The results were first grade - 55% proficient or advanced, second grade - 72% proficient or advanced, third grade - 71% proficient or advanced, fourth grade - 72% proficient or advanced, and fifth grade - 50% proficient or advanced. 3. SAT-10 Spring 2008 Reading First Grade 1-25 percentile - 28 students 26-50 percentile - 19 students 51-75 percentile - 15 students 76-99 percentile - 23 students Therefore, 38 students performed above the 50th percentile and 47 students performed below the 50th percentile. Reading Second Grade 1-25 percentile - 36 students 26-50 percentile - 22 students 51-75 percentile - 4 students 76-99 percentile - 12 students Therefore, 16 students performed above the 50th percentile and 58 students performed below the 50th percentile. At this time there is no combined population or subgroup item by item analysis. However the teachers are making individual academic improvement plans per student and the data there reveals individual strengths and weaknesses. SAT-10 Spring 2009 Reading First Grade 1-25 percentile - 40 students 26-50 percentile - 19 students 51-75 percentile - 6 students 76-99 percentile - 10 students Sixteen students performed at or above the 50th http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 1?/\u0026lt;i1?n11 ACSIP Page 2 of 50 percentile and Fifty-nine students performed below the 50th percentile. Reading Second Grade 1-25 percentile - 27 students 26-50 percentile - 22 students 51-75 percentile - 14 students 76-99 percentile - 15 students Twenty nine students performed at or above the 50th percentile and Forty-nine students performed below the 50th percentile. SAT 10 Spring 2010 First Grade: Reading 40% scored at or above the national percent, 20% scored basic and 39% scored below basic. Second Grade: 40% scored at of above the national percent, 38% scored basic, and 35% scored below basic. In the spring of 2011 The School Based Committee met and identified 27 students to be placed in the GT program which identified 36% of the second grade populations as gifted. 4. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2009 Reading: Kindergarten 1-25 percentile - 31 students 26-50 percentile - 15 students 51-75 percentile - 22 students 76-99 percentile - 15 students Thirty Four students performed at or above the 50% percentile. Thirty one performed below the 50%. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2010 Reading: Kindergarten 40% Total Composite Score. 60% of students scored at or above the national percent. 11% scored basic and 29% scored below basic. 5. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2008-2009: Summer 2008-2009 the Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Annual yearly progress was 64% for literacy and 62.5% for math. The school combined population exceeded the standard for math with 71.6% proficient. The school combined population did not make the literacy standard missing it by 2.1 % with 61.9% proficient. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show the growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information by grade level was mailed to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team then analyzed individual grade level data by Combined Population, Caucasian, African American and Economically Disadvantaged for math and literacy. The Causation students made AYP at all grade levels in math and literacy. Our findings: Third Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 51%, AA - 42.4%, ED- 45% Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 73%, AA- 63%, ED - 59% Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop - 58%, AA - 38%, ED - 38% Third Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 78%, AA - 73%, ED - 62% Fourth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 81%, AA - 70%, ED - 69% Fifth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 56%, AA - 30%, ED - 30% The first day of pre-school professional development, the coaches showed the entire staff a graph summary by grade levels of their particular spring standardized tests broken out by sub groups where possible. This was painful for some but necessary for all. The principal and assistant led the staff through a study of \"the Four Factors of Failure\" as we looked for the root cause. Time was provided for each grade level to reflect on the causes of failure reflected is this recent data as they reviewed their individual student test results- attendance, engagement, production, persistence. Grade level groups shared this different look at data. Coaches used the Benchmark item by item analysis for math and literacy and ranked the combined responses by grade level SLE as compared to district and state. Coaches modeled some of the SLEs and provided guided practice. Teachers, by grade level groups, reviewed the SLEs with their curriculum maps for focus for this year. The principal using an advanced organizer led the entire staff through the hi-lights of the ACSIP with a focus on the data for the last three years by grade level and sub group. Based on our data analysis we have prioritized literacy for a more consistent delivery system as we reviewed the protocols for reader's workshop and writer's workshop. Specific low scoring literacy areas will be the focus for professional development. Although we made standards in math we plan to continue those strategies that we feel have been key for student success. Specific low scoring math areas will be the focus for professional development. We have prioritized our Economically Disadvantaged students noting that Carver has 65% free and reduced lunch students. Many of our African American students fall into this group, but not all. We will look at individuals for RTI and BOOST, after school tutoring. These two sub groups provided our lowest scores. They will receive special services and strategies as we as a staff learn more through a book study this year- A Framework for Understanding Poverty, by Ruby Payne. In addition, the principal sat with each classroom teacher to review his/her data specific to his/her standardized test and as compared to colleagues and other grade levels. \"How can we help you?\" was the question asked. Many of those ideas will be accommodated. We agree that we have an extensive school improvement plan and that each of us has a responsibility for its implementation. We are committed to the growth (which we know we are making from receiving a \"4\" on the state report card, a school achieving beyond standards), and we are committed to the Annual Yearly Progress of every child. Each of us is one part of the ACSIP but we feel the whole is greater than the sum of its parts! 6. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2009-2010: Spring 201 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 71.2% for Literacy and 70% for Mathematics. The school\npopulation exceeded the standard for math with 80.1% of the combined population http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 3 of 50 proficient /advanced. The score for the combined population for literacy was 70.9, missing the state score of 71.2 by .3%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did indeed make annual year progress for the combined population in literacy as well. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Comb pop 65% (14%increase)\nAA 65% (22.6% increase)\nC 66% (3% drop)\nED 62% (17% increase) Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 71% (2% drop)\nAA 63% (same)\nC 80% (10% drop) ED 69% (9% increase) Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (20% increase)\nAA 70% (32% increase)\nC 93% (9% increase)\nED 69% (31% increase). Third Grade Math: Comb pop 86% (8% increase),\nAA 83% (10% increase)\nC 92% (5% drop)\nED 83% (21% increase) Fourth Grade Math: Comb pop 71% (10% drop)\nAA 65% (5% drop)\nC 80% (17 % drop)\nED 69% (same) Fifth Grade Math\nComb pop 84% (28% increase)\nAA 78% (48% increase)\nC 96% 2% drop)\nEC 78% (58% increase) This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3,4,5 from 2009 tests to different students in grades 3,4,5 for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares student's scores from third grade in 2009 to their fourth grade scores in 2010. We found the following changes: Literacy: Advanced 2009 (14%) - 2010 (17%) - growth of 3%\nProficient 2009 (37%) - 2010 (54%) - growth of 17%\nBasic 2009(30%) - 2010 (27%) - decrease of 3% Below basic 2009(19%) -2010 (3%) - 16% decrease. The 20% growth in P and A is encouraging as well as the 16% decrease in below basic students shows we are moving children steadily to higher levels of literacy. Students who moved from third grade to fourth grade Mathematics changes: Advanced 2009 (39% -2010(36%) - decrease of 3%\nProficient 2009 (39%) - 2010 (35%) - decrease of 4%\nBasic 2009 (19% - 2010 (18%) - decrease of 1%\nBelow Basic 2009 (4% - 2010 (12%) - 8% increase. The 7% decrease at P and A and the 12% increase at BB point to slippage of student achievement at 4th grade in 2009-2010. What was different? What will we do to combat it? We will visit with individual teachers in math, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker /specialist pull outs and RTL We will work as a Professional Leaning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade, 2009 scores to those of the same group of student in the fifth grade 2010 shows changes: Literacy: Advanced 2009 (23%) -2010(25%) - 2% increase\nproficient 2009 (50%) -2010 (53%) - 3% increase\nBasic 2009- (24%) - 2010 (19%) 5%decrease\nBelow basic 2009 (3%) -2010 (4%) - 1 % increase. Small but steady improvement in P and A (5%), a decline in B of 5%, with 1 % increase in BB shows some growth in the already high scoring group of students. Mathematics: Advanced 2009 (49%) 2010 (48) - 4% increase\nProficient 2009 (37% - 2010 936%) 1% decrease\nBasic 2009 (13%) -2010 (14%) -1% increase\nBelow basic (6%) 2010 (3%) decrease. There was again a small percent of growth in math for this group of students. They were at a high level, maintained it and grew some. This is what we want across the board. The principal focused on the ADE school report card Subgroup Details for Growth Used in AYP 2010. There were 25 students, combining all subgroups, that met growth in math even though they were not proficient. There were 61 students , combining all sub groups, that met growth in literacy even though they did not score proficient. The AA sub pop had the highest number of students making growth. Our challenge as a staff is to singly identify these students on the move, the ones making growth, and work with them so that next year they indeed score proficient. Now is the time to use individual student data to plan Individual Academic Improvement Plans for all of our students, even though the ADE requires it only for those B and BB. Carver believes in growth for ALL students! The principal also has shown through a chart the amount of growth needed by this new years fourth and fifth grades subpopulations based on next years AYP and this years scores. It is a challenge that we will meet head on and will accomplish by working as Professional learning Communities, selecting focus standards, teaching to them, using common formative assessments to check progress, grade tests together as grade level teams and analyze the data to make teaching/learning decisions and plan for RTI when needed. 7. 2010-2011 Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2010-2011: Spring 2011 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 78.4 for Literacy and 77.5 for Mathematics. The school: The score for the combined population for math was 74.6, missing the state score of 77.5 by 4%. 4 students that were basic and below did meet growth, however that was not enough to meet our growth goal. The score for the combined population for literacy was 72.2, missing the state score by 8%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did not make annual yearly progress for the combined population in literacy and math. An appeal was made based on the discrepancies in the coding of highly http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 4 of 50 mobile students, and incorrect numbers. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Combined population 71% (6% increase)\nAA 61% (4% decrease)\nC 83% (17% increase)\nED 64% (1% increase). 4th Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (7%)\nAA 73% (13% increase)\nC 86% (6% increase)\nED 74% (5% increase)\nFifth Grade Literacy: Com pop 68% (10% decrease)\nAA 63% ( 7% decrease)\nC 78% (15% decrease)\nED 63% ( 6% decrease). Mathematics changes: Third Grade : Com pop 80% (6% decrease)\nAA 70%(13% decrease)\nC 95% (3% increase)\nED 74% (9 % decrease\n4th Grade Math: Com pop 80% (9% increase)\nAA 73% (8 % increase)\nC 91% ( 11% increase)\nED 77% (9 % increase)\n5th Grade Math: Com pop 67% ( 17 % decrease)\nAA 61% ( 17 % decrease)\nCC 78% (18 % decrease) ED 64%(14% decrease). This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3, 4, 5 from 2010 tests to different students in grades 3, 4, 5, for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares students scores from third grade in 2010 to their fourth grade scores in 2011. We found the following changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010, 30%\n2011, 37%\ngrowth of 7%. Proficient: 2010 35%\n2011, 44%. Growth of 9%. Basic: 2010, 20%\n2011, 13%. Decrease of 7%. Below basic: 2010, 16%\n2011, 6 %. Decrease of 10%. 16% increase in proficient and advanced is very encouraging, with a 19% decrease in basic and below. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 49%\n2011, 38%\ndecrease of 11 %. Proficient: 2010, 36%\n2011, 43%.Increase of 7%. Basic: 2010, 14%\n2011, 8%. Decrease of 6%. Below basic: 2010, 0%\n2011, 11 %. Increase of 11 %. The 4% decrease at P and A seem to say that some A students slipped to P. The 5% drop in B and BB is encouraging. We will work as a Professional Learning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade 2010 scores to those of the same group of students in the fifth grade 2011 shows these changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010: 17%, 2011, 26%. Increase of 9%. Proficient 2010: 54%\n2011: 45%. Decrease of 9%. Basic: 2010, 28%\n2011, 29%. Increase of 1%. Below basic: 2010, 3%\n2011, 0%. Decrease of 3%. Proficient and advanced percentages stayed the same with basic and below had less than one percent drop. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 36%\n2011, 29%. Decrease of 7%. Proficient: 2010, 35%\n2011, 40%. Increase of 5%. Basic: 2010, 18%\n2011, 25%. Increase of 7%. Below Basic: 2010, 12%\n2011, 6%. Decrease of 6%. There was a 2% slippage in P and A with a 1 % drop in B and BB. We can see growth but some slippage. Our growth was not enough to reach AYP. We will visit with individual teachers, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker/specialist pull outs and RTI to find ways to move more students upward. Strategies for achievement of AYP: 1. RTI/SBIT with case managers supporting teachers and interventionists. 2. Small group instruction levelized for literacy reading groups and math. 3. BOOST after school tutoring 4. GT plan for individuals (3, 4, 5) 5. Grade level meetings with coaches and curriculum specialists. 6. PD focused on literacy and math needs. 7. SOAR assessments reviews per grade level. 8. Math/literacy assessment wall. 9. AIP's for all students. 10. Broker specialists/Intervention strategist for each grade level. 11. Math/literacy coaches modeling rigorous instruction. 12. Principal/counselor benchmark review and goals set with each 4th and 5th grade student. Goals home to parents with Benchmark test copy. 13. Item by item analysis of math and literacy question on the 3,4, 5 grade Benchmark test by the entire staff. School wide growth needed for AYP for literacy: CP 13.4% AA 29.4% C 4.9% ED 18.9% School wide growth needed for AYP for math: CP 10.4% AA 18.1 % C 0% ED 14.6 8. 2010-2011 Condensed Data Summary Spring and fall 2010 grade levels and the entire staff analyzed the results of the State Benchmark/IOWA and district WRAP tests along with perceptual data including discipline, attendance, economically disadvantaged percentage increases and mobility. At present we have been designated Alert status for literacy and math, but that is on appeal based on incorrect data reports of highly mobile students and coding errors. We noted strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include individual student growth. Although we did not meet the cut score for AYP in 09-10, we did make AYP when the growth percentage was added. Strengths also include discipline, a result of our strong Stop and Think social skills program. Weaknesses include the low scores exhibited by our African American and Economically Disadvantaged students who are on SI-3 in literacy, and alert status in math. Weaknesses also include alert status designation for the combined population in literacy and math. Our focus is on African American and Economically Disadvantaged students in particularly and the entire population in general for LITERACY, reading comprehension focused on inference, vocabulary, and fluency and writing focused on content and style domains. MATH focus for the combined population is measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Our school improvement plan includes strategic interventions that support \"Academic Performance, Learning Environment and Leadership\". http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 1?/\"/?()11 ACSIP Page 5 of 50 Benchmark Test, IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in reading, particularly in our African American and economically disadvantaged subgroups (who are on school improvement year three Goal and did not make standards for 2010-2011) by concentrating on the weak areas identified on the three year item by item analysis: comprehension (focused on inference, vocabulary and fluency), and writing open response (focused on content and style domains). Meet state AYP in 2012(85.6). Growth needed: Grade Three: Combined population 14.6%, AfricanAmericans 24.6%, Caucasian 2.6%, Economically Disadvantaged 21.6%. Grade Four: Combined B h k population 14.6%, African-Americans 12.6%, Caucasian 0%, Economically Disadvantaged 11.6%. enc mar Grade Five: Combined population 13.6% African-Americans 22.6%, Caucasian 3.6%, Economically Disadvantaged 22.6% **AN ASTERISK PLACED IN AN ACTION INDICATES SERVICES PROVIDED COMPARABLE TO INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY FOR LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS. IIntervention: Small flexible literacy groups - Kindergarten-Fifth - Tier II Intervention Scientific Based Research: Kuhn, M. (2005). Helping Students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58 (4, 338-343. Dorn, L.J. \u0026amp; Soffos, C. (2001) Shaping Literate Minds. Portland: Stenhouse. Fisher, D \u0026amp; Frey N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy Framework: improving in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 32-41. Guiding Readers \u0026amp; Writers, Grades 3-5 (Fountas, Irene C \u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su.) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with classroom teachers and Laurie Start: specialists to establish small flexible Yarbrough, 08/15/2011 . School homogeneous literacy groups as a means to Grade Level End: Library ACTION $ improve reading and writing achievement of Chair 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: all students. Basic and Below Basic students  Teaching receive daily instruction. Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with all staff to provide an Nina Huey, Start: uninterrupted 2 1/2 hour language arts block Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers every day as a means to focus instruction in Chair End:  Teaching ACTION $ this curricula content area for all students. 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with classroom teachers and June Joseph, Start: specialists to use specific strategies such as Special 08/15/2011 . School making comparisons, predicting outcomes, Education End: Library ACTION $ drawing conclusions, identifying the main Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: ideas, and understanding cause and effect to  Teaching comprehend a variety of literary genres from Aids diverse cultures and time periods as a means to improve reading achievement for basic and below basic students, primarily African- American, special education and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Special Education **Evaluation of progress is determined by Marsha Start: 20% growth from the Houghton Mifflin Pre- Spears, 08/15/2011  Teachers ACTION Test to the Post-Test. Grade Level End:  Teaching BUDGET: $ Action Type: Program Evaluation Chair 05/31/2012 Aids Collaborate with students, teachers, Literacy Jason Crader, Start: Coach and family to implement the literacy Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Outside component of the Little Rock School District Chairman End: Consultants ACTION $ Literacy Model as a means to show progress 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: in writing for all students.  Teaching Action Type: Equity Aids Action Type: Parental Engagement I http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 6 of 50 Collaborate with grade level teams to dissect Teata Pace, Start: the literacy benchmark released items that Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers correlate with specific grade levels weekly Chairman End:  Teaching ACTION $ plans, as they pertain to our Curriculum Map 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: as a means to improve literacy achievement focused on basic and below basic students, primarily African-American, special education students and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity *Permit collaboration between two Reading Dianne Start: Recovery teachers and grade level teachers to Runion, 08/15/2011  Outside develop problem solving strategies to expand Reading End: Consultants ACTION $ vocabulary through reading as a means to Recovery 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: improve reading achievement for basic and Specialist  Teaching below basic students. Aids Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Home/School Connection - Kindergarten - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Fisher, D. \u0026amp; Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: improving achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1) 32-41 Perkins, J.H. \u0026amp; Cooter, Jr., R.B.(2005). Issues in urban literacy: Evidence based literacy education and the African American child. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 194-198. !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with parents to send home Nina Huey, Start: weekly reading assignments as a means Kindergarten 08/15/2011  School to improve reading skills of all End: Library ACTION $ kindergarten students. 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: Action Type: AIP/IRI  Teaching Action Type: Collaboration Aids Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with the Pizza Hut, media Susie Daniel, Start: specialist, classroom teachers and parents Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teaching to promote parental involvement in End: Aids ACTION $ reading at home as a means to improve 05/31/2012 BUDGET: reading skills of all kindergarten students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of Home/School Susie Daniel, Start: connections to improve reading skills of Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teachers all kindergarten students by 80% End:  Teaching ACTION $ kindergarten students participating with 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: the Home/School connection program. Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with parents to send home Shanel Ditmore, Start: weekly kindergarten concept backpacks Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teaching funded by a public education foundation Grade Level Chair End: Aids ACTION $ grant as a means to improve reading 05/31/2012 BUDGET: skills of all kindergarten students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Team Curriculum Sharing - Kindergarten - Filth - Tier I Intervention I http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 7 of 50 Scientific Based Research: McDaniel, G. Isaac, M.Y., Brooks, H.M. \u0026amp; Hatch, A.(2005). Confronting K-3 Teaching Challenges in an era of accountability. NAEYC Young Children, 60,(2) 20-25. Fisher, D. \u0026amp; Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: improving achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1) 32-41 !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level teams, coaches Rita Friend, Start: and principal by meeting weekly to coordinate Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers curriculum topics, strategies, materials, and Chair End: ACTION $ skills and to discuss assessed needs of students 05/31/2012 BUDGET: as a means to assure alignment of curriculum for all students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Determine the impact of weekly meetings to Linda Glenn, Start: assure curriculum alignment by 100% teacher Literacy Coach 08/15/2011  Teachers participation in meetings that correlate End: ACTION $ curriculum maps provided by the LRSD. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Little Rock School District Comprehensive Literacy Model - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Dorn, Linda J. and Soffos, C. (2005) Teaching For Deep Comprehension: A Reading Workshop Approach, Dorn, Linda J.\nFrench, Cathy\u0026amp; Jones, Tammy. (1998). Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions across Reading and Writing. Chapter 4, \"Guided Reading,\" p. 41-42 and Chapter 8, \"Establishing Routines and Organizing the Classroom,\" p. 103-121. Fountas, Irene C.\n\u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su (1997). Guided Reading: Good First Teaching For All Children. Chapter 8, \"Dynamic Grouping,\" p. 97-106. Dorn, Linda J., and Soffas, Carla. (2001). Shaping Literate Minds\nDeveloping Self-Regulated Learners. Chapter 6,\"Developing Self-Regulated Teachers\" p. 88-105. Clay, Marie M. (1989) The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. Chapter 2, \"Reading Programmes,\" p. 9-15\nClay, Marie M. (2002). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Chapter 3, \"Assisting Young Children Making Slow Progress,\" p. 23-36. Boushey, Gail \u0026amp; Moser, Joan (2006). The Daily Five: Fostering Literacy Independence in the Elementary Grades. \\Actions I Person : Responsible \\Timeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and Linda Glenn, Start: literacy coach as she mentors Literacy Coach 08/15/2011  Administrative teachers in weekly team meetings for End: Staff ACTION $ effective implementation of research 05/31/2012  Outside BUDGET: based instructional practices. Consultants Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Collaboration between grade level Jane Crum, Start: teachers and Reading Recovery Reading 08/15/2011  Teachers Specialists to access needs of low Recovery End:  Teaching Aids ACTION BUDGET: $ performing students and provide one- Specialist 05/31/2012 to-one and small group tutoring as a means to move children to grade level. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity **Determine the impact of the Little Diane Start: Rock School District Comprehensive Barksdale, 08/15/2011  Teachers Literacy Curriculum by students Principal End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ scoring 85.5% or above on weekly 05/31/2012 BUDGET: and unit assessments of the http:/ /acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index. cgi ?rm=report_ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 8 of 50 ! Houghton Mifflin literacy program. Action Type: Program Evaluation II II II II I !Total Budget: II $01 jintervention: Extra Reading Interventions - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tier II and III Interventions I Scientific Based Research: Dorn, Linda J. and Soffos C. (2005) Teaching for Deep comprehension: A Reading Workshop Approach\nRuzzo, K. and Sacco, M.J. (2004) Signifant Studies for Second Grade: Reading and Writing Investigations for Children.Dorn, Linda J.\nFrench, Cathy \u0026amp; Jones, Tammy. (1998). Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions across reading and writing. Chapter 4, \"Guided Reading,\" p. 41-42. Fountas, Irene C. \u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su. (1997). Guided Reading: Good First Teaching For All Children. Chapter 8, \"Dynamic Grouping,\" p. 97-106. What Works by Linda Fielding \u0026amp; P. David Pearson. Arkansas Department of Education Smart Step Literacy Lab Classroom Project, Harding University, Ken Stamatis, 2008-2009. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaboration between parents and staff Charlotte Start: to establish BOOST, an after school Cook, Grade 08/15/2011  Administrative tutoring program, to provide basic and Level End: Staff ACTION $ below basic students extra intervention Chairman 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: in reading and writing. Focus on African- Assessments American and Economically  Teachers Disadvantaged Students.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of the following Diane Start: reading interventions\nRt!, BOOST, small Barksdale, 08/15/2011  Outside group instruction, and classroom library Principal End: Consultants ACTION $ access to improve student achievement 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: as evidenced by 20% individual growth  Teaching Aids using the Houghton Mifflin assessment program. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaboration between grade level Diane Start: teachers, coaches and principal to Barksdale, 08/15/2011  Administrative determine students progress on a Principal End: Staff ACTION $ quarterly basis using SOAR and the 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: assessment wall to plan Response to Assessments Intervention strategies for low  Teachers performing students focused on African-  Teaching Aids American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Collaboration between teachers and Linda Glenn, Start: students to develop an engaging Literacy 08/15/2011  School Library classroom reading library by giving Coach End:  Teachers ACTION $ students volumes of quality literature 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: and ample time to practice reading skills. Books purchased with recommendation of Harding Smart Step Literacy Lab. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with specialists, parents and Teata Pace, Start: students to identify students with Curriculum 08/15/2011 . School Library specific reading needs for targeted small Specialist End:  Teachers ACTION $ group instruction (Rt!) as a means to 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: improve reading comprehension and participation for all students. http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index. cgi ?rm=report_ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 9 of 50 Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement II II II II I JTotal Budget: II $OJ Jintervention: Renaissance Place Accelerated Reader Program - Second - Fifth - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Samuels, S.J., \u0026amp; Wu, Y. (2004). How the amount of time spent on independent reading affects reading achievement: A response to the National Reading Panel. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology. McBride, J \u0026amp; Tardrew, S. (2002). Mapping the Development of Early Reading Skill with STAR Early Literacy: Abstract Tompkins, Gail E. (1997). Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach. Chapter 9, \"Reading and Writing Workshop,\" p. 324-356. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible IP erson ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and Holly Shields, Start: parents, to provide scheduled Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Community opportunities for selection of AR books, Chairman End: Leaders ACTION $ independent reading, computer testing, 05/31/2012 . Computers BUDGET: and recognition of achievement as a . School Library means to approve reading participation  Teachers and comprehension for all students with emphasis on African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with classroom teachers, Karen Banks, Start: parents, students and the AR committee to GT Specialist 08/15/2011  Computers encourage students to attend monthly End:  Outside ACTION $ recognition luncheons and the end of year 05/31/2012 Consultants BUDGET: skating party and limo ride by reading and  School Library testing on AR books to accumulate  Teachers necessary points.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Determine impact of Renaissance Place Paula Start: Accelerated Reader to improve reading Schilling, 08/15/2011  Computers participation and comprehension progress Technology End: ACTION . Performance $ of individual student proficency of 80% or Specialist 05/31/2012 Assessments BUDGET: better throughout the year by reviewing . School Library weekly AR reports focusing on African-  Teachers American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Program Evaluation JTotal Budget: II $OJ Jintervention: LRSD Writing Programs - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Teaching for Deep Comprehension - Dorn, Soffos (2005). Thompkins, Gail E., (2004). Teaching Writing, Balancing Pocess and Product. Fletcher, Ralph \u0026amp; Portalupi, C. (2004) Teaching the Qualities of Writing. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level teachers to pre- Linda Glenn, Start: test students to determine their readiness in Literacy 08/15/2011 . Outside writing as a means to prepare for planning Coach End: Consultants ACTION $ and implementation of Carver's writing 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: program which will strengthen all children. Assessments Action Type: Collaboration  Teachers http:/ /acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 1?/'i/?011 ACSIP Page 10 of 50 Action Type: Equity I II II  Teaching Aids II Action Type: Professional Development I Collaborate with staff to implement Writers Linda Glenn, Start: Workshop and LRSD writing programs, Literacy oan5\n2011 . Performance including Step Up to Writing, to improve Coach End: Assessments ACTION $ writing skills by monitoring all students 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: progress throughout each phase of the  Teaching Aids writing process focused on African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Determine the impact of Little Rock School Linda Glenn, Start: District writing curriculum as a means to Literacy 08/15/2011 . Performance teach the writing process with the goal for Coach End: Assessments ACTION $ 85.6% of students scoring proficient or 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: above on the !TBS or Benchmark assessments. Action Type: Program Evaluation jTotal Budget: II $01 Intervention: A Kaleidoscope of Media Center Activities: Reading Awareness Day (Dr. Seuss Reading Day, Little Rock Scho9I District Library Media Curriculum, Book Fair, and Media Retrieval System. Lori Diffey - Media Specialist - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Read Across America Project-National Education Association, LRSD Curriculum Guide, School Library Media Activity Monthly Magazine(August, 2002-June, 2003), Arkansas Department of Education Frameworks Manual, Henkels and McCoy, Inc.-Safari Media Retrieval System Manual, LRSD Lesson Plans Manual, Scholastic Book Fair Web Sites and Chairperson Manual (2002-2003) - Lori Diffey, Media Specialists. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with staff throughout the year Lori Diffey, Start: to schedule educational videos through the Media 08/15/2011  Computers media retrieval system as a means to Specialist End: . District Staff ACTION $ strengthen the LRSD curriculum and 05/31/2012 . Outside BUDGET: enrich instruction for all students. Consultants Action Type: Collaboration . School Library Action Type: Equity  Teachers Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with all staff to provide Lori Diffey, Start: reading instruction, activities, and Media 08/15/2011 . District Staff enrichment as a means to levelize and Specialist End: . School Library ACTION $ enrich instruction for all students and 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: increase reading comprehension, provide feedback to teachers, while concentrating on students who are basic and below basic, African-American and economically disadvantaged. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with all staff to provide Lori Diffey, Start: checkout of books and free-flow of Media 08/15/2011 . Computers students as a means to promote reading Specialist End: . School Library ACTION $ for all students and to motivate all 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: students to utilize appropriate areas of the media center. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with all staff, students and Lori Diffey, Start: parents to hold a two-week Book Fair as a Media 08/15/2011 . School Library means to motivate and encourage reading Specialist End:  Teachers ACTION $ for all students. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 11 of 50 Action Type: Collaboration II II II II I Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with teachers, parents and Lori Watts, Start: community leaders to plan, schedule and Media 08/15/2011  Administrative implement Dr. Seuss Reading Day, Specialist End: Staff ACTION $ featuring a guest for each classroom as a 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: means to motivate and encourage reading Leaders for all students. . Computers Action Type: Collaboration . District Staff Action Type: Equity . School Library Action Type: Parental Engagement  Teachers Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with students and staff to Lori Diffey, Start: produce an ongoing timely morning news Media 08/15/2011  Administrative program and continuous Busy School Specialist End: Staff ACTION $ News featuring important events, news 05/31/2012  Computers BUDGET: and activities to be shown on TV monitors . District Staff in the halls and classrooms using the  Outside Media Retrieval System as a means to Consultants inform Carver patrons of ongoing events. . School Library Action Type: Collaboration  Teachers Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with classroom teachers to Lori Diffey, Start: select appropriate reading materials from Media 08/15/2011 . School Library the library media center as a means to Specialist End:  Teachers ACTION $ improve reading achievement for basic 05/31/2012 BUDGET: and below basic students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Focus on specific vocabulary during book Lori Diffey, Start: talks, such genre, tone, and mode to Media 08/15/2011  School Library improve achievement on standardized ACTION Specialist End:  Teachers $ tests. 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Determine the impact of the Kaleidoscope Lori, Diffey Start: of Media activities to encourage reading Media 08/15/2011  Computers and writing for all students by monitoring ACTION Specialist End:  Outside $ book checkout participation, Busy School 05/31/2012 Consultants BUDGET: News, Media Retrieval use and parent . Performance Book Fair participation. Assessments Action Type: Program Evaluation  School Library  Teachers !Total Budget: II $01 !intervention: Reading Integration - Charlotte Cook, Young Astronaut Lab - Tier II Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Tate, Marcia L.(2003). Worksheets Don't Grow Dendrites: 20 Instructional Strategies That Engage the Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham\nIntegrating Science and Literacy Instruction: A Framework for Bridging the Gap\nG. Freeman and V. Taylor (2006) NSTA Press\nLinking Science and Literacy in K-8 Classroom\nR. Douglas (2006) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible IP erson ITimeline IRI esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with classroom teachers to include Charlotte Start: reteaching of deficit reading and writing skills, as Cook, Young 08/15/2011 . School determined by benchmark scores, within the Astronaut End: Library ACTION $ Young Astronaut science lesson by including the Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: use of science textbooks, levelized science  Teaching readers, tradebooks (fiction and non-fiction) and Aids having a written component in selected lessons as a means to improve reading and writing http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 12 of 50 achievement for basic and below basic students, African-American and economically disadvantaged. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of re-teaching deficit Charlotte Start: reading and writing skills within the content area Cook, Young 08/15/2011 . School of science through teacher observation of Astronaut End: Library ACTION $ student performance in activities and through Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: their demonstrating mastery of written skills by  Teaching completing a student narrative. Student writing Aids will be evaluated with the AR writing rubric and students will score 15 or above on a 20 point scale. Students will score 80% or above on selected book tests (Accelerated Reader). Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print== 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 13 of 50 ! Intervention: Individualized Instruction - Karen Banks and Kim Holland, Gifted and Talented Specialists - Tier II Intervention Scientific Based Research: AEA and AGATE workshops (2003) featuring Lisa Carter's \"Instructional Alignment\", and Robert J. Marzano's: Classroom Instruction That Works Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with all 2nd,3rd, 4th and Karen Banks/Kim Start: 5th grade teachers to provide Holland, Gifted 08/15/2011  Teachers reinforcement of state standards and Talented End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ (reading, writing, literacy and math) Specialists 05/31/2012 BUDGET: as part of the gifted and talented curriculum. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with 4th grade teachers to Karen Banks, Start: specifically address the needs of GT Gifted and 08/15/2011  Teachers students who have not achieved Talented End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ advance on ACTAPP. Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with 3rd, 4th and 5th Karen Banks and Start: grade teachers to implement Kim Holland, 08/15/2011 . Performance strategies to improve GT students' Gifted and End: Assessments ACTION $ summary writing skills as evidenced Talented 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: by their first summary compared to Specialist  Teaching Aids their last summary. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of GT Karen Banks, Start: curriculum alignment to state Gifted and 08/15/2011  Teachers standards by participating students Talented End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ scoring at or above 85.6% on the Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Benchmark and SAT-10 assessments . Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with LRSD to test more Karen Banks, GT Start: black males as a method to increase Specialist 08/15/2011  Teachers their participation in gt classes to End:  Title Teachers ACTION $ improve acadmeics and motivation 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 lrntervention: Writing Across The Curriculum - Gene Williams, Science Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Portalupi, JoAnn \u0026amp; Fletcher, Ralph (2004). Teaching the Qualities of Writing. Dorn, Linda J. \u0026amp; Soffos, Carla, \"Scaffolding Young Writers\" (2001) Michael P. Klentschy (2008) Using Science Notebooks in Elementary Classrooms. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with third, fourth, and fifth Gene Williams, Start: students and staff to create and maintain Science 08/15/2011  Teachers science notebooks to increase writing skills in Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ preparation for the Benchmark exam. 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 14 of 50 Determine the impact of writing activities in Gene Williams, Start: Science Lab to support writing across the Science 08/15/2011  Teachers curriculum by scoring one assignment per 9 Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ weeks to be used by classroom teachers for a 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: classroom grade. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 1Intervention: Flexible Grouping with Third, Fourth and Filth Grade Students - Gene Williams, Science 1Specialist/Filth Grade Broker - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Fountas, Irene \u0026amp; Pinnell, Gay Su (2006). Leveled Books, K-8\nMatching Texts to Readers for Effective Teaching. Tate, Marcia L.(2003). Worksheets Don't Grow Dendrites: 20 Instructional Strategies That Engage the Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham\nIntegrating Science and Literacy Instruction: A Framework for Bridging the Gap\nG. Freeman and V. Taylor (2006) NSTA Press\nLinking Science and Literacy in K-8 Classroom\nR. Douglas (2006) !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with third, fourth and filth grade Gene Williams, Start: teachers to teach science lab weekly using Science 08/15/2011  Teachers ACTION research based strategies as a means to Specialist End:  Teaching BUDGET: $ raise Benchmark scores focusing on African- 05/31/2012 Aids American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of the weekly science Gene Williams, Start: success through periodic teacher made Science 08/15/2011  Teachers assessments and the results of the Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ Benchmark. 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Flexible Reading Groups of inclusion for special education students Kindergarten through Filth grade students in the regular classroom and/or resource room to meet skill deficits of the student's Individual Education Plan (IEP).- June Joseph, Special Education Specialist - Tiers II and III Interventions Scientific Based Research: Karten, Toby J. (2005) Inclusion Strategies That Work! Reseach-Based Methods for the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press School, Beverly A. (1999) The IEP Primer and the Individualized Program\nSundbye, Nita (1997) Helping the Struggling Reader\nKauffman, Hallahan (1994) Exceptional Children: Introduction to Special Education\nHenry, Marcia K. (2000) Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling\nDIBELS Assessment Notebook. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIResources I Source of Funds **Collaborate with grade level teachers in June Joseph, Start: literacy meetings in order to identify and Special 08/15/2011 . Performance schedule students for service and/or Education End: Assessments ACTION $ intervention in the form of guided reading Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: groups or comprehension focus groups. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity **Determine the impact of flexible June Joseph, Start: comprehension focus and guided reading Special 08/15/2011 . Performance groups in the resource room or regular Education End: Assessments ACTION $ classroom to meet the individual Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: academic needs of special education students in accordance with their IEP using SOAR, DAR, SAT-10, STAR, and Benchmark. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 15 of 50 Intervention: Speech/language therapy - Terri Value, Speech Language Pathologist - Tiers II and III Intervention. Scientific Based Research: Intervention References: Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S.\nJohnston, F. (2004) Word Their Way, Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction (3rd Edition). Merrill/Prentice Hall. Functional Language Intervention in the Classroom: Avoiding the Tutoring Trap. Topics in Language Disorders, 17 (2), 49-68\nEhren, B.J. (2002) Maintaining a Therapeutic Focus and Sharing Responsibility for Student Success\nKeys To In Classroom Speech and Language Services. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31 (3), 219-229. Gillam S.L. and Gilliam, R.B. (2006) Making Evidence-based Practice About Child Language Intervention in Schools, 37, 304-315. Kamhi, A.G. (2006). Treatment Decisions for Children with Speech-Sound Disorders. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 37, 271-279 !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with parents, teachers, school Terri Value, Start: and district administrators, along with Speech 08/15/2011  Administrative consultants from the Department of Therapist End: Staff ACTION $ Education, to align speech therapy goals 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: with the Little Rock School District  Outside Literacy and Math frameworks to Consultants effectively meet the needs of K-5 students . Performance identified with a speech/language Assessments impairment.  Teachers Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Special Education Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with classroom and specialty Terri Value, Start: area teachers to provide opportunities for Speech 08/15/2011 . Performance all children diagnosed with a Therapist End: Assessments ACTION $ speech/language impairment to 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: strengthen their individual skills in the areas of vocabulary and predicting outcome\ncompare/contrast\nand main idea as a means to improve literacy and math achievement. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Determine the impact of speech/language Terri Value, Start: therapy to improve academic performance Speech 08/15/2011 . Performance by monitoring the progress of children Therapist End: Assessments ACTION $ diagnosed with speech and language 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: disorders throughout the year by  Teaching Aids reviewing their individualized educational plan, subject area grades and assessment results of selected therapy tests and reports on state tests. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 ! Intervention: Integrated Curriculum for Writing and Arts Grades Kindergarten - Fifth - Judy Redditt, Art Specialist - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Arts Education Partnership (2003). National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, D.C. Deasy, Richard J. (2003) Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development. Washington, D.C. Arts Education Partnership (2005) Third Space: When Learning Matters. www.aep-arts.org Art Supports Reading Comprehension (Elementary) Jones, Dana\nMoore, Jim\nWurst, Douglas. School Arts, 2005 !Actions : Responsible I IPerson ITimeline IIR esources ljsource of Funds http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 16 of 50 Collaborate with students and staff to Judy Redditt, Start: include writing short stories as a means Art Specialist 08/15/2011  Teachers to improve writing skills for all students End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ in k - 2nd grades. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaborate with students and staff to Judy Redditt, Start: include writing poetry as a means to Art Specialist 08/15/2011  Teachers improve writing skills for all students 3 - End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ 5 grade. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of art activities by Judy Redditt, Start: the application of rubrics for writing Art Specialist 08/15/2011  Community ACTION short stories and poetry to improve End: Leaders $ writing skills for all students in 05/31/2012  Outside BUDGET: kindergarten through fifth grade. Consultants Action Type: Program Evaluation  Teachers !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Integrated Curriculum for Writing, Math and Music-Teri Hughes, Music Specialist - Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Handy, Shirley. (2002) The Singing/Reading Connection. Los Angeles, CA. Threshold to Music. Eleanor Kidd, New York, NY. 2004 !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students and staff to include Teri Hughes, Start: writing in units of study as a means to Music 08/15/2011  Teachers improve writing skills for all students in Specialist End: ACTION $ kindergarten through fifth grade. 05/31/2012 BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact music activities through Teri Hughes, Start: the application of rubrics to assess writing of Music 08/15/2011  Teachers simple summary sentences twice during the Specialist End:  Teaching ACTION $ school year. Rubrics will include content and 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: mechanics. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Grade Level Musicals - Teri Hughes, Music Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Kidd, Eleanor.(2004) Threshhold to Music. New York, NY. D. L. Hamaan and L.M. Walker, \"Music teachers as a role model for African-America students, \"Journal of Research in Music Education,\" 41, 1993. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with all students, staff, parents, Teri Hughes, Start: PTA, and outside resources to produce an Music 08/19/2010  Teachers annual musical as a means of enhancing Specialist End: ACTION $ literacy opportunities for all students in first, 06/02/2011 BUDGET: third, and fifth grades. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of the annual musicals to Teri Hughes, Start: enhance literacy opportunities for all students Music 08/19/2010  Teachers in first, third, and fifth grades by observing Specialist End: ACTION $ student growth in fluency and vocabulary 06/02/2011 BUDGET: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 17 of 50 during participation by students at PTA I II II II I musicas. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Writing Across The Curriculum - Robert Springer, Physical Education Specialists Tier I Intervention !scientific Based Research: Portalupi, JoAnn and Fletcher, Ralph (2004). Teaching the Qualities of Writing. I !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with fifth grade teachers to keep Robert Springer, Start: P.E. journals as a means to improve reading Physical 08/15/2011  Teachers and writing achievement for all students with Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ focus on basic and below basic students, Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: primarily African-American and special education students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of writing in PE by Robert Springer, Start: assessing journals for fluency perodically and Physical 08/15/2011  Teachers give feedback to all students. Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ Action Type: Program Evaluation Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: !Total Budget: II $01 !intervention: Test-taking strategies - Tracye Thomason, Counselor Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Help for Struggling Student, Mimi Gold 1st Edition (2004) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. /Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and parents to Tracye Start: provide lessons and information on test-taking Thomason, 08/15/2011 . Teachers skills (Benchmark/SAT-10)in literacy and Counselor End:  Teaching ACTION $ math as a means to improve test taking 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: strategies and scores for all students with an emphasis on African-American and economically disadvantaged students and parents. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Attend workshops (AEA and State Counseling Tracye Start: Convention), along with other outside Thomason, 08/15/2011 . Community resources to provide materials and Counselor End: Leaders ACTION $ information to students, parents and teachers 05/31/2012 . Teaching BUDGET: to enrich students ability and readiness for Aids testing. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Determine the effect of teaching test-taking Tracye Start: strategies for all students through a Thomason, 08/15/2011 . Teachers cumulative student assessment given before Counselor End: . Teaching ACTION $ the standardized test and by monitoring 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: students' work habits during the test. Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 !intervention: Career Week - Counselor: Tracye Thomason - Tier I Intervention I http ://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 18 of 50 ! !Scientific Based Research: The ASCA National Model, A Framework for School Counseling Programs, American School Counselor Association. Alexandria, VA (2003) !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and the Tracye Start: community to implement Career Week as a Thomason, 05/01/2012  Administrative means to inform and provide opportunites Counselos End: Staff ACTION $ for students to make inferences. Attend the 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: Arkansas Career Guidance Conference and Leaders seek outside resources for Career Week to  District Staff motivate students to achieve a career goal.  Teachers Invite African-American leaders to inspire African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of Career Week to Tracye Start: inform and encourage students to strive for Thomason, 05/01/2012  Administrative knowledge to infer a career goal by Counselor End: Staff ACTION $ tabulating the results of a student survey 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: focused on the impact of Career Week. Leaders Action Type: Program Evaluation . District Staff  Teachers !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Reading Recovery for First Grade Students - Dianne Runion and Jane Crum, Reading Recovery Specialists - Tier III Intervention Scientific Based Research: Clay, Marie, (2005), Literacy Lessons Part I: Clay, Marie, (2005), Literacy Lessons Part II: Clay, Marie (2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Clay, Marie (1998), By Different Paths to Common Outcomes, Clay, Marie (1991) Becoming Literate\nClay, Marie (2001) Change Over Time In Children's Literacy Development\nAdams, Marilyn Jager (1994) Beginning to Read !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds **Collaborate with Reading Recovery Jane Crum, Start: Teacher leader and first grade Reading 08/15/2011  Administrative teachers to assess the needs of low Recovery End: Staff ACTION $ performing students and provide one- Specialist 05/31/2012 . Outside BUDGET: to-one tutoring as a means to move Consultants children to proficient. . Performance Action Type: AIP/IRI Assessments Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education **Collaborate with other Reading Dianne Runion, Start: Recovery Teachers in Little Rock Reading 08/15/2011  Outside School District monthly for effective Recovery End: Consultants ACTION $ implementation of research based Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: instructional practices. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Determine the impact of Reading Dianne Runion, Start: Recovery procedures by 86% Reading 08/15/2011 . Performance participating in the program Recovery End: Assessments ACTION $ performing at or above the proficient Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: level as measured by the observation survey. Action Type: Program Evaluation http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 19 of 50 !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Implement Small Flexible Groups for Instruction - Jane Crum and Dianne Runion, Reading Recovery Specialists Tier II Intervention Scientific Based Research: Clay, Marie (2005) Literacy Lessons Part I: Clay, Marie (2005) Literacy Lessons Part II: Clay Marie (2002) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Clay, Marie (1998), By Different Paths to Common Outcomes, Clay, Marie (1991) Becoming Literate, Clay, Marie (2001) Change Over Time In Children's Literacy Development, Lyons, Carol (2003) Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Kafele, Baruti, K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with first through fifth grade Dianne Runion, Start: teachers to identify low performing Reading 08/15/2011  Teachers African American and economically Recovery End: ACTION disadvantaged students and establish Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: small flexible groups as a means to individualize instruction for all students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of small flexible Jane Crum, Start: reading groups by 86% of the students Reading 08/15/2011 ACTION performing at or above the proficient Recovery End: BUDGET: level as measured by the Slosson Oral Specialist 05/31/2012 Reading Test. Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with the Reading Recovery Dianne Runion, Start: Teacher Leader and grade level teachers Reading 08/15/2011  Outside regularly for effective implementation of Recovery End: Consultants ACTION research based instructional practices for Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: small groups to improve reading comprehension. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II To improve mathematical skills and strategies for all students, particularly our African American Priority 2: and economically disadvantaged subgroups. 1. $ $ $ $01 Supporting Data: 2. The Criterion-Reference Test: GT selection data from second grade\nIf a second grade student scores at the 50th percentile or better on the Raven, the Williams Creativity test is administered. Teachers and parents also contribute scored information and when the standardized test scores arrive, they are added to the already gathered information. In the year of 2008-2009, the LRSD Gifted program made several revisions due to our new Coordinator. The following revisions were made in the area of identification. The Sages 2 (K- 6), The Gift, and a new referral form were added to the identification procedure. A new profile sheet and Identification Matrix was added so that students are identified by stanines instead of a percentile break-down. In 2008-09, Carver's second grade had an enrollment of 88. Of these, forty were referred either by teachers, specialists, or parents. All forty of these students were tested. The School Based Committee met and identified 30 students out of this group of 40. Therefore, 34% of second grade was identified for the gifted program. 3. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2009: Kindergarten 1-25 percentile - 12 students 26-50 percentile - 25 students 51-75 percentile - 17 students 76-99 percentile - 14 students Therefore we have 31 students that performed above the 50th percentile and 37 that performed below the 50th percentile. Metropolitan 8 Spring 2010 Kindergarten 30% total composite score 38% of students scored at or above the national percent, 43% basic, and 18% below basic. 4. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2008-2009: Summer 2008-2009 the Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Annual yearly progress was 64% for literacy and 62.SO/o for math. The school combined population exceeded the standard for math with 71.6% proficient. The school combined population did not make the literacy standard missing it by 2.1 % with 61. 9% proficient. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 20 of 50 show the growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information by grade level was mailed to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team then analyzed individual grade level data by Combined Population, Caucasian, African American and Economically Disadvantaged for math and literacy. The Causation students made AYP at all grade levels in math and literacy. Our findings: Third Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 51%, AA - 42.4%, ED- 45% Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop. - 73%, AA- 63%, ED - 59% Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb. Pop - 58%, AA - 38%, ED - 38% Third Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 78%, AA - 73%, ED - 62% Fourth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 81%, AA - 70%, ED - 69% Fifth Grade Math: Comb. Pop - 56%, AA - 30%, ED - 30% The first day of pre-school professional development, the coaches showed the entire staff a graph summary by grade levels of their particular spring standardized tests broken out by sub groups where possible. This was painful for some but necessary for all. The principal and assistant led the staff through a study of \"the Four Factors of Failure\" as we looked for the root cause. Time was provided for each grade level to reflect on the causes of failure reflected is this recent data as they reviewed their individual student test results- attendance, engagement, production, persistence. Grade level groups shared this different look at data. Coaches used the Benchmark item by item analysis for math and literacy and ranked the combined responses by grade level SLE as compared to district and state. Coaches modeled some of the SLEs and provided guided practice. Teachers, by grade level groups, reviewed the SLEs with their curriculum maps for focus for this year .. The principal using an advanced organizer led the entire staff through the hi-lights of the ACSIP with a focus on the data for the last three years by grade level and sub group. Based on our data analysis we have prioritized literacy for a more consistent delivery system as we reviewed the protocols for reader's workshop and writer's workshop. Specific low scoring literacy areas will be the focus for professional development. Although we made standards in math we plan to continue those strategies that we feel have been key for student success. Specific low scoring math areas will be the focus for professional development. We have prioritized our Economically Disadvantaged students noting that Carver has 65% free and reduced lunch students. Many of our African American students fall into this group, but not all. We will look at individuals for RTI and BOOST, after school tutoring. These two sub groups provided our lowest scores. They will receive special services and strategies as we as a staff learn more through a book study this year- A Framework for Understanding Poverty, by Ruby Payne. In addition, the principal sat with each classroom teacher to review his/her data specific to his/her standardized test and as compared to colleagues and other grade levels. \"How can we help you?\" was the question asked. Many of those ideas will be accommodated. We agree that we have an extensive school improvement plan and that each of us has a responsibility for its implementation. We are committed to the growth {which we know we are making from receiving a \"4\" on the state report card, a school achieving beyond standards), and we are committed to the Annual Yearly Progress of every child. Each of us is one part of the ACSIP but we feel the whole is greater than the sum of its parts! 5. Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2009-2010: Spring 2010 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 71.2% for Literacy and 70% for Mathematics. The school\npopulation exceeded the standard for math with 80.1 % of the combined population proficient /advanced. The score for the combined population for literacy was 70.9, missing the state score of 71.2 by .3%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did indeed make annual year progress for the combined population in literacy as well. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Comb pop 65% {14%increase)\nAA 65% (22.6% increase)\nC 66% (3% drop)\nED 62% (17% increase) Fourth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 71% (2% drop)\nAA 63% (same)\nC 80% {10% drop) ED 69% (9% increase) Fifth Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (20% increase)\nAA 70% {32% increase)\nC 93% (9% increase)\nED 69% (31% increase). Third Grade Math: Comb pop 86% (8% increase),\nAA 83% (10% increase)\nC 92% (5% drop)\nED 83% (21% increase) Fourth Grade Math: Comb pop 71% {10% drop)\nAA 65% (5% drop)\nC 80% (17 % drop)\nED 69% (same) Fifth Grade Math\nComb pop 84% (28% increase)\nAA 78% (48% increase)\nC 96% 2% drop)\nEC 78% (58% increase) This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3,4,5 from 2009 tests to different students in grades 3,4,5 for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares students scores from third grade in 2009 to their fourth grade scores in 2010. We found the following changes : Literacy: Advanced 2009 (14%) - 2010 (17%) - growth of 3%\nProficient 2009 (37%) - 2010 (54%) - growth of 17%\nBasic 2009(30%) - 2010 (27%) - decrease of 3% Below http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 21 of 50 basic 2009(19%) -2010 (3%) - 16% decrease. The 20% growth in P and A is encouraging the 16% decrease in below basic shows that we are moving students steadily to higher levels of literacy. Students who moved from third grade to fourth grade Mathematics changes: Advanced 2009 (39% -2010(36%) - decrease of 3%\nProficient 2009(39%) - 2010 (35%) - decrease of 4%\nBasic 2009 (19% - 2010 (18%) - decrease of 1%\nBelow Basic 2009 (4%) - 2010 (12%) increase. The 7% decrease at P and A and the 8% increase at BB point to slippage of student achievement at 4th grade in 2009-2010. What was different? What will we do to combat it? We will visit with individual teachers in math, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker /specialist pull outs and RTL We will work as a Professional Leaning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade, 2009 scores to those of the same group of student in the fifth grade 2010 shows changes: Literacy: Advanced 2009 (23%) -2010(25%) - 2% increase\nproficient 2009 (50%) -2010 (53%) - 3% increase\nBasic 2009- (24%) - 2010 (19%) 5%decrease\nBelow basic 2009 (3%) -2010 (4%) - 1 % increase. Small but steady improvement in P and A (5%), a decline in B of 5%, with 1 % increase in BB shows some growth in the already high scoring group of students. Mathematics: Advanced 2009 (49%) 2010 (48) - 4% increase\nProficient 2009 (37% - 2010 936%) 1% decrease\nBasic 2009 (13%) -2010 (14%) -1% increase\nBelow basic (6%) 2010 (3%) decrease. There was again a small percent of growth in math for this group of students. They were at a high level, maintained it and grew some. This is what we want across the board. The principal focused on the ADE school report card Subgroup Details for Growth Used in AYP 2010. There were 25 students, combining all subgroups, that met growth in math even though they were not proficient. There were 61 students , combining all sub groups, that met growth in literacy even though they did not score proficient. The AA sub pop had the highest number of students making growth. Our challenge as a staff is to singly identify these students on the move, the ones making growth, and work with them so that next year they indeed score proficient. Now is the time to use individual student data to plan Individual Academic Improvement Plans for all of our students, even though the ADE requires it only for those B and BB. Carver believes in growth for ALL students! The principal also has shown through a chart the amount of growth needed by this new years fourth and fifth grades subpopulations based on next years AYP and this years scores. It is a challenge that we will meet head on and will accomplish by working as Professional learning Communities, selecting focus standards, teaching to them, using common formative assessments to check progress, grade tests together as grade level teams and analyze the data to make teaching/learning decisions and plan for RTI when needed. 6. 2010-2011 Comprehensive Needs Assessment from 2010-2011: Spring 2011 Benchmark results were analyzed by a Leadership Team composed of the principal and coaches. Classroom teachers and specialists also analyzed the data looking for growth of particular students. Annual yearly progress was set at 78.4 for Literacy and 77 .5 for Mathematics. The school: The score for the combined population for math was 74.6, missing the state score of 77.5 by 4%. 4 students that were basic and below did meet growth, however that was not enough to meet our growth goal. The score for the combined population for literacy was 72.2, missing the state score by 8%. With the growth model added to the equation the state pronounced that Carver did not make annual yearly progress for the combined population in literacy and math. An appeal was made based on the discrepancies in the coding of highly mobile students, and incorrect numbers. The results of each grade level were disaggregated by math and literacy for each child for the past two years to show growth or decline made by individuals as well as the whole group. This information was given to each of the third, fourth and fifth grade teachers for their review and reflection prior to school. The Leadership Team with the entire staff analyzed individual grade level data by all sub groups for math and literacy. Third grade literacy: Combined population 71 % (6% increase)\nAA 61 % (4% decrease)\nC 83% (17% increase)\nED 64% (1% increase). 4th Grade Literacy: Comb pop 78% (7%)\nAA 73% (13% increase)\nC 86% (6% increase)\nED 74% (5% increase)\nFifth Grade Literacy: Com pop 68% (10% decrease)\nAA 63% ( 7% decrease)\nC 78% (15% decrease)\nED 63% ( 6% decrease). Mathematics changes: Third Grade : Com pop 80% (6% decrease)\nAA 70%(13% decrease)\nC 95% (3% increase)\nED 74% (9 % decrease\n4th Grade Math: Com pop 80% (9% increase)\nAA 73% (8 % increase)\nC 91 % ( 11 % increase)\nED 77% (9 % increase)\n5th Grade Math: Com pop 67% ( 17 % decrease)\nAA 61% ( 17 % decrease)\nCC 78% (18 % decrease) ED 64%(14% decrease). This look at data compares groups of students in grades 3, 4, 5 from 2010 tests to different students in grades 3, 4, 5, for 2010 tests. Another look at data compares students scores from third grade in 2010 to their fourth grade scores in 2011. We found the following changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010, 30%\n2011, 37%\ngrowth of 7%. Proficient: 2010 35%\n2011, 44%. Growth of 9%. Basic: 2010, 20%\n2011, 13%. Decrease of 7%. Below basic: 2010, 16%\n2011, 6 %. Decrease of 10%. 16% increase in proficient and advanced is very encouraging, with a 19% decrease in basic and below. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 49%\n2011, 38%\ndecrease of 11 %. Proficient: 2010, 36%\n2011, 43%.Increase of 7%. Basic: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 22 of 50 2010, 14%\n2011, 8%. Decrease of6%. Below basic: 2010, 0%\n2011, 11%. Increase of 11 %. The 4% decrease at P and A seem to say that some A students slipped to P. The 5% drop in B and BB is encouraging. We will work as a Professional Learning Community to find answers as we analyze common formative assessments of our focus standards this year. Data comparing fourth grade 2010 scores to those of the same group of students in the fifth grade 2011 shows these changes: Literacy: Advanced 2010: 17%, 2011, 26%. Increase of 9%. Proficient 2010: 54%\n2011: 45%. Decrease of 9%. Basic: 2010, 28%\n2011, 29%. Increase of 1%. Below basic: 2010, 3%\n2011, 0%. Decrease of 3%. Proficient and advanced percentages stayed the same with basic and below had less than one percent drop. Mathematics: Advanced: 2010, 36%\n2011, 29%. Decrease of 7%. Proficient: 2010, 35%\n2011, 40%. Increase of 5%. Basic: 2010, 18%\n2011, 25%. Increase of 7%. Below Basic: 2010, 12%\n2011, 6%. Decrease of 6%. There was a 2% slippage in P and A with a 1 % drop in B and BB. We can see growth but some slippage. Our growth was not enough to reach AYP. We will visit with individual teachers, look at strategies, delivery of instruction, broker/specialist pull outs and RTI to find ways to move more students upward. Strategies for achievement of AYP: 1. RTI/SBIT with case managers supporting teachers and interventionists. 2. Small group instruction levelized for literacy reading groups and math. 3. BOOST after school tutoring 4. GT plan for individuals (3, 4, 5) 5. Grade level meetings with coaches and curriculum specialists. 6. PD focused on literacy and math needs. 7. SOAR assessments reviews per grade level. 8. Math/literacy assessment wall. 9. AIP's for all students. 10. Broker specialists/Intervention strategist for each grade level. 11. Math/literacy coaches modeling rigorous instruction. 12. Principal/counselor benchmark review and goals set with each 4th and 5th grade student. Goals home to parents with Benchmark test copy. 13. Item by item analysis of math and literacy question on the 3,4, 5 grade Benchmark test by the entire staff. School wide growth needed for AYP for literacy: CP 13.4% AA 29.4% C 4.9% ED 18.9% School wide growth needed for AYP for math: CP 10.4% AA 18.1% C 0% ED 14.6 7. Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 49 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 49.0% Reading Comprehension 81.6% Reading Total 83.7% Punctuation 87.8% Language Total 93.9% Math Total Without Comp. 61.2% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 32 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 46.9% Reading Comprehension 78.1% Reading Total 81.3% Punctuation 84.4% Language Total 90.6% Math Total Without Comp. 56.3% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 3 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 33.3% Reading Comprehension 66.7% Reading Total 100.0% Punctuation 100.0% Language Total 100.0% Math Total Without Comp. 66.7% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 10 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 60.0% Reading Comprehension 90.0% Reading Total 90.0% Punctuation 100.0% Language Total 100.0% Math Total Without Comp. 80.0% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 41 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 46.3% Reading Comprehension 78.0% Reading Total 80.5% Punctuation 85.4% Language Total 92.7% Math Total Without Comp. 56.1% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 25.0% Reading Comprehension 100.0% Reading Total 100.0% Punctuation 100.0% Language Total 100.0% Math Total Without Comp. 75.0% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:00 Year 2011 Number Tested O % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary N/A% Reading Comprehension N/A% Reading Total N/A% Punctuation N/A% Language Total N/A% Math Total Without Comp. N/A% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 74 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 31.1 % Reading Comprehension 55.4% Reading Total 44.6% Spelling 58.1 % Language Total 31.1% Math Concepts 45.9% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 32.4% Math Total Without Comp. 40.5% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 44 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 13.6% Reading Comprehension 45.5% Reading Total 31.8% Spelling 56.8% Language Total 18.2% Math Concepts 38.6% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 25.0% Math Total Without Comp. 25.0% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 2 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 50.0% Reading Comprehension 100.0% Reading Total 50.0% Spelling 50.0% Language Total 50.0% Math Concepts 50.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 25 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 60.0% Reading Comprehension 68.0% Reading Total 64.0% Spelling 60.0% Language Total 48.0% Math Concepts 56.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 40.0% Math Total Without Comp. 64.0% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:01 Year 2011 Number http://acsip.state.ar. us/ cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 23 of 50 Tested 50 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 22.0% Reading Comprehension 48.0% Reading Total 36.0% Spelling 50.0% Language Total 16.0% Math Concepts 34.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 24.0% Math Total Without Comp. 28.0% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:01 Year 2011 Number Tested 5 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 0% Reading Comprehension 40.0% Reading Total 20.0% Spelling 40.0% Language Total 20.0% Math Concepts 20.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 20.0% Math Total Without Comp. 20.0% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 75 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 36.0% Reading Comprehension 61.3% Reading Total 48.0% Spelling 53.3% Language Total 30.7% Math Concepts 62.7% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 50.7% Math Total Without Comp. 48.0% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 45 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 28.9% Reading Comprehension 62.2% Reading Total 44.4% Spelling 55.6% Language Total 22.2% Math Concepts 57 .8% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 37 .8% Math Total Without Comp. 40.0% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 50.0% Reading Comprehension 25.0% Reading Total 25.0% Spelling 50.0% Language Total 25.0% Math Concepts 50.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 24 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 45.8% Reading Comprehension 66.7% Reading Total 58.3% Spelling 45.8% Language Total 45.8% Math Concepts 70.8% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 70.8% Math Total Without Comp. 58.3% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 53 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 32.1% Reading Comprehension 50.9% Reading Total 41.5% Spelling 47.2% Language Total 24.5% Math Concepts 56.6% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 45.3% Math Total Without Comp. 41.5% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:02 Year 2011 Number Tested 5 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Vocabulary 40.0% Reading Comprehension 40.0% Reading Total 40.0% Spelling 40.0% Language Total 0% Math Concepts 80.0% Problems \u0026amp; Data Inter. 80.0% Math Total Without Comp. 80.0% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 73 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 45.2% Language Total 27.4% Math Total Without Comp. 45.2% Science 39.7% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 48 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 37.5% Language Total 20.8% Math Total Without Comp. 35.4% Science 27 .1 % HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 3 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 100.0% Language Total 33.3% Math Total Without Comp. 33.3% Science 66.7% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 18 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 66.7% Language Total 44.4% Math Total Without Comp. 66.7% Science 72.2% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 58 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 43.1 % Language Total 22.4% Math Total Without Comp. 39.7% Science 32.8% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 50.0% Language Total 25.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% Science 50.0% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:05 Year 2011 Number Tested 3 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 0% Language Total 0% Math Total Without Comp. 0% Science 0% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: COMBINED POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 69 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 39.1 % Language Total 27.5% Math Total Without Comp. 42.0% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 41 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 22.0% Language Total 9.8% Math Total Without Comp. 29.3% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 4 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 75.0% Language Total 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 50.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 18 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 66.7% Language Total 44.4% Math Total Without Comp. 55.6% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 51 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 31.4% Language Total 15.7% Math Total Without Comp. 33.3% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 8 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 62.5% Language Total 87.5% Math Total Without Comp. 87.5% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:03 Year 2011 Number Tested 9 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 0% Language Total 0% Math Total Without Comp. 22.2% Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Data Source for CARVER MAGNET ELEM. SCHOOL IOWA TEST OF BASIC SKILLS -- Report Completed: Aug 30, 2011 Number Tested and Percent of Students Scoring At/Above 50th Percentile: http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Goal Page 24 of 50 COMBINED POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 76 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 56.6% Language Total 42.1% Math Total Without Comp. 63.2% AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 44 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 47.7% Language Total 31.8% Math Total Without Comp. 52.3% HISPANIC POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 5 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 60.0% Language Total 20.0% Math Total Without Comp. 80.0% CAUCASIAN POPULATION Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 23 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 69.6% Language Total 60.9% Math Total Without Comp. 78.3% ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 58 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 46.6% Language Total 34.5% Math Total Without Comp. 56.9% LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 6 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 66.7% Language Total 50.0% Math Total Without Comp. 83.3% STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Grade:04 Year 2011 Number Tested 6 % At/Above 50th NPR In: Reading Comprehension 16.7% Language Total 16.7% Math Total Without Comp. 16.7% 8. Spring and fall 2010 grade levels and the entire staff analyzed the results of the State Benchmark/IOWA and district WRAP tests along with perceptual data including discipline, attendance, economically disadvantaged percentage increases and mobility. At present we have been designated Alert status for literacy and math, but that is on appeal based on incorrect data reports of highly mobile students and coding errors. We noted strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include individual student growth. Although we did not meet the cut score for AYP in 09-10, we did make AYP when the growth percentage was added. Strengths also include discipline, a result of our strong Stop and Think social skills program. Weaknesses include the low scores exhibited by our African American and Economically Disadvantaged students who are on SI-3 in literacy, and alert status in math. Weaknesses also include alert status designation for the combined population in literacy and math. Our focus is on African American and Economically Disadvantaged students in particularly and the entire population in general for LITERACY, reading comprehension focused on inference, vocabulary, and fluency and writing focused on content and style domains. MATH focus for the combined population is measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Our school improvement plan includes strategic interventions that support \"Academic Performance, Learning Environment and Leadership\". Benchmark Exam,IOWA: To achieve proficiency for all students in mathematics, especially in our African American subgroup(alert status) and our economically disadvantaged subgroup (alert status) by concentrating on weak areas identified by the three year Benchmark item analysis: measurement, data analysis/probability and geometry. Meet state AYP in 2012(85%). Growth needed: Grade Three: Combined Population 5.0%, African American 15%, Caucasian 0%, Economically Disadvantaged growth needed 11 .. Grade Four: Combined Population 5% , African Americans 12%, Caucasion 0%,Economically Disadvantaged Benchmark 6.5%. Grade Five: Combined Population growth needed 18%, African Americans 24%, Caucasion 7% Economically Disadvantaged 21 %. **AN ASTERISK PLACED IN AN ACTION INDICATES SERVICES PROVIDED COMPARABLE TO INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY FOR LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS. jintervention: Classroom Math Centers - Kindergarten - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Van De Walle, J.A. (2006). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics Grades K-3. Boston: Pearson. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics. Reston, VA. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K.(2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level team, math Nina Huey, Start: specialist, and special education teachers Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities using manipulatives End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ to identify, count and match sets to 05/31/2012 BUDGET: numerals 1-20 (Standard 1, Benchmarks 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.7,1.8) as a means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education http://acsip.state.ar. us/ cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report_ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 25 of 50 Collaborate with grade level team, math Nina Huey, Start: specialist, and special education teachers Kindergarten 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities to identify plane End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ shapes and sort shapes by attributes 05/31/2012 BUDGET: (Standard 4, Benchmark 4.2) as a means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with grade level team, math Shanel Start: specialist, and special education teachers Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities to create and Kindergarten End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ extend patterns with manipulatives Grade Level 05/31/2012 BUDGET: (Standard 2, Benchmarks 2.1,2.2,2.3) as a Chair means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with grade level team, math Shanel Start: specialist, and special education teachers Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Teachers to implement activities to demonstrate an Kindergarten End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ understanding of comparative language Grade Level 05/31/2012 BUDGET: (Standard 4, Benchmarks 4.2,4.3,4.4) as a Chair means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Collaborate with classroom teachers and Shanel Start: specialists to implement activities to use Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Teachers systems of measurement such as the Kindergarten End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ calendar, clock, and money as a means to Grade Level 05/31/2012 BUDGET: improve math achievement for all Chair students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Determine the impact of math centers Shanel Start: implementing activities introduced whole Ditmore, 08/15/2011 . Performance group to demonstrate an understanding of Kindergarten End: Assessments ACTION $ all math skills targeted in action types Grade Level 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: above by 88% of kindergarten students Chair  Teaching Aids performing at or above the proficient level on the on the calendar math post test. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Program Evaluation Action Type: Special Education jTotal Budget: II $01 Intervention: Labs - Math, Young Astronaut, Computer Lab - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tiers I, II, and III\nIntervention Scientific Based Research: Van De Walle, J.A. (2006). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics Grades K-3. Boston: Pearson. !Actions IIPerson : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 26 of 50 Collaborate with classroom teachers, math, Suellen Start: young astronaut, and computer specialists to DiMassimo, 08/15/2011 . Computers plan, assign, and monitor students in Math End:  Teachers ACTION $ completing computer based math Specialist 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: assignments which reinforce classroom and math lab-introduced skills as a means to improve math achievement for all students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Technology Inclusion Determine the impact of planning, assigning, Suellen Start: and monitoring students in computer math DiMassimo, 08/15/2011 . Computers assignments which reinforce classroom and Math End: . Performance ACTION $ math lab-introduced skills by students Specialist 05/31/2012 Assessments BUDGET: performing at the proficient or above level  Teachers on math lesson unit assessments from the individual labs. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with grade level teams and Teata Pace, Start: coaches to dissect the Benchmark released Curriculum 08/15/2011 . Teachers items in math by correlating the specific Specialist End: . Teaching Aids ACTION $ skills that align with weekly plans, as they 05/31/2012 BUDGET: pertain to our Curriculum Map as a means to improve math achievement focused on basic and below basic students, primarily African- American , special education students and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity Collaborate with Lab specialists to enrich Linda Start: math instruction through observation of Corrigan, 08/15/2011  Teachers model lessons in the labs and the classroom Grade Level End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ with coaches feedback as a means to Chair 05/31/2012 BUDGET: enhance math skills for all students. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Home-School Connection/Parental Involvement - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tiers I, II, and III Intervention Scientific Based Research: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics\n2000 Principals and Standards for School Mathematics. (2003) Armstrong, Thomas (1994) Multiple Intelligences: Seven Ways To Approach Curriculum, Educational Leadership\nS. Zemelman, H. Daniels, A. Hyde, Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools (1998). M. Schmoker\nThe Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (2001)\nThe BIG Picture: Education is Everyone's Business, Dennis Littky with Samatha Grabel le, 2004. S. Wagner\nResearch Ideas for the Classroom (Vol. 1 :Early Childhood Mathematics) (1993)\nM. Burns\nAbout Teaching Mathematics (2000) !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with grade level teams by Phillip Carlock, Start: meeting weekly to coordinate Parental 08/15/2011  Teaching Aids ACTION curriculum topics, strategies, Involvement End: BUDGET: $ materials, and skills to discuss Coordinator 05/31/2012 assessed needs of students with parents as need also to prepare for parent conference day. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement http://acsip.state.ar.u s/cgi-bin/index.c gi ?rm==report a csip\u0026amp;print=1= 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 27 of 50 Determine the impact of family Rita Friend, Start: involvement by evaluating attendance Grade Level 08/15/2011 ACTION during Family Math/Science night, Chair End: $ attendance at parent conferences, 05/31/2012 BUDGET: and informal assessments of returned signed take home materials and student attendance at extra curricula activities Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with parents to Marsha Spears, Start: communicate weekly math skills Grade Level 08/15/2011  Computers through specific grade level packets, Chairman End: . Performance ACTION $ planners, newsletters, calendars, etc 05/31/2012 Assessments BUDGET: as a means to provide reinforcement  Teachers and practice for all children.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Technology Inclusion Collaborate with staff and families to Linda Corrigan, Start: attend Math/Science Family Night as Grade Level 08/15/2011  Teachers a means to strengthen Math/Science Chair End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ skills learned daily in the classrooms 05/31/2012 BUDGET: of all children. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with parents, students Holly Shields, Start: and staff to support WAGS (Work, Grade Level 08/15/2011  Administrative Attendance, Grades and Social Skills) Chairman End: Staff ACTION $ recognition as a means to encourage 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: academic achievement for all Leaders students.  District Staff Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Professional Development Collaborate with staff and parents to Jason Crader, Start: provide an opportunity for extra Grade Level 08/15/2011  Administrative curricula activity instruction after Chairman End: Staff ACTION $ school as a means of enrichment in 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: art, science, chess, Destination  Teachers Imagination and music for all  Teaching Aids interested students. Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaboration between parents and Jason Crader, Start: staff to establish BOOST, an after- Grade Level 08/15/2011  Administrative school tutoring program, to provide Chairman End: Staff ACTION $ basic and below basic students extra 05/31/2012  Performance BUDGET: intervention in math. Assessments Action Type: Collaboration  Teachers Action Type: Equity  Teaching Aids Action Type: Parental Engagement ITotal Budget: II $01 !intervention: Flexible Group Instruction - Kindergarten - Fifth - Tiers II and III Intervention I htto://acsio.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 28 of 50 Scientific Based Research: S. Zemelman\nH. Daniels\nA. Hyde\nBest Practice New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's School (1998)\nM. Schmoker\nThe Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (2001)\nHarcourt Arkansas Math Edition, 2007\nTERC\nLittle Rock School District Math Curriculum Map\nChildren's Mathematics, Cognitive Guided Instruction, Carpenter, Thomas (1999) . !Actions :I Responsible JPerson ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Identify students using test data to Rita Friend, Start: establish small flexible groups as a Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Performance means to individualize instruction for all Chair End: Assessments ACTION $ students. Move children from group to 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: group with student advancement.  Teaching Aids Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of flexible group Jason Crader, Start: instruction to move students to Grade Level 08/15/2011 . Performance proficiency by monitoring SOAR math Chairman End: Assessments ACTION $ assessments during RtI meetings, 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: Cognitive Guided Instruction assessments and SAT-10 with socre of 85% expected. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with grade level teachers, Shanel Start: specialist and broker to assess individual Ditmore, 08/15/2011  Performance student needs through the SOAR Grade Level End: Assessments ACTION $ evaluation as a means to establish Chair 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: groups and to teach student learning  Teaching Aids expectations. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity **Collaborate with second grade Linda Start: teachers specialist/broker to assess Corrigan, 08/15/2011  Administrative problem solving stategies using Grade Level End: Staff ACTION $ Cognitive Guided Instruction methods. Chairman 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: Action Type: AIP/IRI Assessments Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Collaboration  Teaching Aids Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Collaborate with grade level team and Linda Start: broker to modify math curriculum to Corrigan, 08/15/2011  Administrative meet the student's instructional level as Grade Level End: Staff ACTION $ a means to improve math achievement Chair 05/31/2012  Performance BUDGET: for basic and below basic students, Assessments primarily economically disadvantaged.  Teachers Action Type: AIP/IRI  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Collaboration between grade level Diane Start: teachers, coaches, and principal to Barksdale, 08/15/2011 . Administrative determine students progress on a Principal End: Staff ACTION $ quarterly basis using SOAR and the 05/31/2012 . Performance BUDGET: assessment wall to plan Response to Assessments Intervention strategies for low  Teachers performing students.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Equity http://acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 29 of 50 First grade students will be assigned Sarah Elms, Start: work stations targeting individual needs First Grade 08/15/2011 . Performance on a weekly basis. Students performing Teacher End: Assessments ACTION $ at basic and below will work with 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: teacher in a small group twice a week. !Total Budget: II $01 Intervention: Math/Science Family Night - Suellen DiMassimo-Math Specialist\nGene Williams - Science Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Schussheim, Joan Ya res. Large Scale Family Math Nights: A Primer for Collaboration. January 2004, Volume 10, Issue 5, page 254, Teaching Children Mathematics. Connecting Mathematics Instruction with Families of Young Children. Diane W. Kyle, Ellen McEntire and Gayle More October 2001 Vol. 8, issue 2, p. 80 Teaching Children Mathematics. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with students, staff and Suellen Start: parents to provide family math/science DiMassimo, Math 08/15/2011  Computers nights as a means to improve parent and Specialist, Gene End:  Teachers ACTION $ child communication focused on math Williams, Science 05/31/2012  Teaching Aids BUDGET: skills for all students. Specialist Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with staff, students and Gene Williams, Start: parents to conduct Math and Science Science 08/15/2011  School Fairs as a means for all students to Specialist End: Library ACTION $ demonstrate learned math skills. Suellen 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment DiMassimo, Math  Teaching Aids Action Type: Collaboration Specialist Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of Math/Science Suellen Start: Fairs and Family Math/Science Night and DiMassimo, Math 08/15/2011  Community Math Fair Week to improve parent/child Specialist End: Leaders ACTION $ communication and demonstration of 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: math/science skills by comparing . Performance attendance from previous years and by Assessments the number of Math/Science Fair  Teachers projects submitted.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Parental Engagement Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 IIntervention: Small Cooperative grouping.: Suellen DiMassimo, Math Specialist -Tier II Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Cooperative Groups Abstract-Cooperative Groups, October 2003, Volume 9, Issue 2 MCMT. S. Zemel man\nH. Daniels\nA. Hyde\nBest Practice New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools (1998)\nM. Schmoker\nThe Results Fieldbook: Practical Strategies from Dramatically Improved Schools (2001). Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K. (2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline II Resources I Source of Funds Collaborate with third and fifth grade Suellen Start: teachers and small groups of students to DiMassimo, 08/15/2011 . Administrative target specific math skills as a means to Math End: Staff ACTION $ raise the Benchmark scores for all Specialist 05/31/2012 . Teachers BUDGET: children.  Teaching Aids Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment htto://acsio.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report acsip\u0026amp;print=l 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 30 of 50 Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity I II II II I Collaborate with all classroom teachers to Suellen Start: reinforce classroom instruction during DiMassimo, 08/15/2011  Teachers math lab as a means to encourage and Math End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ motivate all students' to improve their Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: math skills. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of targeting specific Suellen Start: math skills for teaching in small DiMassimo, 08/15/2011  Teachers cooperative groups and during math lab Math End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ to improve math scores of all students by Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: 85% performing at or above the proficient level using a teacher made test from TL! that is aligned with the standards. Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with all grade levels to deliver Suellen Start: Rt! to all identified student (African DiMassimo, 08/15/2011  Teachers American and economically Math End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ disadvantaged) to improve math Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: knowledge. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity !Total Budget: II $01 !Intervention: Math problem solving in the early grades, June Joseph, Special Education Specialist - Tiers II and III Intervention Scientific Based Research: The 31st International Conference on Learning Disabilities in Dallas, TX: Responsive Assessment and Instructional Practices: Sessions to attend: Preventing Mathematical Difficulties in Early Grades: Interventions that Work! and Improving Mathematical Problems Solving for Students with Learning Disabilities. Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K.(2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline IIResources I Source of Funds Attend Conferences on Learning Disabilities June Joseph, Start: specifically attend sessions on improving math Special 08/15/2011  Teachers skills and preventing math difficulties in the Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ early grades in order to work with students to Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: show growth on math assessments at the building, district and state levels focused on African-American and economically disadvantaged students. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development **Determine the impact of conference June Joseph, Start: strategies used in inclusion groups to show Special 08/15/2011  Teachers growth of special education students in Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ quarterly SOAR assessments and nine week Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: grade percentages. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation Collaborate with fourth grade teachers in order IJJune Joseph, to form and service small math inclusion Special !Start: II 08/15/2011  Teachers II I http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 31 of 50 groups, four days a week for 30 minutes, while Education End:  Teaching ACTION implementing learning strategies from the 31st Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: $ International Conference on Learning Disabilities. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Professional Development Action Type: Special Education Chart growth using quartly SOAR assessments, June Joseph, Start: nine week grade percentages, and Compasss Special 08/15/2011  Teachers Learning lessons. Education End:  Teaching ACTION $ Action Type: AIP/IRI Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education Action Type: Technology Inclusion jTotal Budget: II $01 jintervention: Young Astronaut Lab - Charlotte Cook - Tier II Intervention I Scientific Based Research: 2006 Math Benchmark Released Item Booklet\nTate, Marcia L.(2003). Worksheets Don't Grow Dendrites: 20 Instructional Strategies That Engage the Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Teachers College Press: Investigating Real Data in the Classroom Expanding Children's Understanding of Mathematics and Science\nR. Lehrer and L. Schauble (2002) !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds **Collaborate with grade-level teachers to re- Charlotte Start: teach deficit math skills in Young Astronauts Cook, Young 08/15/2011  Teachers science lessons to provide examples of real life Astronaut End:  Teaching ACTION $ usage and application of these skills as Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: determined from Benchmark exams for grades 3, 4, and 5 as a means to improve math skills. SOAR tests will be used to measure growth. Action Type: AIP/IRI Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Special Education **Determine the impact of math intervention Charlotte Start: for identified basic and below basic students Cook, Young 08/15/2011  Teachers through teacher observation of student Astronaut End:  Teaching ACTION $ participation in application process in lab and Specialist 05/31/2012 Aids BUDGET: through student written narrative explaining the process and application. 85% will move to profiency on the SOAR test by the end of the school year. Action Type: Program Evaluation jTotal Budget: II $01 jintervention: Parent Involvement - Gene Williams, Science Specialist - Tier I Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Schussheim, Joan Yares. Large Scale Family Math Nights: A Primer for Collaboration. January 2004, Volume 10, Issue 5, page 254, Teaching Children Mathematics. Connecting Mathematics Instruction with Families of Young Children. Diane W. Kyle, Ellen McEntire and Gayle More October 2001 Vol. 8, issue 2, p. 80 Teaching Children Mathematics !Actions I Person : Responsible ITimeline 11R esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with staff, students and Gene Williams, Start: parents to sponsor Science Fair Nights Science Specialist 08/15/2011 . Community for students and parents as a means to End: Leaders ACTION $ motivate, encourage and teach the 05/31/2012 . District Staff BUDGET: process of construction of projects by . School Library http://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 32 of 50 all third, fourth and fifth grade  Teachers students.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Collaborate with staff, students and Gene Williams, Start: parents to establish a Math/Science Science Specialist 08/15/2011  Administrative Family Night, to teach parents and Suellen End: Staff ACTION $ students hands-on activities and DiMassimo, Math 05/31/2012  District Staff BUDGET: provide families with take-home Specialist  Teachers packets of activities to improve all  Teaching Aids students achievement in math and science. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Action Type: Parental Engagement Determine the impact of parental Gene Williams, Start: involvement during Math/Science Science Specialist 08/15/2011  Administrative Family Night and Science and Math Suellen End: Staff ACTION $ Fairs to strengthen all students DiMassimo, Math 05/31/2012  Community BUDGET: science/math knowledge by tabulation Specialist Leaders of a parent/student survey.  District Staff Action Type: Alignment  Teachers Action Type: Parental Engagement  Teaching Aids Action Type: Program Evaluation !Total Budget: II $01 jintervention: Cooperative Grouping - Gene Williams, Science Specialist - Tiers II and III Intervention I Scientific Based Research: Cooperative Groups Abstract-Cooperative Groups, October 2003, Volume 9, Issue 2 MCMT. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics\n2000 Principals and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 2003)Payne, Ruby K. (2005) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Kafele, Baruti K.(2009) Motivating Black Males to Achieve in School and Life. !Actions : Responsible I Person ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds Collaborate with fifth grade teachers and Gene Start: small groups of students to target specific Williams, 08/15/2011  Teachers math and literacy skills as a means to Science End:  Teaching Aids ACTION $ raise Benchmark scores of all students Specialist 05/31/2012 BUDGET: focusing on African-American and economically disadvantaged. Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Equity Determine the impact of the small group Gene Start: instruction by reviewing the SOAR Williams, 08/15/2011 . Performance assessments, Benchmark scores and Science End: Assessments ACTION $ through periodic teacher made Specialist 05/31/2012  Teachers BUDGET: assessments.  Teaching Aids Action Type: Alignment Action Type: Collaboration Action Type: Program Evaluation jTotal Budget: II $01 Intervention: Integrated Curriculum and Professional Development Workshops in Math - Teri Hughes, Music Specialist Tier I Intervention Scientific Based Research: Druyan, S.(2005) \"Effects of Kinesthetic movement and memorization of multiplication tables,\" Journal of Music Educators National Conference. 78. The Singing Reading Connection. Shirley Handy. Los Angeles, CA: 2002. Threshold to Music. Eleanor Kidd. New York, NY. 2004 !Actions IIIPerson : Responsible ITimeline IIR esources I Source of Funds http ://acsip.state.ar. us/cgi-bin/index.cgi ?rm=report _ acsip\u0026amp;print= 1 12/5/2011 ACSIP Page 33 of 50 Collaborate with students and staff to Teri Hughes, Start: include math activities learned throu\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_101","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":["2011-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/101"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 2011 OFFICE OF DESEGREGtlTION MONITORING Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell January 31, 20 l J Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Utile Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 .rkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite I 800 Little Rock, AR 7220 I RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 BSMIHD Y Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2011 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 BSM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for January, 2011. BY: ~ c_-~ .Y C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on January 31, 2011, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Cluistopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~C-~~ Je yC. Lasiter IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC T, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PLAINTIFFS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL 2011 OFFICE OF DESEG GATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 -~sfr,f~\"NtlomslitID~lfi0~dai1~Jwn~g,:_fQt~ ~tr, 4J!l ~--~~  ... ., ,\\ ......... ~~ ~ r\nqyn-:-  uniii'llg . : \\l:!1jdt _tQ 12,ene -,c: ~gju Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 ..:. aseo qn tt\\e information available, the ADu ~lculi!ti!.Q..at Dece111ber 31 201q for RY:19/11, s'i.JbjeetJo eriodic a\u0026lt;sfustments~ E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 afGlillat'e'0'\n-\na't~e\u0026amp;erlit~eri snvt~td ~,j.....,._,, .,, j,%:11, .. ~..-::.\u0026amp; -~ It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 On October 26 2010 chan es were made in the expense per child to $8,336. -1a1 uiated_al Decemb~~-a~,\n-20:ro ,,.~.... -~~ ' c\n.   ~ ,====aefj G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 Qistiff6utipH~ ~or ~y 10/1'1: ~t' l:\u0026gt;ece~b~~~1} ~~1:C:l, 'fotale?l:7,00~\n\"~~:\"A!lr ,trrient balcul~ted for FY'1Q/JJ.-:iwas 1 1,498\n875 sut:, ect-te 1'!2eno\u0026lt;i1Jc ad ustr:nents H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 '3ased en the information, \u0026amp;y~ilabl~. the APE calculated at December_31 _'201-d . or FY1 C:l/11 ,.._uj\u0026gt;j~ctJ.g__ eriodic ad,stments., 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. J. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 Pi.stributions -fo'r'J\n)t tQll:1~Pecer:nber 31 201Q we~~ ~R\n.$,D --$4~90~~1138~ N~IRSD - $5,~88,f},1.5~ POSSO ,. $10,~7?.~31, The North Little Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $58,059. The $58,059 was refunded to the ADE on June 28, 2010. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31 , 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 I In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1 ,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 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 January 31 , 2011 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 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 January 31 , 2011 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of January 31, 2011 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBb.lGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 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 January 31, 2011 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/1 O was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1 . Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its ~xecutive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996.  In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively.  Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students ,and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the 8 Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p. m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average . enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided update information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. 30 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 31 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 32 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 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 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 33 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. . The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 36 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results . . 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011  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 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 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. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua interveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lnterveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterveners were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May.  On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August.  On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. so V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2011 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 3. Actual as of January 31, 2011 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10,  2011, the Arkansas-State Board of Education r~viewed and aQproved the PMT ~nd its executive summary for the m,2nth of Decer:nQer. 53 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 January 31 , 2011 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. 54 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 January 31, 2011 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 55 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 January 31, 2011 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 56 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 January 31 , 2011 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2011 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_840","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North 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":null,"dc_date":["2011-01/2011-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North 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/840"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nBOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:30 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, January 20, 2011-5:30 P.M. GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY CHEERLEADER PERFORMANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Ron Treat, President II. INVOCATION, Billy Joe (B.J.) Gibbs, North Heights Elementary Third Grader, son of Billy and Tina Gibbs ill. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Ron Treat, President Scott A. Miller, Vice President Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Kathleen. Mccomber, Member Darrell Montgomery, Member Scott Teague, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Superintendent's Honor Roll - S. Brazear l. Abby Stone, Boone Park Elementary 2. Paula Keeling, Amboy Elementary B. New Partners in Education - S. Brazear Page 2 - Board Agenda January 20, 2011 l. Dillard's Department Store (McCain Mall location) \u0026amp; NLRSD 2. CDI Contractors \u0026amp; NLRSD 3. NLR City Attorney's Office \u0026amp; NLRSD 4. Playtime Pizza \u0026amp; NLRSD VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 16, 2010-5:30 P.M. (Regular)-Page A-1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report- E. Moore B. Consider Salary Schedule Revisions - K. Kirspel C. Consider Education Jobs Fund Program Bonus - K. Kirspel D. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - l 3. Consider bid items - Page S - l 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - l VIII. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. DLR-NLRSD Strategic Planning Series III Meetings: I. Tuesday, January 25, 2011 5:00 p.m. -6:30 p.m. Belwood Elementary, Glenview Elementary, Lakewood Elementary 2. Tuesday, January 25,2011 7:00 p.m. -8:30 p.m. Amboy Elementary, Park Hill Elementary 3. Wednesday, January 26, 2011- 3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. North Heights Elementary 4. Wednesday, January 26, 201 l -5:00 p.m. -6:30 p.m. Meadow Park Elementary, Crestwood Elementary 5. Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Lynch Drive Elementary, Boone Park Elementary 6. Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:00 p.m. -8:30 p.m. Pike View Elementary, Indian Hills Elementary,.Seventh Street Elementary Page 3 - Board Agenda J\u0026lt;U}uar2y0 , 2011 B. Next Board (Regular) Meeting-Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 5:30 p.m. Administration Office Board Room IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEM A. Thank You Letter from Arkansas Children's Hospital to Lakewood Middle School Origami Club - Page Z - 1 X. SUPERINTENDENT'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 16, 2010 , The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, December 16, 2010 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Prior to the meeting starting, NLRHS West Campus Choir Class, led by Donna Gosser, and then the NLRHS East Campus Choir, led by Jo Murry, entertained the audience with holiday music. Bruce Alexander, NLRHS West Campus teacher, expressed his desire for additional remediation for his students. President Ron Treat called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Cassidy Ratliff, Lakewood, Middle School eighth grader, gave the invocation and led the flag salute. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Ron Treat, President Scott Miller, Vice President Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Kathleen Mccomber, Member Scott Teague, Member Absent Darrell Montgomery, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, Greg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nGregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Human Resources, Rhonda Dickey, Administrative Director for Secondary Education, Rosie Coleman, Administrative Director for Elementary Education, Susan Shurley, Administrative Director for Special Services, Jerry Massey, Administrative Director for Plant Services, additional staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary, were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS Cats-TV (video) recorded the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Dave Allgeyer, NLRHS East Campus Art Teacher and NLRPD Officer Tommy Norman as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. Officer Norman was presented a plaque by Scott Miller and Mr. Allgeyer was given a plaque by Dorothy Williams. Mrs. Brazear presented the newly National Board Certified A-1 Teachers: Beth Brooks, NLRHS West Campus Spanish Teacher\nMona Brossett, Indian Hills Elementary Art Teacher\nKasey Cathey, North Heights Elementary Reading Recovery Teacher\nRaymond Girdler, NLRHS West Campus Math Teacher\nTelisa Hadley, Rose City Middle Math Teacher\nGinger LeQuieu, Poplar Street Middle Gifted and Talented Teacher\nAllison Petters, Poplar Street Middle English/Social Studies Teacher\nAnne Taulbee, NLRHS East Campus Spanish Teacher and Amy West, Seventh Street Elementary Music Teacher. Each teacher was presented a certificate. The NLRHS East Campus and West Campus EAST Initiative made a presentation explaining their programs. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the November 18, 2010 (Regular) meeting minutes as printed in the agenda. Scott Miller seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) NEW BUSINESS Ely Moore, Certified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, presented a proposal to revise Board Policy CDI -Tuition Reimbursement for Teachers with the revision on item number 7 to delete the words ''thirty one thousand one hundred ten dollars ($31, 11 0)\" and to add the words \"equal to the annual rate of pay found at Range 1, Step 01 on the current Teacher/Administrator Salary - Schedule.\" MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the revision to Board Policy CDI as proposed by the Certified PPC. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) Mr. Moore also presented a proposal to revise Board Policy CFF Substitute Teachers to add \"e. ASP/FBI Criminal Background Check f. Arkansas OHS Child Maltreatment Registry\" and in the last paragraph to delete the words \"9  month'\nin both sentences and add \"placed at Range 1. Step 01 on the current Teacher/Administrator Salary Schedllle\" in both sentences. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the revisions to Board Policy CFF Substitute Teachers as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) Career Action Plan (CAP} Booklets Rhonda Dickey, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented the booklets for the 2011 -2012 school year for approval. A-2 MOTION Kathleen McComber moved to accept the Career Action Plan booklets as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel recommended the Board accept the financial, personnel, bids, and check listings on pages 0- 1 through T -23. MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the consent agenda as printed. Kathleen McComber seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A report updating the Board was presented by Rhonda Dickey and Patricia McMurray, Rose City Middle School's Principal concerning the 1003(g) School Improvement Grant at Rose City and the progress being made. The Board recognized Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner Dr. Tom Kimbrell, ADE Director Dr. Laura Bednar, ADE Director Bill Goff, and ADE Assistant Phyllis Stewart. STIJDENT EXPULSIONS Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, recommended the expulsion of John Turner, Ridgeroad Middle Charter Eighth grader, for violation of Board Policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. The student and his mother, Allison Nichols, requested an open hearing. Neither the student nor the parent addressed the Board. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel John Turner for violation of Board Policy 4.24 for the remainder of the current semester with a loss of credit. Kathleen McComber seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, recommended the expulsion of Renise Sims, NLRHS East Campus student, for violation of Board Policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments for one calendar year. The parent requested a closed hearing. MOTION John Riley moved to enter into a closed hearing. Scott Teague seconded the motion. A-3 YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) The Board went into a closed hearing at 8:20 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 8:52. p.m. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the recommendation for the expulsion of Renise Sims for one calendar year for violation of Board Policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. Kathleen McComber seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, recommended the expulsion of David Vasquez, NLRHS East Campus student for violation of Board Policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol for the remainder of the school year. The parents requested a closed hearing. MOTION John Riley moved to enter into a closed hearing. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery- absent) The Board went into a closed hearing at 8:55 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:20. p.m. MOTION Doro~y Williams moved to accept the recommendation for the expulsion of David Vasquez for the current and next semester. Kathleen McComber seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) ADJOURNMENT MOTION John Riley moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None (Montgomery - absent) President Treat declared the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Ron Treat, President Darlene Holmes, Recording Secretary A-4 -Reve nue from Local Sources Pro ,ertv Taxes-Operatina Fund Propertv Taxes-Current Property Taxes-40% Pullback Prooertv Taxes -Delinauent Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tota I Property Taxes 0th er Local Revenue Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Invesbnents Soft Drink Sales Rentals Conbibutions/Donations Misc Rev From Local Tota Tota I other Local Revenue I local Revenue From Intermediate Source Severance Tax Other Revenue from Coun Total From Intermediate Revenue From State Sources Unresbicted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Enrollment Other Unrestrided Grants-in-Aid 980/o URT SUnnlement I from State Sources-Unresbicted Revenue from State Restricted Reaular Education Soecial Education Eartv Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr P!!ms Total state Restricted Other Sources-Nonrevenue Indirect Cost Sale of Eauioment Reimbursement-Loss of Fixed Assets Total Other Sources Total Revenue Operations Buildina Fund Buildlna Fund-Partnership canital Outlav Fund Federal Fund Child Nutrition Fund Activitv Fund TOTAL REVENUE STIMULUS ARRA-Stabilization ARRA-TITLEI ARRA-IDEA ARRA-IDEAP K ARRA-Modem Stabilization ARRA-Renovation Stabilization ARRA-Reoair Stabilization ARRA-Homeless ARRA-10036 (RCMS) TOTAL ARRA North Little Rock School District Period 06 - December 2010-2011 Budaet Per 06 Actual $16,726,000.00 $12,572.71 $8,106,450.00 $0.00 $1 700 000.00 $309 347.84 $480,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $6,839.93 $30,000.00 $0.00 $27,242,450.00 $328,760.48 $75,000.00 $11,116.73 $110000.00 $11927.11 $27000.00 $1712.05 $50000.00 u.210.00 $9700.00 $0.00 $65,000.00 $44,155.21 $336,700.00 $71,121.10 YTDActual $13,310,240.57 $0.00 $969353.29 $0.00 $186,252.95 $0.00 $14,465,846.81 $98,868.81 $48.950.66 $9,385.05 $21.106.55 $900.00 $236,693.61 $415,904.68 $27,579150.00 $399.881.58 $14,881,751.49 $3,500.00 $0.00 $4,656.99 $3,500.00 2,808.51 $2,808.51 7000.00 808.51 7465.50 $35,784,992.00 $3,253,181.00 $16,265,905.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 540.000.00 $0.00 $7,134.18 !UO0 000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $36.224 992.00 $3.253 181.00 $16.273.039.18 $619,089.00 $0.00 $430,275.60 $5,480,415.00 $370,444.00 $1,759,861.00 $2,805,355.00 $264,384.00 $1,664,076.92 $10,313,106.00 $812,054.00 $4.834,137 .44 $385,000.00 $14,727.28 $153,692.24 $19 602.965.00 $1.461 609.28 ~.R.42.043.20 110.000.00 0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $722.00 $91,000.00 $13145.10 $64,046.56 $141.000.00 $13145.10 $64.768.56 $83 555.107.00 $5.130 625.47 $40.069.067 .93 $53.100.00 $472.57 $9.821.12 $1 200,000.00 so.oo u 335.899.39 $2147,797.00 $21,536.57 $1,080,449.89 $7.365 964.00 $608,228.68 $2,271 033.35 $4 480 500.00 $402.769.41 $1 876 716.22 $524910.00 $60.079.54 $271529.54 $99 327 378.00 $6 223.712.24 $45 578 618.05 2 995 290.00 475.978.00 $5 701 958.70 2007 726.00 2,196.00 $11961.84 1.297 593.00 1.526.14 $148141.92 337137.00 1.350.00 ~902.81 $2,115,985.00 0.00 $0.00 693168.00 o.oo $0.00 712.714.00 0.00 $0.00 33 912.00 0.00 $0.00 991451.00 188,192.00 $188192.00 11,184.976.00 669 242.14 $6 095 157.27 0-1 Balance 0/o $3,415,759.43 79.580/o $8,106,450.00 0.000/o $730,646.71 57.020/o $480,000.00 0.000/o $13,747.05 93.130/o $30,000.00 $12,776,603.19 53.100/o -$23,868.81 131.830/o $61.049.34 44.500/o $17,614.95 34.760/o $28.893.45 42.210/o SB.800.00 9.280/o r -$171 693.61 364.14% I -$79,204.68 123.520/o $12.697 398.51 53.960/o -$1,156.99 133.060/o $691.49 80.240/o 5.50 106.650/o $19.519,087 .oo 45.450/o $0.00 $3'.Ut65.82 17.840/o $400 000.00 0.000/o $19.951 952.82 44.920/o $188,813.40 69.500/o $3,720,554.00 32.110/o $1,141,278.08 59.320/o $5,478,968.56 46.870/o $231,307.76 39.920/o $10.760 921.80 45.110/o $110,000.00 0.000/o $49,278.00 1.440/o $26953.44 70.380/o $76 231.44 45.940/o $43 486 Q39.07 47.960/o $43 278.88 18.500/o -$1,135.899.39 194.660/o $1067 347.11 50.310/o $5,094 930.65 30.830/o $2.603 783.78 41.890/o $253380.46 51.730/o $53,748 759.95 45.89% -$2.706 668.70 190.360/o $1,995 764.16 0.60% $1.149 451.08 11.420/o $292 234.19 13.320/o $2,115,985.00 0.000/o $693168.00 0.000/o $712 714.00 0.000/o 33 912.00 0.000/o 803 259.00 18.980/o 5,089 818.73 54.490/o Expenditure Cateaoay CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-ProffTech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Suoolies and Materials Property Other Obiects Debt Service Total Other Exoenditures OPERATING FUND BUILDING FUND BUILDING FUND PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND FEDERAL FUND CHILD NUTRITION FUND ACTIVITY FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES STIMULUS ARRA-Stabilization ARRA-Title I Ar'..RA-IDEA ARRA-IDEAC EIS ARRA-IDEAP K ARRA-Modernization Stabilizatio, ARRA-Renovation Stabilization ARRA-Reoair Stabilization ARRA-Homeless ARRA-1003G TOTALARRA North little Rock School District Period 06 - December 2010-2011 Budget Per 06 Actual YTDActual $41,000,000.00 $3,488,735.85 $16,461,418.83 $11,900,000.00 $952,403.84 $4,521,192.94 $12,700,000.00 $1,094,474.22 $5,898,503.19 $4,597,000.00 $368,750.53 $1,885,542.62 $70,197,000.00 $5,904,364.44 $28,766,657.58 $1,434,902.00 $232,534.41 $1,226,311.03 $1,200,000.00 $219,958.25 $907,260.44 $3,800,000.00 $69,481.67 $1,631,453.39 $5,180,000.00 $346,290.21 $2,264A63.67 $148,897.00 $15,590.06 $64,652.88 $127,000.00 $4,475.92 $68,404.78 $1,808\n000.00 $0.00 $673,766.10 $13,698,799.00 $888,330.52 $6,836,312.29 $83,895,799.00 $6,792,694.96 $35,602,969.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00 $34,182.78 $785,737.72 $1,401,000.00 $29,844.95 $737,052.86 $7,500,000.00 $652,467.54 $2,999,768.21 54.503,000.00 $411,399.75 $2,122,903.67 $524,910.00 $37.'218.54 $212,547.42 $99,324\n709.00 $7,957\n808.52 $42,460,979.75 8,979,281.20 100,757.74 4,732,997.53 544,615.84 1,393.46 $14,102.41 260,535.46 o.oo 148,141.92 o.oo ,$0.00 140,400.97 3,373.33 $48,278.93 1,028,603.68 18,856.39 $53,086.35 693,168.00 49,523.94 $593,737.94 555,755.82 0.00 $336,000.00 33,912.25 2,753.27 $16,613.39 991,451.00 87,138.63 $265,691.34 13,227,724.22 263,796.76 $6,208,649.81 0-2 Available Balance 0/o $24,538,581.17 40.15% $7,378,807.06 37.99% $6,801,496.81 46.44% $2,711,457.38 41.02% $41,430,342.42 40.98% $208,590.97 85.46% $292,739.56 75.61% $2,168,546.61 42.93% $2,915,536.33 43.72% $84,244.12 43.42% $58,595.22 53.86% $1,134,233.90 37.27% $6,862,486.71 49.90% $48,292,829.13 42.44% $0.00 $714,262.28 52.38% $663,947.14 52.610/o $4,500,231.79 40.00% $2,380,096.33 47.140/o $312,362.58 40.490/o $56,863,729.25 42.750/o $4,246,283.67 52.710/o $530,513.43 2.59/o $112,393.54 56.860/o $0.00 - $92,122.04 34.390/o $975,517.33 5.16% $99,430,06 85.660/o $219,755.82 60.460/o $17,298.86 48.990/o $725,759.66 26.800/o $7,019,074.41 46.940/o NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Board Agenda -January 20, 2011 J CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS \u0026amp; CHANGES Stacy Smith From Elementary Counselor at Meadow Park Elementary To Instructional Facilitator at Seventh Street Elementary CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS, AND TERMTNA TIONS Lindsay Carruth Sharon Haver Keva Rodgers Jeannie Travis Social Studies Teacher, Rose City Middle School 12-17-10 Language Arts, Poplar Street Middle School 1-12-11 Psychological Examiner, Tri-District 12-17-10 ALE Teacher, Seventh Street Elementary 12-17-10 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL INFORMATION Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Teaching Experience: Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Teaching Experience: Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Student Teaching Exp: Rebecca Hamilton English Teacher, NLRHS West Campus Reciprocity, ECH P-4, Mid Level LNSS/Math/Science 4-8, Eng Lang Arts 7-12, ESL P-8 Pasadena, Texas Victor McMurray Social Studies Teacher, NLRHS West Campus 5 Yr. Social Studies 7-12 Little Rock School District Shay Rafferty Stagecraft Teacher, NLRHS East Campus I Yr. Provisional, Drama/Speech 7-12 Terri Smith Social Studies Teacher, NLRHS West Campus I Yr. Provisional, Social Studies 7-12 PCSSD P-1 Name: NEW CERTlFIED PERSONNEL INFORMATION (Continued) Monica Williams Proposed Assignment: Family \u0026amp; Consumer Science Teacher, NLRHS East Campus Li censure: Int. 3 Yr., FACS 7-12 ,- Student Tea~hing Exp: Carl Stuart Middle School, Conway, AR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS AND TERMINATIONS Frank Hubbard NLRSD Plant Services - Custodian Effective 12-30-10 Bobby Randle Amboy Elementary - Custodian Effective 1-03-11 Cartrina Washington --- . Ridgeroad Middle Charter - Child Nutritjon Assistant Joyce Bascue LaTinaNeal Farron Summage ~habria Dobbins Sheila Hatchett Jessie Horton Phyllis Martin Nutosha Millender Effective 12-13-10  CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From Lakewood Middle - Media Aide To Rose City Middle - Media Aide From Poplar Street Middle - Child Nutrition Assistant To Ridgeroad Middle Charter- Child Nutrition Assistant From NLRSD Plant Services - Sub Custodian To NLRSD Plant Services-Contracted Custodian NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL NLRSD Food Service - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 1-1 i-l l, Salary Schedule 0CN, 180 days NLRSD Food Service - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 1-07-11, Salary Schedule OCN, 180 days Lynch Drive Elementary- Special Education Paraprofessional Effective 11-17-10, Salary Schedule OPP, 185 days Poplar Street Middle - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-09-10, Salary Schedule 0cN\n180 days NLRSD Food Service - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-06-10, Salary Schedule 0CN, 180 days P-2 NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL (Continued) Betty Jo Roberts NLRSD Food Service - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-01-10, Salary Schedule 0CN, 180 days Lacey Sturch-Paniagua--- Belwood Elementary- Special Education Paraprofessional Effective 1-04-11, Salary Schedule OPP, 185 days P-3 NORTHLI TTLER OCKS CHOODL ISTRICT January2 011B IDSF ORA PPROVAL BIDN UMBER1: 011-01-122 BIDN AME:S chool Buses 2-42P assengewr / Lift \u0026amp; 1-42P assengewr /outL ift SOURCEO FF UNDINGA:R RAI DEA\u0026amp; General LOCATIOND: istrictW ide DiamondS tateB usC ompany Central States Bus Sales BIDN UMBERT:I PS/TAP6S1 21809 $260,825.oo$ 273,500.00 BIDN AME:T IPS/TAPPSu rchasingC ooperativBe idding- InstructionaSl peakeSr ystems SOURCEO FF UNDINGP:e rkins LOCATIONW: estC ampus LightspeedT echnologies $12,013.00- BIDN UMBERT:I PS/TAP1S0 72309 BIDN AME:T IPS/TAPPSu rchasingC ooperativBe idding\u0026amp; DFAB id-ComputerL ab SOURCEO FF UNDINGN:S LA LOCATIONL: akewoodM S IntegrationS ervicesC orp (TIPS/TAPS) BIDN UMBERN: A BIDN AMEA: nnuaAl RS tateS upplementaSle rvicesP rovideLr ist SOURCEO FF UNDINGT:i tle I LOCATIOND: istrictW ide A+ Club -Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club BIDN UMBERN: LRSD011111TURF BIDN AMEN: LRSDS tadiumT urfF ield SOURCEO FF UNDINGC: apitolO utlay LOCATIONN: LRHSW estC ampusF ootbalFl ield John F.J enkinsC ontractingI,n c. HellasC onstructionIn, c. Mid AmericaGo\u0026amp;lf LanscapeI,n c. PrograssL LC TexasS portsB uildersI,n c. CentraAl rkansasS ports/CASG ymnasiumE quipmenLt LC M H ConstructionD esignL, LC Athletic\u0026amp; RecreatioPn roductsI,n c. Didn otm eest pecifications FaxedB id.N otA ccepted Parot fa no rn ob id .... Qualitnyo tr ecommended LimiteCdo verage Reconmended S-1 $65,063.5~ $11,875.oo- $3484, 81.9.8.. ... $362,300.00 $3301, 69.00* $350,923.00 $377,000.00 $335,000.00* $375,000.00** $329,525.00* NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOODL ISTRICT January2 011B IDSF ORA PPROVAL BIDN UMBERT:I PSfrAPS6 121809 BIDN AME:T IPSfAr PSP urchasingC ooperativBe idding- InstructionaSl peakeSr ystems SOURCEO FF UNDINGA:R RAI DEA LOCATIONN: orthH eights LightspeedT echnologies $13,059.0o- BIDN UMBERT:I PSfrAPS6 121809 BIDN AME:T IPS/TAPPSu rchasingC ooperativeB idding- InstructionaSl peakeSr ystems SOURCEO FF UNDINGA:R RAI DEA LOCATIONW: estC ampus LightspeedT echnologies BIDN UMBERD: FA8 27158 BIDN AME:D FAA ppleC omputeSr tateB id IPADS1 6G ig SOURCOE FF UNDINGA:R RAE arlyC hildhood LOCATIONT: ri-District Apple Computer Didn otm eest pecifications FaxedB id.N otA ccepted Parot ra no rn ob id - Qualitnyo tr ecommended LimiteCdo verage Reconvnended S-2 $15,023.oo- $20,884.40- North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 Chk# Issued 'VendorName Amount 148490 12/2/2010 AT\u0026amp;T 9,446.30 148491 12/2/2010 AAMSCO 288.25 ---- ----- 148492 12/2/2010 ADRIAN CHILLIEST 10:00 148493 12/2/2010 AHA PROCESISN CORPORATED 7,183.46 148494 12/2/2010 ALFREDW ATKINS i 25.00 148495 12/2/2010 ARKANSASD EPTO F HEALTH 75.00 148496 12/2/2010 BLUEB ELLC REAMERIELSP . 1,015.14 148497 12/2/2010 BROMLEYP ARTS\u0026amp; SERVICE 38.46 148498 12/2/2010 CEDRICB LACK 27.01 148499 12/2/2010 CENTERPOINJTR /SRH IGH 50.00 148500 12/2/2010 CHRISTOPHEMRI CHEALN EWBU 85.00 148501 12/2/2010 CHWALEKS AFETYL LC 191.10 148502 12/2/2010 ERICA RMIN INC 1,271.43 148503 12/2/2010 EUGENED OGGITT 60.00 148504 12/2/2010 FITNESSF INDERS 59.29 148505 12/2/2010 FREDERICGKI LMORE 70.00 148506 12/2/2010 GARY L STEPHENS 37.50 148507 12/2/2010 GARY MCINTOSH 80.00 148508 12/2/2010 GLADYSF SWIFT 30.00 148509 12/2/2010 GLOVERSTR UCKP ARTS\u0026amp; EQU 1,524.64 148510 12/2/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSIN, C. 370.82 148511 12/2/2010 HIGHSMITHIN C 1,606.22 148512 12/2/2010 IMAGES 26.20 148513 12/2/2010 INTEGRATIONS ERVICECS ORP 7,981.20 148514 12/2/2010 J W PEPPER\u0026amp; SON 45.00 148515 12/2/2010 JAMES E GIVENS 50.00 148516 12/2/2010 JANISEG IBSON 60.00 148517 12/2/2010 JEFFERTYU RNER 85.00 148518 12/2/2010 JERMAINED LAYTON 30.00 148519 12/2/2010 K-LOG INC 549.00 148520 12/2/2010 KENNETHA KIRSPEL 500.00 148521 12/2/2010 KNOWBUDDYR ESOURCES 399.42 148522 12/2/2010 LAKESHORLEE ARNINGM ATERI 389.48 148523 12/2/2010 LOOKOUTB OOKS 214.55 148524 12/2/2010 LUCI A STEPHENS 37.50 148525 12/2/2010 MARDELC ORPORTAE OFFICE 539.95 148526 12/2/2010 MARLON MCFADDEN 70.00 148527 12/2/2010 MARVA WILLIAMS SIMS 55.00 148528 12/2/2010 MARY WALKER 153.32 148529 12/2/2010 MET LIFE 79.77 148530 12/2/2010 MONTRELS IMMONS 80.00 148531 12/2/2010 NATIONALB USINESSF URNIT U 428.00 148532 12/2/2010 OFFICED EPOT 244.70 148533 12/2/2010 PAMELA JACKSON 25.00 148534 12/2/2010 PFGL ITTLER OCK '- 18,027.06 148535 12/2/2010 PHYLLIST HOMPSON 60.00 148536 12/2/2010 POSITIVEP ROMOTIONS 230.60 Page T-1 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148537 12/2/2010 PYRAMID ART, BOOKS \u0026amp; CUST ! 1,647.06 1485381 12/2/2010 ROSETTAS TONEL TD i 8,900.00 148539! 12/2/2010 SAM C GRANT JR ! 80.00 --- ----- 1 1485401 12/2/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT i 465.60 148541! 12/2/2010 SAMUEL WILLIAMS Ill 80.00 148542: 12/2/2010 SCHOLASTIICN C ! 691.00 148543 12/2/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 1,409.74 148544 12/2/2010 SCIENCEK IT INC 1,248.37 148545 12/2/2010 STAPLESA DVANTAGE 66.13 148546 12/2/2010 STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO INC 161.95 148547 12/2/2010 SUNNY MILLER 70.00 148548 12/2/2010 TEODORE GONZALESJR 60.00 148549 12/2/2010 THEB LACKS TALLIONL ITERA 585.00 148550 12/2/2010 THEM ARKERBOARDP EOPLE 116.60 148551 12/2/2010 TRIPLEXIN C 43.54 148552 12/2/2010 TROUTMAN OIL CO INC 19,475.47 148553 12/2/2010 USABLE LIFE 212.09 148554 12/2/2010 US ABLEL IFEI NSURANCEC 58.40 148555 12/2/2010 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 490.95 148557 12/2/2010 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 6,618.41 148558 12/2/2010 VERNONLA WRENCE , 30.00 148559 12/2/2010 VICTOR ROY 30.00 148560 12/2/2010 VISIONS ERVICEP LAN (AR) 826.18 148561 12/2/2010 VSAINC 5,742.00 148562 12/2/2010 WALMARTCOMMUNITY BRC 737.71 148563 12/2/2010 YOLANDGAI BSON 55.00 148567 12/2/2010 ACEE DUCATIONASL UPPLIES 57.58 148568 12/2/2010 AHA PROCESISN CORPORATED 5,219.42 148569 12/2/2010 AMERICAN-PAPE\u0026amp;R TWINE CO .4,231.44 148570 12/2/2010 ARKANSAST URBO 188.03 148571 12/2/2010 BONNIEC URLIN . 22.85 148572 12/2/2010 CALLOWAYH OUSEI NC 216.87 148573 12/2/2010 COMCASTC ALBLEVISION 150.00 148574 12/2/2J10 COMMUNITPYL AYTHINGS 240.84 148575 12/2/2010 DIDAX 780.45 148576 12/2/2010 EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 474.25 148577 12/2/2010 EXPLORELE ARNING 2,500.00 148578 12/2/2010 GALAXYF URNITURE 656.10 148579 12/2/2010 J L HEINS ERVICEIN C 1,506.60 148580 12/2/2010 JERRYM ASSEY 136.16 148581 12/2/2010 KATHY ARMAN 20.75 148582 12/2/2010 KENM ARTINS CHOOLS UPPLY 172.78 148583 12/2/2010 KESSLERTSE AM SPORTS 2,307.15 148584 12/2/2010 KIDSD IRECTORLYL C 45.00 148585 12/2/2010 LACHER ROCKINS 9.24 148586 12/2/2010 LAURA JENNINGS 75.56 148587 12/2/2010 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 191.36 148588 12/2/2010 MU ALPHA THETA 1,130.00 North little Rock School District Check listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148589! 12/2/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKD IESEL 3,581.50 148590! 12/2/2010 NORTH POINT FORD INC 44.07 148591 12/2/2010 OLD FASHIONEDP RODUCTSIN 52.95 148592 12/2/2010 ORIENTALT RADINGC OMPANY 51.96 148593 12/2/2010 PRO-ED INC 1,001.00 148594 12/2/2010 TEACHERSD ISCOUNT 50.89 ----- - 148595 12/2/2010 US TOY COMPANY INC 233.20 148596 12/2/2010 WALLACEP RESSURWE ASHING 2,162.16 148597 12/2/2010 EMPLOYEEB ENEFITSD IVISIO 9,370.33 148598 12/2/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 346,623.77 148599 12/6/2010 BOBBY TRAFFANSTEDT 89.25 148600 12/6/2010 DEANN ROACH 35.91 148601 12/6/2010 DOROTHYF ARRIS 81.19 148602 12/6/2010 DREW CAMP 46.45 148603 12/6/2010 JAMES W WOODARD 187.28 148604 12/6/2010 JAMIE GOEBEL 88.45 148605 12/6/2010 KAREN POWELL 53.30 148606 12/6/2010 KESSLERT$E AMS PORTS 2,449.00 148607 12/6/2010 LARA HUMPHRIES 2,800.00 148608 12/6/2010 SANDRA CAMPBELL 31.84 148609 12/6/2010 SHERRYH ALL 65.31 148610 12/6/2010 SUSAN MILLER 16.21 148611 12/7/2010 BT SMITH DISTRIBUTING 601.68 148612 12/7/2010 1 TO 1 TUTOR LLC 637.00 148613 12/7/2010 A+ CLUB-BOYS\u0026amp;G IRLSC LUB 10,015.00 148614 12/7/2010 AHA PROCESISN CORPORATED 2,409.79 148615 12/7/2010 AMERICAD IRECTIN C 214.48 148616 12/7/2010 ANGIE COLCLASURE 39.77 148618 12/7/2010 CABOT FLORISTS 48.55 148619 12/7/2010 CATHERINEE WESTMORELAND 1,715.00 148620 12/7/2010 CHARLESU TLEY 110.50 148621 12/7/2010 CITY MARKET FOODS 565.84 148622 12/7/2010 DEBRA HOLMES 16.06 148623 12/7/2010 EAi EDUCATIONO RDERS 56.90 148624 12/7/2010 ELIZABETHB REWER 1,501.50 148625 12/7/2010 GALE 280.10 148626 12/7/2010 GILDA PIERCE 43.85 148627 12/7/2010 HYATTR EGENCCY OLUMBUS 476.34 148628 12/7/2010 JAMES W WOODARD 45.19 148629 12/7/2010 JANET E THOMAS P.T. 440.00 148630 12/7/2010 JIMMY MAHER 70.64 148631 12/7/2010 JULIE DRAKE 42.10 148632 12/7/2010 KATHERINEW EILER 43.68 148633 12/7/2010 KESSLERT$E AM SPORTS 9,170.32 148634 12/7/2010 KRISTIER ATLIFF 36.82 148635 12/7/2010 KRISTYM ATTHEWS 157.85 148636 12/7/2010 MELISSAF ARRAR 28.30 148637 12/7/2010 MOEMS 178.00 Page T-3 North little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148638 12/7/2010 NASCO : 58.10 148639 12/7/2010 NLRC HAMBERO F COMMERCE 24.00 148640 12/7/2010 NLR5DT RANSPORTATIODNE PT I 1,980.00 148641 12/7/2010 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 97.19 148642, 12/7/2010 POE TRAVEL 471.80 148643 __E -l712_010 PULASKTI ECHNICACL OLLEGE II 314.00 -- - -- --- ---- 148644 12/7/2010 PULASKTI ECHNICACL OLLEGE 1,166.00 148645 12/7/2010 PULASKTI ECHNICACL OLLEGE 922.00 148646 12/7/2010 RENA TAYLOR 65.81 148647 12/7/2010 RESOURCEFSO RR EADINGI NC 27.42 148649 12/7/2010 ROGERSP HOTOA RCHIVE 1,750.00 148650 12/7/2010 SAMSW HOLESALCEL UB 193.06 148651 12/7/2010 SP.RAR ICHMOND 90.63 148652 12/7/2010 SOUTHWESSTP ORTINGG OODS 1,676.32 148653 12/7/2010 STEVEC ANADY 21.97 148654 12/7/2010 SUPERD UPERIN C 84.45 148655 12/7/2010 SUZI THOMPSON 63.08 148656 12/7/2010 TERRIFICrs 194.40 148657 12/7/2010 TIME FOR KIDS 11.05 148658 12/7/2010 TOWNSENDP RESSB OOKC ENTE 383.92 148659 12/7/2010 VALERIET ORRES 62.21 148660 12/7/2010 VICKI STEADMAN 52.11 148661 12/7/2010 WILLIAM V MACGILL \u0026amp; CO 217.95 148662 12/7/2010 WINSTON TURNER 556.58 148663 12/7/2010 AFLAC 79.48 148664 12/7/2010 ALLIEDW ASTEM ODELFILLL A 104.15 148666 12/7/2010 ALLIEDW ASTES ERVICE#S8 5 7,788.50 148667 12/7/2010 ANTHONY CONNORS 80.00 148668 12/7/2010 ARKANSASA SSOCO F EDUCATI 380.00 148669 12/7/2010 ARKANSASD EPTO F HEALT H 200.00 148670 12/7/2010 ARKANSASF ILTERIN C 7,819.96 148671 12/7/2010 BLICKA RTM ATERIALS 60.05 148672 12/7/2010 BLIND,S HADE\u0026amp; SHUTTERC O 114.00 148673 12/7/20io BOILERIN SPECTIODNI VISIO 112.00 148674 12/7/2010 BROMLEYP ARTS\u0026amp; SERVICE 49.86 148675 12/7/2010 CALLOWAYH OUSEIN C 158.78 148676 12/7/2010 CENTERPOINETN ERGY 38.44 148677 12/7/2010 COCA-COLAE NTERPRISES 528.29 148678 12/7/2010 CPO SCIENCE 1,303.55 148679 12/7/2010 CROWB URLINGAMEC O 479.03 148680 12/7/2010 DIRECTS CHOOLS UPPLY 93.60 148681 12/7/2010 ELIZABETHPI PPINS 1,313.86 148682 12/7/2010 ERIC DALE BROWN 80.00 148683 12/7/2010 FOLLITT LIBRARY 1,025.75 148684 12/7/2010 FOLLETTL IBRARYR ESOURCES 114.27 148685 12/7/2010 FREYS CIENTIFICCO 640.21 148686 12/7/2010 GLADYSF SWIFT 60.00 148687 12/7/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSIN, C. 1,876.53 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148688 12/7/2010 INFORMATION SOLUTIONS I 229.00 148689 12/7/2010 INFORMATION VAULTING SERV 153.40 148690 12/7/2010 JBHM EDUCATIONG ROUP I 48,611.15 148691 12/7/2010 JERMAINE D LAYTON 30.00 148692 12/7/2010 JESSIEM CVAY 60.00 148693 12/7/2010 JODYE DRINGTON - - 63.33 148694 12/7/2010 LAKESHORLEE ARNINGM ATERI 1,038.60 148695 12/7/2010 LRPP UBLICATIONSD EPT1 07 588.70 148696 12/7/2010 M LEES MITH PUBLISHERLSL 347.00 148697 12/7/2010 MARDEL#8 144.90 148698 12/7/2010 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 87.64 148699 12/7/2010 MCINTIREE NTERPRISEINSC 1,518.06 148700 12/7/2010 METROB UILDERS\u0026amp; RESTORAT 2,203.43 148701 12/7/2010 MORRIS \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES 12,534.45 148702 12/7/2010 NCSP EARSONIN C 321.12 148703 12/7/2010 NEGWER DOOR SYSTEMS 4,590.00 148704 12/7/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKW INNELS 4,099.61 148705 12/7/2010 OFFICED EPOT 234.78 148706 12/7/2010 PATRICIAL ORADITCH 60.00 148707 12/7/2010 PREMIUMR EFRESHMENSTE RVI 62.93 148708 12/7/2010 REALLYG OODS TUFFI NC 600.01 148709 12/7/2010 RENAISSANCLEE ARNINGIN C 192.89 148710 12/7/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 392.26 148711 12/7/2010 SCHOLASTICIN C 1,001.70 148712 12/7/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 4,158.43 148713 12/7/2010 SEARCHS OFTS OLUTIONSIN C 16,100.00 148714 12/7/2010 SHIFFLERE QUIPMENTS ALES 401.71 148715 12/7/2010 SOCIALS TUDIESS CHOOLS ER 355.91 148716 12/7/2010 SOUTHERNP IPE\u0026amp; SUPPLY 922.42 148717 12/7/2010 SPORTS UPPLYG ROUPI NC 739.94 148718 12/7/2010 SPRINT 8,294.67 148719 12/7/2010 TEACHERD IRECT 708.02 148720 12/7/2010 TELETOUCH . 52.03 148721 12/7/2010 THE AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR 7.70 148722 12/7/2010 THE SWINGSETMALL.COMTEAM 779.70 148723 12/7/2010 TRANE ARKANSAS 1,163.61 148731 12/7/2010 TURNER DAIRY 32,587.14 148732 12/7/2010 US ABLE LIFE 63.86 148733 12/7/2010 US ABLE LIFE 133.67 148734 12/7/2010 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 530.75 ,_1_4_8_73_5_ 12/7/2010 VERIZONW IRELESS 4,556.50 148736 12/7/2010 VERNON LAWRENCE 60.00 148737 12/7/2010 VICTOR ROY 80.00 148738 12/7/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 1,110.60 148739 12/7/2010 WILLIAM BURGEIS 1,504.67 148740 12/7/2010 WOODWIND \u0026amp; BRASSWIND 82.99 148741 12/7/2010 WORLDR ESEARCCHO MPANY 913.00 148742 12/7/2010 XEROXC ORPORATION 988.10 Page T-5 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148743 12/8/2010 AARON BAILEY 75.00 148744 12/8/2010 ACT 414.00 148745 12/8/2010 ADRIAN CHILLIEST 85.00 148746 12/8/2010 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 148747 12/8/2010 ARETHAA DAMS 20.00 148748 12/8/2010 ,A__R. KANSASB LUEC ROSSB LUE 4,289.71 148749 12/8/2010 BOBBIER IGGINS 45.00 148750 12/8/2010 BRAD BOLDING 20.00 148751 12/8/2010 CHRISTOPHEBRR OCKM OORE 20.00 148752 12/8/2010 DARLENEH OLMES 37.82 148753 12/8/2010 DIAMOND STATE BUS COMPANY 8,689.77 148754 12/8/2010 EMPLOYEEB ENEFITSD IVISIO 304.34 148755 12/8/2010 FAYRENEN OONER 20.00 148756 12/8/2010 FRED HOKES 75.00 148757 12/8/2010 GARY L STEPHENS 62.50 148758 12/8/2010 ISAACSH ENRY 80.00 148759 12/8/2010 JANISEG IBSON 30.00 148760 12/8/2010 LOWE'S 850.29 148761 12/8/2010 LUCI A STEPHENS 62.50 148762 12/8/2010 MARTY ALLEN 20.00 148763 12/8/2010 MARVAW ILLIAMSS IMS 30.00 148764 12/8/2010 MEGAN JONES 20.00 148765 12/8/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKE LECTRI 584.46 148766 12/8/2010 OTIS RAY BANKS 20.00 148767 12/8/2010 PAMELAJ ACKSON 20.00 148768 12/8/2010 SARAHJ SHEPPARD 20.00 148769 12/8/2010 SHEMEKAS TRONG 75.00 148770 12/8/2010 STACEYW ATSON 80.00 148771 12/8/2010 THOMAS DWAYNE NOBLE 111 25.00 148772 12/8/2010 USABLE LIFE 554.40 148773 12/8/2010 UALRC ENTERF ORL ITERACY 2,500.00 148774 12/8/2010 UTILITYB ILLINGS ERVICES 562.06 148775 12/8/2010 VICTOR ROY 50.00 148776 12/8/2010 WESTC AMPUSA CTIVITYF UND 100.00 148777 12/8/2010 WILLIE JONES 85.00 148778 12/8/2010 YOLANDAG IBSON 30.00 148779 12/8/2010 ADVANCEDC ABLINGS YSTEMS 44,078.40 148780 12/8/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 438.66, 148781 .12/9/2010 ABCS UPPLYC O INC 299.02 148782 12/9/2010 ADT SECURITSYE RVICEISN C 25.64 148784 12/9/2010 ARKANSASB AG\u0026amp; EQUIPMENT 801.27 148785 12/9/2010 BANNERS IGN\u0026amp; BARRICADEI 214.48 148786 12/9/2010 BILL'SL OCK\u0026amp; SAFE 20.52 148787 12/9/2010 BRENDAB UTLER 55.44 148788 12/9/2010 BROOKSG REASES ERVICEIN C 212.50 148789 12/9/2010 CAROLT HORNTON 100.05 148790 12/9/2010 CEDRICB LACK 129.00 148791 12/9/2010 CERTIFIEDLA BORATORIES 594.00 o ...,. .\"'T C. North Little Rock School District Check listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148792: 12/9/2010 CLAUDIA MORAN ' 99.37 148793 12/9/2010 COMMUNITY PLAYTHINGS 309,96 148794i 12/9/2010 DAVIS PUBLICATIONS ' 39.95 I 148795 12/9/2010 DEMCO I - 513.49 148796 12/9/2010 DESTINATIONIM AGINATION i 390.00 148797 12/9/2010 DISCIPLINEA SSOCIATEISN C i 597.00 148798 12/9/2010 DISCOUNTS CHOOLS UPPLY 164.39 148799 12/9/2010 GRETCHENM CCOY 82.95 148800 12/9/2010 HAWTHORNEE DUCATIONASL ER 243.10 148801 12/9/2010 HEATHERR HODES-NEWBURN 53.97 148802 12/9/2010 HIGHSMITH INC 319.41 148803 12/9/2010 HOLLY MOORE 97.65 148804 12/9/2010 KIM JOHNSTON 22.22 148805 12/9/2010 NLRSDT RANSPORTATIODNE PT 615.00 148806 12/9/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOOLS 474.95 148807 12/9/2010 PALOSS PORTSIN C 468.40 148808 12/9/2010 PAPAM URPHYSO F ARKANSAS 3,072.00 148809 12/9/2010 POPPLERSM USICS TORE 45.70 i48810 12/9/2010 PREMIUM REFRESHMENSTE RVI 121.08 148811 12/9/2010 PULASKTI ECHNICALC OLLEGE 198.00 148812 12/9/2010 RESOURCEFSO RR EADINGIN C 25.45 148813 12/9/2010 RHONDA DICKEY 82.54 148814 12/9/2010 RISING STAR EDUCATION 134.85 148815 12/9/2010 SCHOOLS PECIATLY 215.02 148816 12/9/2010 SHIFFLERE QUIPMENTS ALES 43.88 148817 12/9/2010 SUSAN BADGETT 23.94 148818 12/9/2010 SUSAN SHURLEY 27.72 148819 12/9/2010 VARSITYS PIRITF ASHIONS 1,953.01 148820 12/9/2010 WILDCAT KITCHEN 125.00 148821 12/10/2010 A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES 488.15 148822 12/10/2010 ALERTS ERVICESIN C 28.04 148823 12/10/2010 ARCHF ORDE DUCATIONS ERV. 277.28 148824 12/10/2010 ARDI 375.00 148825 12/10/2010 ARKPNSASD OOR\u0026amp; HARDWARE 4,552.20 148826 12/10/2010 BASICSP LUS 197.90 148827 12/10/2010 BILL DUVALL 128.81 148828 12/10/2010 BLICKA RT MATERIALS 74.08 148829 12/10/2010 BLUEH ILLW RECKERS ERVICE 299.75 148830 12/10/2010 BOILERIN SPECTIOND IVISIO 51.00 148831 12/10/2010 BRODART 59.96 148832 12/10/2010 CABOT FLORISTS 86.99 148833 12/10/2010 CHARLA KAY BURKffi 1,715.00 148834 12/10/2010 DELTAF OREMOSTC HEMICALC 332.64 148835 12/10/2010 DIDAX 32.95 148836 12/10/2010 ERIC ARMIN INC 542.84 148837 12/10/2010 FOLLETTL IBRARYR ESOURCES 765.54 148838 12/10/2010 FREESTYLPEH OTOGRAPHISCU 199.92 148839 12/10/2010 G \u0026amp; H MATERIAL HANDELING 259.20 Page T-7 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148840 12/10/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSIN, C. 197.27 148841 12/10/2010 HONEYBAKEDH AM COMPANY 562.32 148842 12/10/2010 INTEGRATIONS ERVICECSO RP 5,922.72 148843 12/10/2010 KELLYR EDDIN 785.25 148844 12/10/2010 LAKESHORLEE ARNINGM ATERI I 751.27 148845 12/10/2010 LINEAGE 268.92 --- ~- 148846 12/10/2010 LOWE'S 786.46 148847 12/10/2010 MARILYN JAMIE EUBANKS 1,457.50 148848 12/10/2010 MELISSAE ZZI 247.00 148849 12/10/2010 NATIONALG EOGRAPHICSC HOO 5,699.43 148850 12/10/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKE LECTRI 664.88 148851 12/10/2010 PETSMART 99.18 148852 12/10/2010 SANDRA K TEMPEL 15.57 148853 12/10/2010 SANDRA WOOD 62.08 148854 12/10/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 95.40 148855 12/10/2010 SHANDRIAG ORDON 13.53 148856 12/10/2010 STAPLESA DVANTAGE 505.58 148857 12/10/2010 UPSTART 110.33 148858 12/10/2010 VOEGELEM ECHANICALC ONTRA 16,322.40 148859 12/10/2010 AEA 429.82 148860 12/10/2010 AEA FEDERACL REDITU NION 382.50 148861 12/10/2010 AFLAC 587.42 148862 12/10/2010 AMERIPRISEF INANCIALS ERV 150.00 148863 12/10/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEERS ETIR 904.46 148864 12/10/2010 AR TEACHERR ETIREMENRT ET 1,673.47 14886~ 12/10/2010 ARKANSASB LUEC ROSSB LUE 3,121.80 148866 12/10/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 42,155.69 148867 12/10/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 308.41 148868 12/10/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 52,902.18 148869 12/10/2010 CAPITALO NE BANK 10.00 148870 12/10/2010 CINTASC ORPORATIONLO C5 7 92.22 148871 12/10/2010 COLONIALL IFE\u0026amp; ACCIDENT 53.81 148872 12/10/2010 CONSECOL IFE 5.29 148873 12/10/2010 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 193.77 148874 12/10/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 8,550.50 148875 12/10/2010 EMPLOYEEB ENEFITSD IVISIO 40,721.78 148876 12/10/2010 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 124.13 148877 12/10/2010 ING RETIREMENPT LANS 290.00 148878 12/10/2010 ING SERVICEC ENTER 125.00 148879 12/10/2010 INTERNALR EVENUES ERVICE 25.00 148880 12/10/2010 JOYCEB RADLEYB ABIN 1,158.92 148881 12/10/2010 KEVMARC APITALC ORP 25.00 148882 12/10/2010 LAW OFFICEO FS TEPHENP L 386.24 148883 12/10/2010 LIFEI NSURANCEO F SOUTHWE 2,728.75 148884 12/10/2010 MARKT MCCARTYT RUSTEE 1,463.60 148885 12/10/2010 MET LIFE 755.50 148886 12/10/2010 NLRE DUCATORCSR EDITU NIO 5,172.15 148887 12/10/2010 NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK 209.25 0-,no T_O North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148888 12/10/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOOL 1,207.63 148889 12/10/2010 OCSE 3,149.46 148890 12/10/2010 OFFICEO F THEA TTORNEYG E 269.54 148891! 12/10/2010 TASC 192.96 148892 I 12/10/2010 THE MCHUGHES LAW FIRM LLC 247.21 148893' 12/10/2010 USABLE LIFE 477.55 ------ -- .. 148894 12/10/2010 US ABLE LIFE 1,679.80 148895 12/10/2010 US ABLE LIFE 556.64 148896 12/10/2010 US ABLE LIFE 1,058.28 148897 12/10/2010 U SABLEL IFEI NSURANCEC 597.11 148898 12/10/2010 U SABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY 4.93 148899 12/10/2010 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 1,774.33 148900 12/10/2010 US DEPARTMENTO F EDUCATI 96.13 148901 12/10/2010 UNltED WAY OF PULASKCI OU 34.83 148902 12/10/2010 UNUM LIFEI NSURANCEO F AM 5.90 148903 12/10/2010 VALIC-VARIABLEA NNUITY 725.00 148904 12/10/2010 VISIONS ERVICEP LAN( AR) 722.99 148905 12/13/2010 A'TESTC ONSULTANTISN C 25.00 148907 12/13/2010 ADT SECURITYS ERVICEISN C 1,435.34 148908 12/13/2010 AMERICANA SSOCO. F SCHOOL 426.00 148909 12/13/2010 ARKANSASA CTIVITIESA SSOC 192.00 148910 12/13/2010 BARNESA ND NOBLE 299.28 148911 12/13/2010 BLICKA RT MATERIALS 326.38 148912 12/13/2010 CICl'S PIZZA 208.00 148913 12/13/2010 ERIC ARMIN INC 80.75 148914 12/13/2010 FITNESSF INDERS 236.97 148915 12/13/2010 FOLLETTL IBRARYR ESOURCES 289.10 148916 12/13/2010 GARRETTB LAKENSHIP 153.56 148917 12/13/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSIN, C. 772.30 148918 12/13/2010 GOLDEN CORRAL 56.00 148919 12/13/2010 GOLDEN CORRAL 84.00 148920 12/13/2010 GREG SEATON 50.00 148921 12/13/2010 HM RECEIVABLECSO LLC 10,744.13 148922 12/13/2010 HUEY PUGH 200.00 148923 12/13/2010 INTEGRATIONS ERVICECSO RP 5,306.04 148924 12/13/2010 J W PEPPER\u0026amp; SON 322.79 148925 12/13/2010 JBHM EDUCATIONG ROUP 18,055.57 148926 12/13/2010 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARYACTIV 187.97 148927 12/13/2010 LANTRIPC ONSTRUCTION 2,175.00 148928 12/13/2010 LINEAGE 30.00 148929 12/13/2010 MARTHA NORTON 1,732.50 148930 12/13/2010 MELISSAE ZZI 1,006.00 148931 12/13/2010 MOESS OUTHWESTG RILL 186.45 148932 12/13/2010 MULTICULTURAAL MERICAI NC 550.00 148933 12/13/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKP OLICE 1,147.50 148934 12/13/2010 OFFICED EPOT 804.92 148935 12/13/2010 PETTUSO FFICEP RODUCTS 1,546.56 148936 12/13/2010 RISP APERC OMPANY,I NC. 23,514.62 Page T-9 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148937 12/13/2010 SAIED MUSIC CO 139.30 148938 12/13/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 566.57 148939 12/13/2010 SANDRA PINKSTAFF 24.86 148940 12/13/2010 SCHOLASTICIN C 18.97 148941 12/13/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 290.36 1- 48942 12/13/2010 SCHOOLS PECIALITY 135.80 148943 12/13/2010 SEVENTHS TREETE LEMA CTIV 65.00 148944 12/13/2010 SOCIALS TUDIESS CHOOLS ER 149.89 148945 12/13/2010 STAGEWORKISN C 29.03 148946 12/13/2010 STAPLESA DVANTAGE 106.49 148947 12/13/2010 STEPHANIET REVINO 40.00 148948 12/13/2010 TAYLOR DUGAN 310.00 148949 12/13/2010 US PIZZA CO 147.63 148950 12/13/2010 UTILITYB ILLINGS ERVICES 817.95 148951 12/13/2010 VICTOR D RODERIQUEZ 315.00 148952 12/13/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 838.64 148953 12/13/2010 WILLIAM SINGLETON 110.00 148954 12/10/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEERSE TIR 96.00 148955 12/10/2010 AR TEACHERR ETIREMENRT ET 126.00 148956 12/10/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 3,540.66 148957 12/10/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 42.00 148958 12/10/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 3,780.00 148959 12/10/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 211.73 148960 12/10/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEERSE TIR 6.04 148961 12/10/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 60.00 148962 12/10/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 72.02 148963 12/10/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 3.83 148964 12/14/2010 PAM MANN 414.14 148965 12/14/2010 PATRICIAK AISER 25.00 148966 12/14/2010 AHA PROCESISN CORPORATED 5,279.95 148967 12/14/2010 ASHLEYE ATON 232.80 148968 12/14/2010 BOBBIE J RIGGINS 86.40 148969 12/14/2010 CABOT FLORISTS 48.5S 148970 12/14/2010 CAPSTONEP RESS 683.6S 148971 12/14/2010 CAROLINAB IOLOGICASL UPPL 108.22 148972 12/14/2010 CHRISTINAT ENNISON 44.50 148973 12/14/2010 CLIFFORDP OWERS YSTEMIN C 739.30 148974 12/14/2010 CURRICULUMA SSOCIATEISN C 859.32 148975 12/14/2010 DATA MANAGEMENT 86.04 148976 12/14/2010 DINAH-MIGHTA DVENTURELSP 183.1S 148977 12/14/2010 DISCIPLINEA SSOCIATEISN C 199.00 148978 12/14/2010 ENVIRONMENTATLE CHNOLIGIE 225.00 148979 12/14/2010 ERIKA RAINEY 27.72 148980 12/14/2010 FOLLETTS OFTWAREC OMPANY 1\n08S.6S 148981 12/14/2010 HEATHERR HODES-NEWBURN 37.50 148982 12/14/2010 KESSLERTSE AM SPORTS 966.43 148983 12/14/2010 LADORISB ELL 8S.00 148984 12/14/2010 LILLIANG RACED EACON 76.81 n---,..  n North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 148985 12/14/2010 M J COMMUNICATIONS 37.80 148986 12/14/2010 MCM 45.30 148987 12/14/2010 MELISSAW ALLS 27.72 148988 12/14/2010 NATIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMEN 149.00 148989 12/14/2010 NLRSDT RANSPORTATIODNE PT 1,050.00 148990 12/14/2010iPATRICIA MCMURRAY 27.72 148991 12/14/2010 PAULETTEB LEVINS 242.12 148992 12/14/2010 PERMABOUND 622.28 148993 12/14/2010 PHELEISAW OODS 27.72 148994 12/14/2010 PHYLLISM CDONALD 47.33 148995 12/14/2010 POPLARS TREETM IDDLEA CTI 268.20 148996 12/14/2010 PREMIUMR EFRESHMENSTE RVI 10.80 148997 12/14/2010 RHONDA BROWN 241.88 148998 12/14/2010 RICHARDA LEXANDER 306.00 148999 12/14/2010 ROSEC ITYM IDDLEA CTIVITY 204.24 149000 12/14/2010 SHANNON T PHILLIPS 3.42 149001 12/14/2010 SHARON ELDRED 52.72 149004 12/14/2010 HOME TURF INC 17,655.00 149005 12/15/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEESR ETIR 12.00 149006 12/15/2010 AR TEACHERR ETIREMENTR ET 238.00 149007 12/15/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 20,868.08 149008 12/15/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 1,988.00 149009 12/15/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 21,383.63 149010 12/15/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 1,669.69 149011 12/15/2010 LIFEI NSURANCEO F SOUTHWE 7.50 149012 12/15/2010 AR TEACHERR ETIREMENTR ET 113.99 149013 12/15/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 11,580.00 149014 12/15/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 25.00 149015 12/15/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 1,262.18 149016 12/15/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 12,249.89 149017 12/15/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 1,272.12 149018 12/15/2010 LIFEI NSURANCEO F SOUTHWE 83.02 149019 12/15/2010 AAEA 109.99 149020 12/15/2010 AEA 151.04 149021 12/15/2010 AEA FEDERACL REDITU NION 1,557.00 149022 12/15/2010 AFLAC 1,282.95 149023 12/15/2010 AMERIPRISEFI NANCIALS ERV 6,455.00 149024 12/15/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEERS ETIR 96.60 149025 12/15/2010 ART EACHERR ETIREMENTR ET 6,053.09 149026 12/15/2010 ARKANSASB LUEC ROSSB LUE 22,861.04 149027 12/15/2010 ARKANSATSE ACHERR ETIREME 345,389.45 149028 12/15/2010 ARKANSATSE ACHERR ETIREME 212.14 149029 12/15/2010 ARKANSATSE ACHERR ETIREME 38,254.14 149030 12/15/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 496,496.15 149031 12/15/2010 C.T.A 5,276.88 149032 12/15/2010 CINTASC ORPORATIONLO C5 7 29.41 149033 12/15/2010 COLONIALL IFE\u0026amp; ACCIDENT 122.91 149034 12/15/2010. CONSECOLI FE 28.75 Page T-11 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149035 12/15/2010 CREDITS ERVICEC O 276.22 149036 12/15/2010 DATAPATHA DMINISTRATIVES 312.50 149037 12/15/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 94,378.23 149038 12/15/2010 EMPLOYEEB ENEFITSD IVISIO 205,730.28 149039 12/15/2010 FABERA ND BRANDL LC 220.34 149040 12/15/2010 FAMILYS UPPORTR EGISTRY 381.21 149041 12/15/2010 GREAT AMERICAN ADVISORS 4,428.74 149042 12/15/2010 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 147.88 149043 12/15/2010 ILLINOISS TATED ISBURSEME 425.00 149044 12/15/2010 ING-457 575.00 149045 12/15/2010 ING RETIREMENTP LANS 2,537.50 149046 12/15/2010 ING SERVICEC ENTER 150.00 149047 12/15/2010 INTERNALR EVENUES ERVICE 50.00 149048 12/15/2010 JOSHE MCHUGHESA TTORNEY 151.03 149049 12/15/2010 JOYCEB RADLEYB ABIN 2,632.88 149051 12/15/2010 LAW OFFICEO F STEPHENP L 316.82 149052 12/15/2010 LIFEI NSURANCEO F SOUTHWE 3,655.08 149053 12/15/2010 MARKT MCCARTYT RUSTEE 2,293.60 149054 12/15/2010 MET LIFE 3,130.76 149055 12/15/2010 MG TRUST COMPANY LLC 6,462.67 149056 12/15/2010 MICHIGAN STATE DISBURSEME 170.00 149057 12/15/2010 MID SOUTHA DJUSTMENTC O I 170.75 149058 12/15/2010 NCOF INANCIALS YSTEMSIN C 242.30 149059 12/15/2010 NLRE DUCATORCSR EDITU NIO 38,429.69 149060 12/15/2010 NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK 111.40 149061 12/15/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOOL 268.04 149062 12/15/2010 OCSE 2,463.83 149063 12/15/2010 PHEAA 96.96 149064 12/15/2010 PIONEERC REDITR ECOVERIY 201.74 149065 12/15/2010 SBG-VAA 698.00 149066 12/15/2010 TASC 13,128.24 149067 12/15/2010 THE MCHUGHESL AW FIRM LLC 94.35 149068 12/15/2010 US ABLE LIFE 2,475.13 149069 12/15/2010 USABLE LIFE 14,422.10 149070 12/15/2010 USABLE LIFE 4,354.36 149071 12/15/2010 USABLE LIFE 4,599.16 149072 12/15/2010 U SABLEL IFEI NSURANCEC 2,068.24 149073 12/15/2010 U SABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY 35.23 149074 12/15/2010 U S ABLE LIFE/CANCER 7,206.76 149075 12/15/2010 US DEPARTMENOT F EDUCATI 238.06 149076 12/15/2010 UNITEDW AY OF PULASKCI OU 640.97 149077 12/15/2010 UNUM LIFEI NSURANCEO FA M 1,033.05 149078 12/15/2010 VALIC-VARIABLEA NNUITY 17,447.00 149079 12/15/2010 VALIC-VARIABLAEN NUITYL I 175.00 149080 12/15/2010 VISIONS ERVICEP LAN( AR) 3,822.55 149081 12/15/2010 AAEA 110.00 149082 12/15/2010 ARCHF ORDE DUCATIONS ERV. 192.09 149083 12/15/2010 ARKANSASD EMOCRATG AZETTE 19,567.00 Page T-12 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149084 12/15/2010 BARNESA ND NOBLE 683.27 149085 12/15/2010 BROUKER EYNOLDS 37.63 149086 12/15/2010 NL R WINTEMP SUPPLY 258.71 149087 12/15/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKW IN NELS 672.87 149088 12/15/2010 P \u0026amp; KENT LLC 113.50 149089 12/15/2010 PPGA RCHITECTURAFLI NISHE 21.25 ----- - 149090 12/15/2010 REFRIGERATIO\u0026amp;N ELECTRIC 241.86 149091 12/15/2010 SCHOOLS PECIATLY 11.87 149093 12/15/2010 WILDCAT KITCHEN 110.00 149094 12/15/2010 A \u0026amp; A FIRE\u0026amp; SAFETYC OMPA 37.80 149095 12/15/2010 ALARMCO INCORPORATED 620.00 149096 12/15/2010 ALLISONF CALLAHAN 2,029.80 149097 12/15/2010 AMERICAN PIE PIZZA 697.17 149098 12/15/2010 AMIE R TOWNLEY 2,325.00 149099 12/15/2010 ARCHF ORDE DUCATIONS ERV. 4.86 149100 12/15/2010 BILL'SL OCK\u0026amp; SAFE 15.12 149101 12/15/2010 BLICKA RTM ATERIALS 282.85 149102 12/15/2010 BOBBIER IGGINS 25.00 149103 12/15/2010 BROMLEYP ARTS\u0026amp; SERVICE 218.23 149104 12/15/2010 CARINOSIT ALIANK ITCHEN 389.11 149105 12/15/2010 CHARLEGS RAY 85.00 149io6 12/15/2010 CHARLESM ROZZELL 200.00 149107 12/15/2010 CINTASC ORPORATIONLO C5 7 26.74 149108 12/15/2010 CITY YEAR INC 10,000.00 149109 12/15/2010 COCA-COLAU SA 1,769.68 149110 12/15/2010 COMTREADIN C 650.00 149111 12/15/2010 CRAIG EDWARDS 196.00 149112 12/15/2010 CUMMINGS MID SOUTH LLC 42.17 149113 12/15/2010 CYNTHIAW OODS 30.00 149114 12/15/2010 D R INSTRUMENTS 157.50 149115 12/15/2010 DARYL FIMPLE 1,200.00 149116 12/15/2010 DATEK, INC 2,164.93 149117 12/15/2010 DEMCO 334.93 149118 12/15/2010 ED'SS UPPLYC O 131.55 149119 12/15/2010 FERRELLGAS 76.10 149120 12/15/2010 GARY L STEPHENS 37.50 149121 12/15/2010 GCRN ORTHL ITTLER OCKT IR 4,638.00 149122 12/15/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSI,N C. 226.37 149123 12/15/2010 GRAYBARC OMPANYI NC 140.32 149124 12/15/2010 GREG HOLLAND 300.00 149125 12/15/2010 HASLER 894.24 149126 12/15/2010 HUM'S HARDWARE 43.18 149127 12/15/2010 JOSHENP APERO F ARKANSAS 60.72 149128 12/15/2010 JULIE DRAKE 18.66 149129 12/15/2010 JUNIORL IBRARYG UILD 502.20 149130 12/15/2010 KEVIN DANAHER 103.38 149131 12/15/2010 KONE INC 429.27 149132 12/15/2010 LANTRIPC ONSTRUCTION 3,047.00 Page T-13 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149133 12/15/2010 LAS PALMAS V 99.50 149134 12/15/2010 LITTLER OCKW IN NELSONC O. 445.58 149135 12/15/2010 LOWE'S 931.47 149136 I 12/15/2010' LUCI A STEPHENS 37.50 149137 12/15/2010 LYNDA SISCO i 120.79 149138 12/15/2010 MARDEL#8- I 9.24 149139 12/15/2010 MARLON MCFADDEN 80.00 149140 12/15/2010 MARVIN LOVE 50.00 149141 12/15/2010 MELISSAE ZZI 1,365.00 149142 12/15/2010 MIDSOUTHD ISTRIBUTINGU SA 63.52 149143 12/15/2010 MITCHELLW IILIAMS,P .L.L. 202.51 149144 12/15/2010 MULTICULTURAALM ERICAI NC 9,800.00 149145 12/15/2010 NAEIR 58.41 149146 12/15/2010 NASCO 122.22 149147 12/15/2010 NEGWERD OORS YSTEMS 367.20 149148 12/15/2010 NLR WELDING SUPPLY 6.32 149149 12/15/2010 OFFICED EPOT 690.13 149150 12/15/2010 PATRICKD ORSE 30.00 149151 12/15/2010 PCIE DUCATIONAPL UBLISHIN 172.39 149152 12/15/2010 PEDIATRICPSL UST HERAPYS 2,970.00 149153 12/15/2010 l\u0026gt;ERMAB OUND 819.43 149154 12/15/2010 PLAY \u0026amp; PARK STRUCTURES 1,242.08 149155 12/15/2010 PREMIUMR EFRESHMENSTE RVI 43.21 149156 12/15/2010 PROMOTIONP LUS 194.18 149157 12/15/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 242.40 149158 12/15/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 496.11 149159 12/15/2010 SHEIKAR OWELL 25.45 149160 12/15/2010 SHRED-IT 55.00 149161 12/15/2010 THEA RKANSASA RTSC ENTER 160.00 149162 12/15/2010 TRANE ARKANSAS 1,405.68 149163 12/15/2010 TROUTMAN OIL CO INC 2,454.62 149164 12/15/2010 VERNON LAWRENCE 30.00 149165 12/15/2010 VICTORR OY 80.00 149166 12/15/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 888.12 149167 12/15/2010 WILLIAM DAVIS 85.00 149168 12/15/2010 MITCHST IRES ERVICE 627.00 149169 12/15/2010 SCHNEIDEERL ECTRIC 91,061.96 149170 12/16/2010 4 IMPRINT 187.83 149171 12/16/2010 ALEE LYNN FAIRRIS 195.00 149172 12/16/2010 ALISHA HERRING 163.80 149173 12/16/2010 AMANDA WARE 12.64 149174 12/16/2010 AMY VOLLMAN 241.50 149175 12/16/2010 ANDRIA SMITH 113.40 149176 12/16/2010 ASPMA 100.00 149177 12/16/2010 BRANDYN ESSELRODT 147.00 149178 12/16/2010 BROCKM OORE 102.82 149179 12/16/2010 BROOKEB RICKER 165.48 149180 12/16/2010 CROSSC OUNTRYE DUCATION 189.00 P::iao T-1.ll North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149181112/16/2010 CUSTOM PRINTING 6,670.80 149182 12/16/2010 DENNYE LIZABETHB UTTREY 960.00 149183 12/16/2010 ENVIRONMENTATLE CHNOLIGIE 385.00 149184 12/16/2010 KIDSOURCTEH ERAPPY 1,394.25 149185 12/16/2010 KIM REYNOLDS 193.62 149186 12/16/2010 LAKEWOODM IDDLES CHOOL I 95.00 -- -- 149187 12/16/2010 MARTHA DRENNAN 945.00 149189 12/16/2010 MOLLY SMITH 337.00 149190 12/16/2010 NLRSDT RANSPORTATIODNE PT 105.00 149191 12/16/2010 ROSEC ITYM IDDLEA CTIVITY 95.44 149192 12/16/2010 SCHOOLM ART 829.31 149193 12/16/2010 SHEDRICWK ARREN 12.96 149194 12/16/2010 SIMPLEXGRINNELLP 796.63 149195 12/16/2010 SPECTRUMP AINT 60.13 149196 12/16/2010 STANLEHY ARDWAREC O 121.90 149197 12/16/2010 STARB OLT\u0026amp; SCREWC O INC 89.54 149198 12/16/2010 TALKINGP OINTSP EDIATRIC 3,480.00 149199 12/16/2010 THES PORTSTOIPN C 233.55 149200 12/16/2010 TREADWAYE LECTRICO MPANY 1,232.30 149201 12/16/2010 VALERIET ORRES 130.00 149202 12/17/2010 ALICIA ANN SIMS 1,046.25 149203 12/17/2010 AMANDA YATES 214.20 149204 12/17/2010 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGH,E A 4,500.00 149205 12/17/2010 ARKANSASC HILDRENSH OSPIT 2,090.00 149206 12/17/2010 ASCD 56.90 149207 12/17/2010 BARNESA ND NOBLE 108.64 149208 12/17/2010 BOBBIEJ RIGGINS 43.20 149209 12/17/2010 BRODART 78.21 149210 12/17/2010 CURRY'STE RMITE\u0026amp; PESTC O 950.40 149211 12/17/2010 DANA MCCOY 130.62 149212 12/17/2010 DAWNE CARROLL 55.44 149213 12/17/2010 DEBBIER OPERB RYAN 111.30 149214 12/17/2010 DEBORAHL EAP OE 1,200.00 149215 12/17/2010 DEMCO 197.46 149216 12/17/2010 DYNAV OXS YSTEMSL LC 137.98 149217 12/17/2010 EAi EDUCATION 1,065.01 149218 12/17/2010 ETA CUISENAIRE 66.98 149219 12/17/2010 FARRELL-CALHOUPNA INTC O 2,367.15 149220 12/17/2010 FOLLETST OFTWAREC OMPANY 303.94 149221 12/17/2010 GRAINGER 52.82 149222 12/17/2010 HIGHSMITHIN C 303.47 149223 12/17/2010 ISTE 320.00 149224 12/17/2010 JANET FOSTER 175.98 149225 12/17/2010 KATE SLAY 66.78 149226 12/17/2010 KAY ADAMS 19.34 149227 12/17/2010 KEVA RODGERS 204.96 149228 12/17/2010 KEVIN DAVIS 95.76 149229 12/17/2010 KIDSOURCTEH ERAPPY 1,966.25 Page T-15 North little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149230 12/17/2010 LAQUINTA INN \u0026amp; SUITES 463.68 149231 12/17/2010 LAURA WINTERS 26.71 149232 12/17/2010 LESLIEE ASON 152.88 149233 12/17/2010 MARCIA CHAPPLE-DEAN i 135.24 149234 12/17/2010 MARYC AROLYNE AST ! ! 18.82 149235 12/17/2010 MCDONALD DASH : 306.68 149236 12/17/2010 MCINTIREE NTERPRISEINSC 1,551.27 149237 1?./17/2010 MEREDITHS HIPMAN 22.26 149238 12/17/2010 MICHAEL CLARK 55.44 149239 12/17/2010 MICHELET RETTER 111.30 149240 12/17/2010 MOLLY SMITH 360.00 149241 12/17/2010 NANCY STEWART 89.88 149242 12/17/2010 OLA PERRY 168.00 149243 12/17/2010 PAPAM URPHYSO FA RKANSAS 2,046.00 149244 12/17/2010 PLAY \u0026amp; PARK STRUCTURES 6,426.00 149245 12/17/2010 REBECCWA INTERS 63.84 149246 12/17/2010 RHONDA BANl(S 55.44 149247 12/17/2010 SAMANTHA CURRAN 46.20 149248 12/17/2010 SARAH CHILDERS 178.92 149249 12/17/2010 SARAH RALEY 135.66 149250 12/17/2010 SCHOLASTICB OOKF AIRS 200.00 149251 12/17/2010 TABITHA ROSEBERRY 197.82 149252 12/17/2010 TAMMIE DILLON 24.95 149253 12/17/2010 THE RITZC ARLTONP HILADEL 1,533.30 149254 12/17/2010 THELMA JASPER 78.12 149255 12/17/2010 THERAPYP ROVIDERPSA 6,270.00 149256 12/17/2010 TRACEER AINEY 72.66 149257 12/17/2010 TRIVIA MARKETING 1,390.53 149258 12/17/2010 UNIVERSITOY FC ENTRALA RK 625.00 149259 12/17/2010 ADAMS PRODUCEC OMPANYI NC 4,617.75 149260 12/17/2010 AMERICA'SC HOICE 315.00 149261 12/17/2010 ARKANSAS TATEP OLICE 327.25 149262 12/17/2010 BARBARAJO HNSTON 145.10 149263 12/17/2010 BENE KEITH 1,681.37 149264 12/17/2010 BESTB UY 685.22 149265 12/17/2010 BESTB UY 429.99 149266 12/17/2010 BLUEB ELLC REAMERIELSP .. 938.70 149267 12/17/2010 BOBBIEJ RIGGINS 99.88 149268 12/17/2010 BONNIE CURLIN 69.90 149269 12/17/2010 CAROLINEC ROW 124.80 149270 12/17/2010 COCA-COLAE NTERPRISES 1,967.68 149271 12/17/2010 DARLENEH OLMES 134.66 149272 12/17/2010 DARYL FIMPLE 500.00 149273 12/17/2010 DEPARTMENOT F HUMAN SERVI 170.00 149274 12/17/2010 DIAMONDS TATEB USC OMPANY 307.99 149275 12/17/2010 DISCOUNTM UFFLER 208.95 149276 12/17/2010 DOROTHYW ILLIAMS 14.00 149277 12/17/2010 EDUCATORBSO OKD EPOSITORY 19,317.73 n--- T ,. r North little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149278 12/17/2010 FERRELLGAS 114.08 149279 12/17/2010 FLOORCOVERINGINST ERNATIO 6,400.62 1492801 12/17/2010 FREESTYLPEH OTOGRAPHISCU I 89.99 149281 12/17/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSIN, C. 5,165.77 149282 12/17/2010 GOODSELTLR UCKA CCESSORIE I 462.62 149283 12/17/2010 GREGGT HOMPSON I 21.96 .....---- 149284 12/17/2010 INTERSTATBER ANDS 1,869.60 149285 12/17/2010 JANISEG IBSON 15.00 149286 12/17/2010 KRISTYD ODD 80.00 149287 12/17/2010 LAKESHORLEE ARNINGM ATER! 240.62 149288 _12/17/2 010 LINDSEY'SB ARBECU\u0026amp;E CATE 139.86 149289 12/17/2010 LORI ASMITH 11.83 149290 12/17/2010 MARDEL#8 51.01 149291 12/17/2010 MCALISTER$ 112.11 149292 12/17/2010 NANCY L PRIEST 21.61 149293 12/17/2010 NAPA AUTO PARTS 792.25 149294 12/17/2010 NLRSDT RANSPORTATIODNE PT 2,040.00 149295 12/17/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKE LECTRI 261.38 149296 12/17/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKP OLICE 442.50 149297 12/17/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOOLS 489.14 149298 12/17/2010 PANERAB READ 167.02 149299 12/17/2010 PETTIT\u0026amp; PETTITC OUNSULTI 777.13 149300 12/17/2010 PFGL ITTLER OCK 19,324.96 149301 12/17/2010 POE TRAVEL 450.00 149302 12/17/2010 PREMIUMR EFRESHMENSTE RVI 34.85 149303 12/17/2010 REBECCBAA ILEY 54.27 149304 12/17/2010 ROSEC ITYM IDDLEA CTIVITY 78.00 149305 12/17/2010 ROSIEC OLEMAN 57.63 149306 12/17/2010 SAFETY- KLEENIN C 413.26 149307 12/17/2010 SAM C GRANT JR 40.00 149308 12/17/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 386.44 149309 12/17/2010 SARA ROZZELL 561.64 149310 12/17/2010 SCHNEIDEERL ECTRIC 85,956.72 149311 12/17/2010 SCHOLASTIICN C 16,49:.-71 149312 12/17/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 1,300.95 149313 12/17/2010 SPORTS UPPLYG ROUPI NC 848.50 149314 12/17/2010 STATEO F ARKANSAS 19,003.00 149315 12/17/2010 SYSCOF OODS ERVICOE F ARK 34,567.51 149316 12/17/2010 TANKERSLEFYO ODSERVICE 6,847.70 149317 12/17/2010 THEA RKANSASA RTC ENTER 160.00 149318 12/17/2010 TROUTMAN OIL CO INC 20,907.58 149319 12/17/2010 US FOODSERVICE 1,326.85 149320 12/17/2010 UTILITYB ILLINGS ERVICES 716.93 149321 12/17/2010 VERLANCITEU CKER 15.00 149322 12/17/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 1,342.31 149323 12/17/2010 YOLANDAG IBSON 15.00 149324 12/21/2010 AMERICA'SC HOICE 77,500.00 149325 12/21/2010 AMIE R TOWNLEY 945.00 Page T-17 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149326 12/21/2010 ANGIE COLCLASURE 24.30 149327 12/21/2010 APPLEC OMPUTERIN C 754.92 149328 12/21/2010,ARKANSASS TATEU NIVERSITY 1,250.00 149329 12/21/2010 ARKANSAS TATEU NIVERSITY 1,250.00 149330 12/21/2010 AT\u0026amp;T LONG DISTANCE 189.44 149331 12/21/2010 CARLTON-BATECSO . 35.00 - 149332 12/21/2010 CARTRIDGWE ORLD 65.64 149333 12/21/2010 CATHERINEE WESTMORELAND 2,065.00 149335 12/21/2010 CENTERPOINETN ERGY 23,621.92 149336 12/21/2010 COBB\u0026amp; SUSKIEL TD 15,375.00 149337 12/21/2010 DENNYE LIZABETHB UTTREY 735.00 149338 12/21/2010 ELIZABETHB REWER 1,881.00 149339 12/21/2010 INFORMATIONN ETWORKO F AR 396.00 149340 12/21/2010 INK ENTERPRISEINSC 971.06 149341 12/21/2010 INTEGRATIONS ERVICECS ORP 1,704.28 149342 12/21/2010 JACKN ELSONJ ONESJ ILES\u0026amp; 406.50 149343 12/21/2010 JAMES E. SMITH, JR. ATTY 357.50 149344 12/21/2010 JODY EDRINGTON 113.25 149345 12/21/2010 JUST FOR KIDS 1,722.50 149346 12/21/2010 KROGERC OMPANY/ MCCAIN# 6 206.57 149347 12/21/2010 LAMPSA ND SCREENOS NLINE 285.12 149348 12/21/2010 LINDY JONES 98.28 149349 12/21/2010 LOWE'S 290.52 149350 12/21/2010 MCALISTERS 206.46 149351 12/21/2010 MCINTIREE NTERPRISEINSC 49.15 149352 12/21/2010 MELISSAEZZI 720.00 149353 12/21/2010 MOLLY SMITH 360.00 149354 12/21/2010 NEWPORTTV 2,900.00 149356 12/21/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKE LECTRI 79,494.40 149357 12/21/2010 OFFICED EPOT 195.66 149358 12/21/2010 PAIGE BANGS 64.71 149359 12/21/2010 PEACHTREBEU SINESSP RODUC 140.00 149360 12/21/2010 PEDIATRICPSL UST HERAPYS 1,335.00 149361 12/21/2010 PITTUSO FFICEP RODUCTS 390.96 149362 12/21/2010 PRO-ACTIN C\n469.80 149363 12/21/2010 QUESTIONSG ALORE 320.00 149364 12/21/2010 RENA TAYLOR 36.43 149365 12/21/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 353.58 149366 12/21/2010 SCHOLASTIICN C 977.73 149367 12/21/2010 SETTLEO FFICEP RODUCTS 39.96 149368 12/21/2010 SHERRYH ALL 45.65 149369 12/21/2010 SUSAN MILLER 20.24 149370 12/21/2010 TANKERSLEFYO ODSERVICE 1,107.00 149371 12/21/2010 THEC OLLEGEB OARD 325.00 149372 12/21/2010 THOMAS STRINGFELLOW 49.50 149373 12/21/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC  694.08 149374 12/21/2010 WENDYSO F LITTLER OCKI NC 216.45 149375 12/21/2010 WINDSTREAMC OMMUNICATIONS 106,786.72 P::io\" T-1 SI North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149376 12/22/2010 ALLISON F CALLAHAN I 2,104.08 149377 12/22/2010 INTEGRATIONS ERVICECSO RP 1,513.08 149378 12/22/2010 LARA HUMPHRIES 3,587.50 149379 12/22/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKE LECTRI 921.08 149380 12/22/2010 PULASKCI OUNTYT REASURER 5,315.33 149381 12/22/2010 SAFETY- KLEENIN C 519.15 149382 12/22/2010 UTILITYB ILLINGS ERVICES 841.29 149383 12/22/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 19.03 149384 12/22/2010 WINDSTREAMC OMMUNICATIONS 19,158.52 149385 12/22/2010 AEA 415.02 149386 12/22/2010 AEA FEDERACL REDITU NION 382.50 149387 12/22/2010 AFLAC 587.42 149388 12/22/2010 AMERIPRISEFI NANCIALS ERV 150.00 149389 12/22/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEERSE TIR 1,014.00 149390 12/22/2010 ART EACHERR ETIREMENRT ET 1,882.34 149391 12/22/2010 ARKANSASB LUEC ROSSB LUE 3,109.51 149392 12/22/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 47,546.63 149393 12/22/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 361.84 149394 12/22/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 59,264.89 149395 12/22/2010 CAPITALO NE BANK 10.00 149396 12/22/2010 CINTASC ORPORATIONLO C5 7 88.72 149397 12/22/2010 COLONIALL IFE\u0026amp; ACCIDENT 53.81 149398 12/22/2010 CONSECOLI FE 5.29 149399 12/22/2010 CULLEN\u0026amp; CO PLLC 167.32 149400 12/22/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 9,980.63 149401 12/22/2010 EMPLOYEEB ENEFITSD IVISIO 39,684.24 149402 12/22/2010 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 140.16 149403 12/22/2010 ING RETIREMENPTL ANS 290.00 149404 12/22/2010 ING SERVICEC ENTER 125.00 149405 12/22/2010 INTERNALR EVENUES ERVICE 25.00 149406 12/22/2010 JOYCEB RADLEYB ABIN 1,158.92 149407 12/22/2010 KEVMARC APITALC ORP 25.00 149408 12/22/2010 LAW OFFICEO F STEPHENP L 386.24 149409 12/22/2010 LIFEI NSURANCOE F SOUTHWE 3,956.20 149410 12/22/2010 MARKT MCCARTYT RUSTEE 1,463.60 149411 12/22/2010 MET LIFE 755.50 149412 12/22/2010 NLRE DUCATORCSR EDITU NIO 5,264.08 149413 12/22/2010 NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK 235.75 149414 12/22/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOOL 2.05 149415 12/22/2010 OCSE 3,249.48 149416 12/22/2010 OFFICEO F THEA TTORNEYG E 269.54 149417 12/22/2010 TASC 192.96 149418 12/22/2010 THEM CHUGHESL AW FIRM LLC 122.85 149419 12/22/2010 USABLE LIFE 465.55 149420 12/22/2010 US ABLE LIFE 1,629.20 149421 12/22/2010 US ABLE LIFE 543.31 149422 12/22/2010 US ABLE LIFE 1,024.08 149423 12/22/2010 US ABLEL IFEI NSURANCCE 588.53 Page T-19 North Little Rock School District Check listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149424 12/22/2010 US ABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY 4.93 149425 12/22/2010 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 1,719.13 149426 12/22/2010 US DEPARTMENTO F EDUCATI 104.25 149427 12/22/2010 UNITEDW AY OF PULASKCI OU i 34.83 149428 12/22/2010 UNUM LIFEI NSURANCEO F AM 5.90 149429 12/22/2010 VALIC- VARIABLEA NNUITY I 725.00 -------- I 149430 12/22/2010 VISIONS ERVICEP LAN( AR) 710.11 149431 12/30/2010 AAEA 109.99 149432 12/30/2010 AEA 151.04 149433 12/30/2010 AEAF EDERACL REDITU NION 1,432.00 149434 12/30/2010 AFLAC 1,269.20 149435 12/30/2010 AMERIPRISEFI NANCIALS ERV 6,455.00 149436 12/30/2010 AR PUBLICE MPLOYEERSE TIR 96.60 149437 12/30/2010 ART EACHERR ETIREMENTR ET 6,415.16 149438 12/30/2010 ARKANSABSL UEC ROSSB LUE 22,673.48 149439 12/30/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 346,896.37 149440 12/30/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 212.14 149441 12/30/2010 ARKANSASTE ACHERR ETIREME 38,247.41 149442 12/30/2010 BANK OF THE OZARKS 494,766.47 149443 12/30/2010 C.T.A 5,276.88 149444 12/30/2010 CINTASC ORPORATIONLO C5 7 29.41  149445 12/30/2010 COLONIALL IFE\u0026amp; ACCIDENT 122.91 149446 12/30/2010 CONSECO.LIFE 28.75 149447 12/30/2010 CREDITS ERVICEC O 276.22 149448 12/30/2010 DATAPATHA DMINISTRATIVES 312.50 149449 12/30/2010 DEPT.O F FINANCE\u0026amp; ADMINI 94,366.80 149450 12/30/2010 EMPLOYEEB ENEFITSD IVISIO 204,390.51 149451 12/30/2010 FABERA ND BRANDL LC 220.34 149452 12/30/2010 FAMILYS UPPORTR EGISTRY 381.21 149453 12/30/2010 GREATA MERICANA DVISORS 4,428.74 149454 12/30/2010 HOSTO\u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC 592,60 149455 12/30/2010 ILLINOISS TATED ISBURSEME 425.00 149456 12/30/2010 ING-457 575.00 149457 12/30/2010 ING RETIREMENPT LANS 2,537.50 149458 12/30/2010 INGS ERVICEC ENTER 150.00 149459 12/30/2010 INTERNALR EVENUES ERVICE 50.00 149460 12/30/2010 JOSHE MCHUGHESA TTORNEY 151.03 149461 12/30/2010 JOYCEB RADLEYB ABIN 2,632.88 149463 12/30/2010 LAWO FFICEO F STEPHENP L 316.82 149464 12/30/2010 LIFEI NSURANCEO F SOUTHWE 5,306.37 149465 12/30/2010 MARKT MCCARTYT RUSTEE 2,293.60 149466 12/30/2010 MET LIFE 3,107.32 149467 12/30/2010 MG TRUSTC OMPANYL LC 6,462.67 149468 12/30/2010 MICHIGAN STATE DISBURSEME 170.00 149469 12/30/2010 NCOF INANCIALS YSTEMSIN C 242.30 149470 12/30/2010 NLRE DUCATORCSR EDITU NIO 38,549.69 149471 12/30/2010 NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK 41.90 149472 12/30/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOOL 214.00 P\nigp T-70 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149473 12/30/2010 OCSE 2,463.83 149474 12/30/2010 PHEAA 96.96 149475 12/30/2010 PIONEERC REDITR ECOVERIY 225.34 149476 12/30/2010 SBG-VAA ' 698.00 149477 12/30/2010 TASC 13,228.31 149478 12/30/2010 THE MCHUGHESL AW FIRM LLC 120.62 149479 12/30/2010 US ABLE LIFE 2,451.85 149480 12/30/2010 US ABLE LIFE 14,182.30 149481 12/30/2010 US ABLE LIFE 4,299.92 149482 12/30/2010 US ABLE LIFE 4,556.31 149483 12/30/2010 U SABLE LIFEI NSURANCEC 2,050.73 149484 12/30/2010 US ABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY 35.23 149485 12/30/2010 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 7,135.76 149486 . 12/30/2010 US DEPARTMENTO F EDUCATI 253.79 149487 12/30/2010 UNITEDW AY OF PULASKCI OU 640.97 149488 12/30/2010 UNUM LIFEI NSURANCEO F AM 1,033.05 149489 12/30/2010 VALIC- VARIABLEA NNUITY 17,387.00 149490 12/30/2010 VALIC-VARIABLAEN NUITYL I 175.00 149491 12/30/2010 VISIONS ERVICEP LAN( AR) 3,796.72 149492 12/28/2010 A 1 RECOVERTYO WING\u0026amp; REC 410.40 149493 12/28/2010 AAMSCO 466.85 149494 12/28/2010 ACI PLASTICS 358.05 149495 12/28/2010 AR DEPT OF CORRECTION 208.57 149496 12/28/2010 ARKANSASA CTIVITIESA SSOC 150.00 149497 12/28/2010 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREME 258.24 149498 12/28/2010 ARKANSAST ECHU NIVERSITY 1,500.00 149499 12/28/2010 ARMATUR EXCHANGE 825.66 149500 12/28/2010 BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE 160.38 149501 12/28/2010 BLICK ART MATERIALS 1,202.45 149502 12/28/2010 BLUEH ILLW RECKERS ERVICE 275.40 149503 12/28/2010 BOBBY TRAFFANSTEDT 73.21 149504 12/28/2010 CENTRALS TATESB USS ALES 562.64 149505 12/28/2010 CHARLA KAY BURKETT 1,365.00 149506 12/28/2010 CHICKSAW 59.40 149507 12/28/2010 CLE OPERATIONS 243.00 149508 12/28/2010 CROWB URLINGAMEC O 304.13 149509 12/28/2010 CUMMINGS MID SOUTH LLC 38.12 149511 12/28/2010 DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS 31,207.20 149512 12/28/2010 DATEK, INC 1,096.87 149513 12/28/2010 DLR GROUP 45,280.47 149514 12/28/2010 DREW CAMP 38.09 149515 12/28/2010 EASTERS EALSA RKANSAS 1,000.00 149516 12/28/2010 FLEET PRIDE 4,024.28 149517 12/28/2010 GCRN ORTHL ITTLER OCKT IR 2,048.34 149518 12/28/2010 GLOVERST RUCKP ARTS\u0026amp; EQU 1,398.60 149519 12/28/2010 GODDESSP RODUCTSIN, C. 814.82 149520 12/28/2010 GOLDENW ESTI NDUSTRIASL U 993.61 149521 12/28/2010 GOODMAN DISTRIBUTIONIN C 118.25 Page T-21 North little Rock School District Check listing for Period 06 - December 2010 149522 12/28/2010 GRAINGER 429.23 149523 12/28/2010 HEALTHE DUCATIONN ETWORK 179.00 149524: 12/28/2010 HERALENTERPR5ESINC 47.14 149525 12/28/2010 HUM'S HARDWARE 8.66 149526 12/28/2010 INTEGRATIONS ERVICESC ORP 5,798.52 149527 12/28/2010 JAMES W WOODARD 86.81 149528 12/28/2010 JAMIE GOEBEL 65.65 149529 12/28/2010 LEANN ALEXANDER 132.93 149530 12/28/2010 LITTLER OCKW INNELSONC O. 132.78 149531 12/28/2010 MATTHEW BINFORD 310.80 149532 12/28/2010 MELISSAE ZZI 1,089.00 149533 12/28/2010 MITCHS TIRE SERVICE 305.00 149534 12/28/2010 NAPA AUTO PARTS 2,182.91 149535 12/28/2010 NATIONWIDE CHEMICAL PRODU 661.50 149536 12/28/2010 NCSP EARSONIN C 71.28 149537 12/28/2010 NEGWER DOOR SYSTEMS 364.91 149538 12/28/2010 NLR WELDING SUPPLY 87.16 149539 12/28/2010 NORTHL ITTLER OCKW INNELS 208.25 149540 12/28/2010 OFFICED EPOT 210.93 149541 12/28/2010 POE TRAVEL 346.30 149542 12/28/2010 REFRIGERATIO\u0026amp;N ELECTRIC 41.63 149543 12/28/2010 RENA TAYLOR 82.80 149544 1 2/28/2010 RICHARDW OODS 50.40 149545 12/28/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 270.34 149546 12/28/2010 SANDRA PINKSTAFF 12.76 149547 12/28/2010 SCHOOLN URSES UPPLYIN C 149.70 149548 12/28/2010 SCHOOLS PECIAITY 246.35 149549 12/28/2010 SOLUTIONT REE 6,700.00 149550 12/28/2010 STAGEWORKISN C 1,353.43 149551 12/28/2010 STANLEYH ARDWAREC O 103.19 149552 12/28/2010 STAR AUTISM SUPPORT 143.00 149553 12/28/2010 STARB OLT\u0026amp; SCREWC O INC 64.78 149554 12/28/2010 STEPHANYB ARNITTE 24.19 149555 12/28/201() SUPERIORS PRINGC LUTCH\u0026amp; 421.14 149556 12/28/2010 SUSAN SHURLEY 19.91 149557 12/28/2010 TAMMY POPE 68.46 149558 12/28/2010 TAMMY L LEKER 50.46 149559 12/28/2010 TCPRINTS OLUTIONS 60.48 149560 12/28/2010 THE TIMES. 27.00 149561 12/28/2010 TRANE ARKANSAS 24.83 149562 12/28/2010 TREADWAYE LECTRIC OMPANY 1,861.08 149563 12/28/2010 UNIVERSITOY F CENTRALA RK 1,250.00 149564 12/28/2010 UNIVERSITOY F CENTRALA RI\u0026lt; 1,250.00 149565 12/28/2010 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 23.73 149566 12/29/2010 AT\u0026amp;T 9,490.04 149567 12/29/2010 AETNAL IFE\u0026amp; CASUALT Y 1,099.35 149568 12/29/2010 ANNAN VAMMEN 44.81 149569 12/29/2010 ANTHONY CANTRELL 133.43 North Little Rock School District Check Listing for Period 06 - December 2010 - 149570 12/29/2010 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE 321.90 149571 12/29/2010 BARNES AND NOBLE 296.06 149572 12/29/2010 BOBBY ACKLIN 103.27 149573 12/29/2010 CWK NETWORK INC 2,500.00 149574 12/29/2010 DALLAS MIDWEST 1,254.00 149575 12/29/2010 ERIKA RAINEY 27.72 ,-149576, 12/29/2010 FRANKLIN COVEY 107.92 149577 12/29/2010 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 688.26 149578 12/29/2010 JANICE KUCALA 233.26 149579 12/29/2010 KAREN COLEMAN 68.36 149580 12/29/2010 LINEAGE 220.56 149581 12/29/2010 MELISSA WALLS 27.72 149582 12/29/2010 NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLICE 960.00 149583 12/29/2010 OFFICE DEPOT 268.90 149584 12/29/2010 PATRICIA MCMURRAY 27.72 149585 12/29/2010 PHELEISA WOODS 27.72 149586 12/29/2010 PYRAMID ART, BOOKS \u0026amp; CUST 44.01 149587 12/29/2010 RICKEY JONES 164.89 149588 12/29/2010 RRCNA 320.00 149589 12/29/2010 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 411.91 149590 12/29/2010 SCHOLASTIC INC 342.86 149591 12/29/2010 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 73.44 149592 12/29/2010 THE COLLEGE BOARD 650.00 149593 12/30/2010 DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX 2,094.00 149594 12/30/2010 JERRY MASSEY 94.03 Total Checks 5,132,627.92 Page T-23 ---- - ----- -- ------ --- - Arkansas Children's Hospital 1 Children's Way  Little Rock, AR 72202-3591  501/364-1100 www.archildrens.org Wednesday, December 22, 2010 Ms. Besty Clemmons Lakewood Middle School Oragami Club 2300 Lake View Road North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Ms. Clemmons, On behalf of all of us at Arkansas Children's Hospital, thank you for your kind and thoughtful donation for the holiday season. Your commitment and dedication to Arkansas Children's Hospital truly makes a difference in our patients' lives: As you know, being in the hospital over the holidays is difficult - especially for children. Your generous gift of handmade holiday cards made our patient's hospital stay, and their parents' hospital stay, brighter during this holiday season. After all, when they are counting on us, nothing less than the best will do - and your donation helps make that possible . .A:\"cHis o~e of the top ten pediatric hospitals in the country, and people like you help us reach our mission of providing excellent services to all the children of Arkansas. Thank you for being a part of the ACH \"TEAM\" - Together Everyone Achieves Miracles! Once again, thank you. You have helped make a patient's stay at ACH brighter! Sincerely, Robin Ami.strong Director of Volunteer Services P.S. Because you received no benefits in return for your gift, you may claim the full value as a charitable donation in accordance with IRS regulations. Arkansas Children's Hospital is the comprehensive clinical, research, \u0026amp; teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. UAMS pediatric faculty physicians and surgeons are on the staff at Arkansas Children's Hospital. 7 - 1 BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA r FEB 1 5 201 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ass North Little Rock School District Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING- BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Wednesday, February 16, 2011-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Ron Treat, President II. INVOCATION, Billy Joe (B.J.) Gibbs, North Heights Elementary Third Grader, son of Billy and Tina Gibbs III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Ron Treat, President Scott A. Miller, Vice President Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Kathleen Mccomber, Member Darrell Montgomery, Member Scott Teague, Member V. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 5:30 P.M. (Regular) -Page A- 1 VI. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report- E. Moore B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report- T. Cochran C. D. Page 2 - Board Agenda February 16, 2011 Consider Approval of Secondary Textbook Committee- R. Dickey- Page B - 1 Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider rental request item - Page R - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 VII. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Professional Development Day (No Students)-Monday, February 21, 2011 B. Parent Conference Days - Monday, February 21, 2011 and Tuesday, February 22, 2011 B. Next Board (Regular) Meeting - Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 5:30 p.m. Administration Office Board Room VIII. STUDENT EXPULSIONS IX. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES January 20, 2011 The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, January 20, 2011 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Sandy Lasley, NLRHS West Campus Teacher, spoke in support of the Certified Personnel Policies Committee's proposal concerning the Education Jobs Fund Program Bonus. President Ron Treat called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, gave the invocation and led the flag salute. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Ron Treat, President Scott Miller, Vice President Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Kathleen McComber, Member Darrell Montgomery, Member Scott Teague, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, Greg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nGregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Human Resources, Rhonda Dickey, Administrative Director for Secondary Education, Rosie Coleman, Administrative Director for Elementary Education, Susan Shurley, Administrative Director for Special Services, Jerry Massey, Administrative Director for Plant Services, additional staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary, were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) recorded the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Dorothy Williams, on behalf of the Board, Superintendent and Administration, presented Scott Teague, a gaveled plaque for his service as Board President during the 200-2010 school year. Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced new partners in education: Dillard's Department Store (McCain Mall location) represented by Chris Johnson, CDI Contractors A-1 represented by Lloyd Garrison, NLR City Attorney's office represented by Paula Juels Jones - with each receiving plaques in appreciation for their support. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the December 16, 2010 (Regular) meeting minutes as printed in the agenda. Scott Miller seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Montgomery, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None NEW BUSINESS Ely Moore, Certified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, presented his committee's proposal to utilize the Education Jobs Fund Program money (approximately 1.7 million) to give each certified/ employee a $ 1000 bonus this year. The proposal would leave money that could possibly be used for a bonus for classified personnel or other appropriate needs. MOTION Darrell Montgomery moved to accept the recommendation for all certified personnel to receive a $1000 bonus from the Education Jobs Fund Program Bonus monies. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Mccomber, Miller, Montgomery, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None Salary Schedule Revisions Mr. Kirspel presented a recommendation to the Board to increase all salary schedules by 1.4% to the base of each salary schedule. MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept Administration's recommendation for the proposed salary schedule increase. Kathleen McComber seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Montgomery, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None The recommendation will be sent to the respective Personnel Policies Committees for their approval. A-2 Education Jobs Fund Program Bonus Mr. Kirspel explained his recommendation would be for classified personnel to receive $500 bonus from the Education Jobs Fund Program. He explained that not all employees would be allowed by guidelines to be paid from this money and about $67,000 must come from the General Fund. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept Administration's recommendation for each classified employee to receive $500 bonus. Kathleen McComber seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Mccomber, Miller, Montgomery, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel recommended the Board accept the financial, personnel, bids, and check listings on pages O - 1 through T -23. MOTION Kathleen Mccomber moved to accept the consent agenda as printed. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Montgomery, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None Due to the NLR Chamber of Commerce's Banquet being rescheduled for the Board's regular meeting date of Thursday, February 17, 2011, the Board decided to move their Board meeting to Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Kathleen McComber moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Miller seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: McComber, Miller, Montgomery, Riley, Teague, Treat and Williams None President Treat declared the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Ron Treat, President Darlene Holmes, Recording Secretary A-3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent FROM: SUBJECT: Rhonda Dickey, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Language Arts, Speech, Journalism, and Debate Adoption Committee DATE: February 16, 2011 Recommendation for the Secondary Textbook Adoption Committee for 2011 to include Language Arts, Oral Communication, and Journalism are indicated below. In light of the Common Core Curriculum implementation, this committee will remain in place until this adoption is completed. Name Subject School Gwen Leger Language Arts  NLRHS - West Kim Standley Speech/Drama NLRHS-East Ellen Jones Speech/Drama NLRHS-West Holly Sheppard Language Arts Lakewood Middle Susan Fendley Language Arts Lakewood Middle Dottie Murdaugh Language Arts Ridgeroad Middle Charter Erika Rainey Language Arts Rose City Middle Catricia Carter Language Arts Poplar Street Middle Melinda Bissett Language Arts Poplar Street Middle Eleanor Lindsey Parent NLRHS-West Jeff Claunts Parent Poplar Street Middle Bonnie Curlin GT Coordinator Administration Maria Touchstone ESL Coordinator Administration Angie Colclasure Literacy Specialist Administration Rhonda Dickey Admin. Dir. of Sec. Ed. Administration B-1 I Revenue from Local Sources Pro ,ertv Taxes-O.,..ratlnn Fund Property Taxes-Current Property Taxes 40% Pullback Prooertv Taxes -Dellnauent Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Total Prooertv Taxes other Local Revenue Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Rentals Contributions/Donations Misc Rev From Local Total other Local Revenue Total Local Revenue From Intermediate Source Severance Tax Other Revenue from Coun Total From Intermediate Revenue From State Sources Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Enrollment Other Unrestricted Grants-In-Aid 980/o URT Sunnlement Tota I from State Sources-Unrestricted Revenue from State Restricted Reaular Education Snecial Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Total State Restricted OtherSources-Nonrevenue Indirect Cost Sale of EaulPment Reimbursement-Loss of Fixed Assets Total Other Sources Total Revenue Operations Bulldlna Fund Bulldina Fund-Partnershln caaital Outlav Fund Federal Fund Child Nutrition Fund Activitv Fund TOTAL REVENUE STIMULUS ARRA-Stabilization ARRA-TITLE I ARRA-IDEA ARRA-IDEA PK ARRA-Modem Stabilization ARRA-Renovation Stabilization ARRA-Reoair Stabilization ARRA-Homeless ARRA-10036 (RCMS) TOTAL ARRA North Little Rock School District Period 07 - January 2011 Budaet Per 07 Actual $16,726,000.00 $0.00 $8,106,450.00 $665,693.04 $1,700,000.00 $308 533.87 $480,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $3,679.75 $30,000.00 $0.00 $27,242,450.00 $977,906.66 $75,000.00 $5,230.00 $110,000.00 $11,596.72 $27,000.00 $2.092.39 $50 000.00 $12.935.00 $9,700.00 $120.00 $65,000.00 $712,740.19 $336,700.00 $744,714.30 $27,579 150.00 $1,722,620.96 $3,500.00 $3 500.00 7 000.00 $35,784,992.00 $3,253,181.00 $0.00 $0.00 $40 000.00 $0.00 $400 000.00 $0.00 $36 224 992.00 $3 253 181.00 $619,089.00 $0.00 $5 480,415.00 $262,035.00 $2 805,355.00 $264190,00 $10 313,106.00 $812,054.00 $385,000.00 $129,147.82 $19.602.965.00 $1.467 .426.82 110,000.00 0.00 $50.000.00 $0.00 $91,000.00 $4,617.25 $141.000.00 U.617.25 -3.555 107 .00 $6.449.927.50 $53100.00 $472.87 $1 200 000.00 $0.00 $2,147 797.00 $70,316.54 $7 365 964.00 $945 696.02 $4 480 500.00 $87 326.65 $524910.00 $28 784.39 $99 327 378.00 $7 582.523.97 2 995 290.00 9 764.00 2 007 726.00 1354.00 1297 593.00 1008.93 337137.00 3 373.33 $2,115,985.00 o.oo 693.168.00 0.00 712,714.00 0.00 33.912.00 0.00 991,451.00 77.500.00 11.184.976.00 93,000.26 0-1 YTDActual Balance Ofo $13,310,240.57 $3,415,759.43 79.580/o $665,693.04 $7,440,756.96 8.210/o $1.277.887.16 $422.112.84 75.170/o $0.00 $480,000.00 0.000/o $189,932.70 $10,067.30 94.970/o $0.00 $30,000.00 $15,443,753.47 $11,798,696.53 56.690/o $104,098.81 -$29,098.81 138.800/o $60,547.38 $49 452.62 55.040/o $11.477.44 $15522.56 42.510/o $34,041.55 $15 958.45 68.080/o $1295.00 $8 405.00 13.350/o $949,158.80 -$884,158.80 1460.240/o $1,160,618.98 -$823,918.98 344.700/o $16 604 372.45 $10 974 777.55 60.210/o 192.530/o 80.240/o 136.390/o $19,519,086.00 $16,265,906.00 54.550/o $0.00 $0.00 $7134.18 $32.865.82 17.840/o $0.00 $400 000.00 0.000/o $19 526 220.18 $16 698 771.82 53.900/o $430,275.60 $188,813.40 69.500/o $2.021,896.00 $3,458 519.00 36.890/o $1 928,266.92 $877,088.08 68.740/o $5 646,191.44 $4,666,914.56 54.750/o $282,840.06 $102,159.94 73.46% $10.309.470.02 $9.293.494.98 52.590/o $0.00 $110.000.00 0.000/o $722.00 U9.278.00 1.440/o $68,663.81 $22,336.19 75.450/o $69.385.81 $71.614.19 49.210/o $46.518.995.43 $37 .036.111.57 55.670/o $10.293.99 $42.806.01 19.390/o ~, 335 899.39 -$1 135 899.39 194.660/o $1,150,766.43 $997,030.57 53.580/o $3 216 729.37 U.149 234.63 43.670/o $1 964 042.87 u 516457.13 43.840/o $300 313.93 $224 596.07 57.210/o $53 161 142.02 \"6.166 235.98 53.520/o $5 711 722.70 S2.716 432.70 190.690/o $13 315.84 $1 994 410.16 0.660/o $149150.85 $1.148 442.15 11.490/o $48 276.14 $288860.86 14.320/o $0.00 $2,115,985.00 0.00% $0.00 $693168.00 0.000/o $0.00 $712,714.00 0.000/o $0.00 33 912.00 0.000/o $265.692.00 725.759.00 26.800/o $6.188.157 .53 4,996,818.47 55.330/o Expenditure Cateaorv CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof/Tech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Suoolies and Materials Property Other Objects Debt Service Total Other Exoenditures OPERATING FUND BUILDING FUND BUILDING FUND PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND FEDERAL FUND CHILD NUTRITION FUND ACTIVITY FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES STIMULUS ARRA-Stabilization ARRA-Title I ARRA-IDEA ARRA-IDEA CEIS ARRA-IDEA PK ARRA-Modernization Stabilizatio1 ARRA-Renovation Stabilization ARRA-Reoair Stabilization ARRA-Homeless ARRA-1003G TOTALARRA North Little Rock School Disbict Period 07 - January 2011 Budget Per 07 Actual YTD Actual $41,000,000.00 $3,364,046.81 $19,784,017.60 $11,900,000.00 $942,038.02 $5,463,230.96 $12,700,000.00 $1,160,853.39 $7,100,804.62 $4,597,000.00 $385,908.17 $2,271,450.79 $70,197,000.00 $5,852,846.39 $34,619,503.97 $1,434,902.00 $175,226.57 $1,401,537.60 $1,200,000.00 $202,408.57 $1,109,669.01 $3,800,000.00 $150,752.96 $1,782,206.35 $5,180,000.00 $325,736.68 $2,590,200.35 $148,897 .oo $38,478.24 $103,131.12 $127,000.00 $3,588.32 $71,993.10 $1,808,000.00 $22,257.99 $696,024.09 $13,698,799.00 $918,449.33 $7,754,761.62 $83,895,799.00 $6,771,295.72 $42,374,265.59 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00 $77,167.95 $862,905.67 $1,401,000.00 $121,049.11 $858,101.97 $7,500,000.00 $752,057.40 $3,750,137.01 $4,503,000.00 $325,751.33 $2,448,655.00 $524,910.00 $85,294.32 $295,178.29 $99,324,709.00 $8,132,615.83 $50,589,243.53 8,979,281.20 131,302.48 4,864,300.01 Available Balance $21,215,982.40 $6,436,769.04 $5,599,195.38 $2,325,549.21 $35,577,496.03 $33,364.40 $90,330.99 $2,017,793.65 $2,589,799.65 $45,765.88 $55,006.90 $1,111,975.91 $5,944,037.38 $41,521,533.41 $0.00 $637,094.33 $542,898.03 $3,749,862.99 $2,054,345.00 $229,731.71 $48,735,465.47 $4,114,981.19 544,615.84 9,531.47 $23,633.88 . $520,981.96 260,535.46 19,421.91 167,563.83 $92,971.63 o.oo $0.00 $0.00 140,400.97 11,448.75 $59,727.68 $80,673.29 1,028,603.68 43,518.00 $96,604.35 $931,999.33 693,168.00 0.00 $593,737.94 $99,430.06 555,755.82 85,000.00 $421,000.00 $134,755.82 33,912.25 2,570.80 $19,184.19 $14,728.06 991,451.00 141,331.98 $407,023.32 $584,427.68 13,227,724.22 444,125.39 $6,652,775.20 $6,574,949.02 0-2 0/o 48.250/o 45.910/o 55.910/o 49.410/o 49.320/o 97.670/o 92.470/o 46.900/o 50.000/o 69.260/o 56.690/o 38.500/o 56.610/o 50.510/o 57.530/o 61.250/o 50.000/o 54.380/o 56.230/o 50.930/o 54.170/o 4.340/o 64.320/o 42.540/o 9.390/o 85.660/o 75.750/o 56.570/o 41.050/o 50.290/o Alison Bussard Craig Conner Kim Floyd Ray Girdler Cheryl Starry NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Board Agenda-February 16, 2011 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS \u0026amp; CHANGES From Special Education at Poplar Street Middle To Special Education at Seventh Street Elementary Effective 2-7-2011 From Math at Ridgeroad Middle Charter To Math at NLRHS West Campus Effective 2-7-2011 From ALE at Belwood Elementary To ALE at Seventh Street Elementary Effective 1-31-2011 From Math at NLRHS West Campus To Math/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented at Ridgeroad Middle Charter Effective 2-7-2011 From Special Education at NLRHS East Campus To Special Education/ Art at Poplar Street Middle Effective 1-19-2011 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS, AND TERMINATIONS Stephanie Calhoun Sharon Haver Lindy Jones Tiffany Yager Pre-K Teacher, Lynch Drive Elementary Effective 1-26-2011 Language Arts Teacher, Poplar Street Middle Effective 1-12-2011 Speech Pathologist, Tri-District Early Childhood Program Effective 3-18-2011 Kindergarten Teacher, North Heights Elementary Effective 2-4-2011 P-1 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL INFORMATION Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Student Teaching Exp.: Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Student Teaching Exp.: Name: Proposed Assignment: Licensure: Teaching Experience: Name: Proposed Assignment: Li censure:  Student Teaching Exp: Kristin Conklin Second Grade Teacher, Indian Hills Elementary Int. 3 Yr., ECH P-4 Indian Hills Elementary Alan Ries Elementary P.E. Teacher, Lakewood Elementary/Boone Park Elementary Int. 3 Yr., PE/Wellness/Leisure P-8, 7-12\ncoaching 7-12 NLRHS East Campus Andrea Umstead Kindergarten Teacher, North Heights Elementary Standard 5 Yr., ECH P-4\nESL P-8 \u0026amp; 7-12 North Little Rock School District Logan Welch Social Studies Teacher, NLRHS East Campus Int. 3 Yr., Social Studies 7-12 Bakersfield School District, Bakersfield, MO CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS AND TERMINATIONS Denise Brown Kimla Clingmon Felix Harris Nutosha Millender Yvonne Moore Betty Jo Roberts Carrie Simpkins Ridgeroad Middle Charter - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 1-04-11 NLRSD Plant Services - Custodian Effective 1-27-11 NLRSD Plant Services - Custodian Effective 2-08-11 NLRSD Food Service -Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 1-21-11 NLRSD Transportation - Bus Driver Effective 2-03-11 NLRSD Food Service-Child Nutrition Assistant (Floater) Effective 1-31-11 Boone Park Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 1-05-11 P-2 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Dorca Hinton Dain Carver Karean Cook Kimberly Langston --- Courtney Shavers From Park Hill Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant To Ridgeroad Middle Charter-Child Nutrition Assistant NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL NLRSD Plant Services - HV AC Mechanic Effective 1-18-11, Salary Schedule OMA, 261 days NLRSD Food Service-Child Nutrition (Floater) Assistant Effective 1-19-11, Salary Schedule 0CN NLRHS West Campus - Custodian Effective 1-31-11, Salary Schedule 0CU, 261 days NLRSD Plant Services - Custodian Effective 1-31-11, Salary Schedule 0CU, 261 days P-3 _,,,.,---J---.., RF. Keepers Unlimited, LLC,-----c----. -----f--/ # 8 Buffington Court Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 501-960-2768 Fax: 501-56~2328 bekeepersunlimited @yahoo.com North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 NLR School District Board\nWe are an approved Supplemental Education Services Provider (SES), through the Arkansas Department of Education. A small group of parents have requested our services for their students at Boone Park Elementary School. We work with Certified Teachers and Para-Professionals providing our approved curriculum and all our learning materials. At this time we are requesting permission to use a classroom at Boone Park to tutor the students. The classroom will be used Monday and Tuesday starting on February 21th and going until April 19111 for a total of 15 days. Our program is 2 hours per day and will not meet when school is not In session. BE Keepers Unlimited follows ail the rules and regulations of the School District and would appreciate your approving our company to work with the parents and students. Presently, we are under contract with the North Little Rock School District. If there are questions we can answer for you please let us know by email at bekeepersunlimited@yahoo.com or 501-960-2768. Thanks you so much. HEnri SMothers, CEO R - 1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 Check# CheckDate Vendor# Vendor Amount 149595 1/5/2011 87 AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUAL TY 286.77 149597 1/5/2011 3286 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES# 85 8,201.06 - 149598 1/5/2011 4040 BANK OF THE OZARKS WCA TR 22,257.99 149599 1/5/2011 7723 CENTURY RESOURCESIN C 10,032.00 149600 1/5/2011 398 COMCAST CALBLEVISION 150.19 149601 1/5/2011 8294 CRYSTAL SPRINGS BOOKS 152.65 149602 1/5/2011 2514 DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRU 10,933.41 149603 1/5/2011 100717 DIANE EHLERS 50.00 149604 1/5/2011 102016 DOODLE DIVA LLC 231.00 149605 1/5/2011 6710 GOLDEN CORRAL 452.50 149606 1/5/2011 7446 INTEGRATION SERVICESC ORP 1,618.92 149607 1/5/2011 90098 KENNETH A KIRSPEL 500.00 149608 1/5/2011 102013 KEY CURRICULUM PRESS 880.00 149609 1/5/2011 2110 LORI A SMITH 170.00 149610 1/5/2011 7083 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM ACTIVITY 161.34 149612 1/5/2011 7427 METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY ME 1,087.50 149613 1/5/2011 1172 MOES SOUTHWEST GRILL 186.45 149614 1/5/2011 2142 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOLS 27.00 149615 1/5/2011 2154 NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY 123.12 149616 1/5/2011 7084 POPLAR STREET MIDDLE ACTI 742.71 149617 1/5/2011 100 RITA LOVENSTEIN 65.10 149618 1/5/2011 2398 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 157.33 149619 1/5/2011 3330 SPRINT 7,420.02 - 149620 1/5/2011 1006 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 99.90 149621 1/5/2011 101779 TAMMY L LEKER 113.40 149622 1/5/2011 2364 TEREX UTILITIES 3,268.90 149623 1/5/2011 758 TODD HUFF-EAST CAMPUS 64.35 149625 1/5/2011 2164 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 6,851.91 149626 1/5/2011 8781 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 444.63 149627 1/5/2011 100187 WATSON CHAPEL HIGH SCHOOL 120.00 149628 1/5/2011 101\"274 CARLTON BATES CO 72.58 149629 1/5/2011 1314 INFORMATION VAULTING SERV 151.90 149630 1/5/2011 123 LAURA JENNINGS 34.36 149631 1/5/2011 4946 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 152.25 149632 1/5/2011 38 SCHOOL SPECIALT Y 477.89 149633 1/5/2011 8629 SEAN J FLEMING-WEST CAMPU 26.88 149634 1/5/2011 10493 THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP 1,165.50 149635 1/7/2011 4314 AEA 414.40 149636 1/7/2011 8476 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 382.50 149637 1/7/2011 4927 AFLAC 587.42 149638 1/7/2011 6614 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERV 150.00 149639 1/7/2011 2338 AR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIR 430.08 149640 1/7/2011 1256 AR TEACHER RETIREMENT RET 826.40 149641 1/7/2011 100842 ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE 3,109.51 - 149642 1/7/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 22,570.74 149643 1/7/2011 1186 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 206.95 149644 1/7/2011 1177 BANK OF THE OZARKS 29,857.47 Page T-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149645 1/7/2011 1635 CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 57 88.72 149646 1/7/2011 5003 COLONIAL LIFE \u0026amp; ACCIDENT 53.81 149647 1/7/2011 9342 CONSECO LIFE 5.29 149648 1/7/2011 2550 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 159.26 149649 1/7/2011 947 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINI 4,240.33 149650 1/7/2011 10444 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISIO 40,287.91 149651 1/7/2011 5332 ING RETIREMENT PLANS 290.00 149652 1/7/2011 5000 ING SERVICE CENTER 125.00 149653 1/7/2011 3260 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 25.00 149654 1/7/2011 8805 JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN 842.77 149655 1/7/2011 4909 LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P L 386.24 149656 1/7/2011 1184 LIFE INSURANCE OF 50UTHWE 97.96 149657 1/7/2011 5782 MARKT MCCARTY TRUSTEE 895.91 149658 1/7/2011 3323 MET LIFE 755.50 149659 1/7/2011 2060 NLR EDUCATORS CREDIT UNIO 4,873.67 149660 1/7/2011 5043 NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK 85.25 149661 1/7/2011 66666 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 266.67 149662 1/7/2011 516 OCSE 2,613.23 149663 1/7/2011 2634 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GE 224.69 149664 1/7/2011 2202 TASC 192.96 149665 1/7/2011 9337 U SABLE LIFE 477.25 149666 1/7/2011 100844 U S ABLE LIFE 1,682.00 149667 1/7/2011 100845 U SABLE LIFE 557.59 - 149668 1/7/2011 100846 U SABLE LIFE 1,061.03 149669 1/7/2011 9340 U SABLE LIFE INSURANCE C 597.11 149670 1/7/2011 4211 US ABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY 4.93 149671 1/7/2011 9345 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 1,774.33 149672 1/7/2011 2927 UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COU 34.83 149673 1/7/2011 10228 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AM 5.90 149674 1/7/2011 2953 VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY 725.00 149675 1/7/2011 100843 VISION SERVICE PLAN (AR) 725.14 149676 1/10/2011 1256 AR TEACHER RETIREMENT RET 75.45 149677 1/10/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME . 5,077.19 149678 1/10/2011 1186 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 303.63 149679 1/10/2011 1177 BANK OF THE OZARKS 4,682.66 149680 1/10/2011 947 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINI 359.50 149681 1/10/2011 1184 LIFE INSURANCE OF SOUTHWE 27.21 149682 1/6/2011 443 BEDFORD CAMERA \u0026amp; VIDEO 1,295.79 149683 1/6/2011 4369 HM RECEIVABLESC O LLC 1,784.10 149684 1/6/2011 4940 MCM 341.12 149685 1/6/2011 2398 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 561.15 149686 1/6/2011 1006 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 2,245.18 149687 1/6/2011 560 SUNDANCE/ NEWBRIDGE 1,924.54 149688 1/6/2011 2030 TAKECIA CAMPBELL 1,413.00 - 149689 1/6/2011 144 TELETOUCH 52.03 149690 1/6/2011 539 BILL DUVALL 27.30 149691 1/6/2011 3459 CHARLES UTLEY 65.77  149692 1/6/2011 925 DEMCO 34.53 Page T-2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149693 1/6/2011 2633 JIMMY MAHER S4.10 149694 1/6/2011 90158 MARY CAROLYN EAST 42.88 149695 1/6/2011 8676 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 1,069.05 149696 1/6/2011 358 TEACHER DIRECT 200.82 149697 1/6/2011 1102 ALISON BUSSARD 645.00 149698 1/6/2011 8253 BROUKE REYNOLDS 1,067.57 149699 1/6/2011 2212 DARYL FIMPLE 115.50 149700 1/6/2011 4181 EMILY CLARK 60.50 149701 1/6/2011 5908 JOHNNY RICE 126.50 149702 1/7/2011 320 ALAN CROWNOVER 338.27 149703 1/7/2011 101661 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL IN 992.00 149704 1/7/2011 1451 ARNOLD-BLEVINSE LECTRICC 57,519.00 149705 1/7/2011 3874 ASHLEY INGALLS 46.14 149706 1/7/2011 1172 MOES SOUTHWEST GRILL 131.87 149707 1/7/2011 2777 SCHOLASTICW AREHOUSE BOOK 515.78 149708 1/7/2011 29 SOURCE4 1,027.71 149709 1/7/2011 2164 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 203.00 149710 1/7/2011 493 BARNES AND NOBLE 191.77 149711 1/7/2011 9522 DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION 1,417.00 149712 1/7/2011 980 DISCOUNT TROPHIES INC 106.96 149713 1/7/2011 432 FOLLETT LIBRARY 174.56 149714 1/7/2011 10508 KESSLERSTE AM SPORTS 721.40 149715 1/7/2011 8681 KNOWBUDDY RESOURCES 841.38 149716 1/7/2011 4128 OFFICE DEPOT 1,795.78 149717 1/7/2011 7042 PREMIUM REFRESHMENT SERVI 18.55 149718 1/7/2011 9448 RAY HANKINS 24.15 149719 1/7/2011 1769 RAYMOND SMITH 81.90 149720 1/7/2011 8676 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 0.10 149721 1/7/2011 2423 SCANTRON CORPORATION 629.31 149723 1/7/2011 816 TOWNSEND PRESS BOOK CENTE 134.52 149724 1/11/2011 1497 APPLE COMPUTER INC 3,442.78 149725 1/11/2011 8733 ARCOM SYSTEMS 4,089.47 149726 1/11/2011 4011 ARKANSAS AIR FRAGRANCE CO 38.88 149727 1/11/2011 254 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ED 20,182.84 149728 1/11/2011 493 BARNES AND NOBLE 268.86 149729 1/11/2011 481 BEST BUY 1,234.30 149730 1/-11/2011 5367 BEST BUY 1,299.30 149731 1/11/2011 8664 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 951.58 149732 1/11/2011 318 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 112.49 149733 1/11/2011 903 CUSTOM PRINTING 3,380.12 149734 1/11/2011 102029 ENERGYCAPIN C 1,885.00 149735 1/11/2011 101128 FLEMING ELECTRICIN C 2,399.12 149736 1/11/2011 3170 INFORMATION NETWORK OF AR 72.50 149737 1/11/2011 246 INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 200.00 149738 1/11/2011 7446 INTEGRATIONS ERVICESC ORP 88,900.33 149739 1/11/2011 9739 J L HEIN SERVICE INC 5,890.32 149740 1/11/2011 4546 JODY EDRINGTON 95.21 149741 1/11/2011 92797 MORRIS \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES 2,255.12 Page T-3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149742 1/11/2011 1999 NASCO 387.55 149743 1/11/2011 100963 NEST FAMILY LEARNING 231.64 149744 1/11/2011 1117 NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELECTRI 957.18 149745 1/11/2011 101182 NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLICE 787.50 149746 1/11/2011 1937 NORTH POINT FORD 43.20 149747 1/11/2011 7220 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS 184.00 149748 1/11/2011 4128 OFFICE DEPOT 876.49 149749 1/11/2011 10292 PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICE 2,970.00 149750 1/11/2011 100661 PETTUS OFFICE PRODUCTS 444.70 149751 1/11/2011 7042 PREMIUM REFRESHMENT SERVI 49.68 149752' 1/11/2011 6973 QUALITY WHOLESALE BUILDIN 2,230.20 149753 1/11/2011 2446 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 114.66 149754 1/11/2011 2681 ROBERT GLOVER 12.00 149755 1/11/2011 2398 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 696.77 149757 1/11/2011 2555 SCHOLASTIC MAGAZINES 143.01 149758 1/11/2011 9706 SHANDRIA GORDON 11.27 149759 1/11/2011 8246 STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR EDU 1,344.00 149760 1/11/2011 1006 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 1,138.37 149761 1/11/2011 5420 TROUTMAN OIL CO INC 20,673.02 149762 1/11/2011 2938 UAMS 74,661.98 149763 1/11/2011 2164 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 525.07 149764 1/11/2011 3130 VALERIE TORRES 71.15 149765 1/11/2011 100942 VERIZON WIRELESS 4,411.04 149766 1/11/2011 214 WALLACE PRESSUREW ASHING 2,077.92 - 149767 1/11/2011 8781 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 629.45 149768 1/11/2011 8664 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 1,000.00 149769 1/11/2011 101347 ACADEMIC TUTORING SERVICE 12,125.00 149770 1/11/2011 102022 ADAM JANSSEN 164.08 149771 1/11/2011 3297 ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACH 460.00 149772 1/11/2011 101966 BARRONS EDUCATIONAL SERIE 183.66 149773 1/11/2011 555 BOILER INSPECTION DIVISIO 51.00 149774 1/11/2011 559 BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS 876.76 149775 1/11/2011 102023 BRIAN CODY BRAY 164.08 149776 1/11/2011 102020 BRIAN JEFFREY 1,000.00 149777 1/11/2011 10078 CLAUDIA MORAN 88.33 149778 1/11/2011 10081 DEANN ROACH 21.13 149779 1/11/2011 925 DEMCO 30.53 149780 1/11/2011 9257 DIANNA LAMAR 24.25 149781 1/11/2011 102025 E.REPUBLIC INC GOVERNMENT 25.00 149782 1/11/2011 9005 EAi EDUCATION ORDERS 173.86 149783 1/11/2011 422 EYE ON EDUCATION 102.85 149784 1/11/2011 432 FOLLETT LIBRARY 1,038.52 149785 1/11/2011 101901 GOLF TEAM PRODUCTS INC 691.00 149786 1/11/2011 10299 HEINEMANN 178.20 149787 1/11/2011 1676 ILLUSTRATED SPORTSWEAR 272.74 149788 1/11/2011 100986 JAN EARP 168.23 149789 1/11/2011 100513 JBHM EDUCATION GROUP 45,833.38 149790 1/11/2011 101684 JUSTIN MUSICK 164.08 Page T-4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149791 1/11/2011 4838 KAREN YOUNTS 38.64 149792 1/11/2011 101065 KIM JOHNSTON 12.22 149793 1/11/2011 2473 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERI 1,506.42 149794 1/11/2011 2233 LAURA WINTERS 19.11 149795 1/11/2011 1804 LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY 256.37 149796 1/11/2011 10233 LITERACY EMPOWERMENT FOUN 204.00 149797 1/11/2011 981 MAGAZINE SUBSCSRIPTIONS 315.14 149798 1/11/2011 100615 MISSCO CONTRACT SALES 65,502.00 149799 1/11/2011 101815 MORGAN SMITH 600.00 149800 1/11/2011 1999 NASCO 30.56 149801 1/11/2011 2864 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT 270.00 149802 1/11/2011 1849 PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHIN 1,436.87 149803 1/11/2011 5421 PESTMASTERSIN C 502.20 149804 1/11/2011 101674 PRESTIGE CHEMICAL 784.85 149805 1/11/2011 101834 RENA TAYLOR 29.36 149806 1/11/2011 100813 SAVVY KIDS 395.00 149807 1/11/2011 10140 SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS 1,600.00 149808 1/11/2011 38 SCHOOLS PECIALT Y 253.79 149809 1/11/2011 2698 STANLEY HARDWARE CO 16.72 149810 1/11/2011 2703 STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO INC 5.40 149811 1/11/2011 101752 STOCK BUILDING SUPPLY 15.42 149812 1/11/2011 6463 THE ARLINGTON RESORT HOTE 555.96 149813 1/11/2011 102024 TIFFANY BRYANT 147.27 149814 1/11/2011 10107 TOYS FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN 178.95 - 149815 1/11/2011 780 US TOY COMPANY INC 471.81 149816 1/11/2011 101513 UALR TEACHER EDUCATION 22,440.00 149817 1/11/2011 9398 UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN 42,770.00 149818 1/11/2011 9281 UNIVERSITY OF AR COOP EXT 554.00 149819 1/11/2011 283 WEN DYS OF LITTLE ROCK INC 411.26 149820 1/11/2011 3082 WIESER EDUCATIONAL 545.20 149821 1/11/2011 3123 YOUTH HOME INC 15,540.00 149822 1/14/2011 33 MEA 109.99 149823 1/14/2011 4314 AEA 157.20 149824 1/14/2011 8476 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 1,432.00 149825 1/14/2011 4927 AFLAC 1,269.20 149826 1/14/2011 6614 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERV 6,455.00 149827 1/14/2011 2338 AR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIR 96.60 149828 1/14/2011 1256 AR TEACHER RETIREMENT RET 6,418.52 149829 1/14/2011 100842 ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE 22,642.74 149830 1/14/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 345,064.11 149831 1/14/2011 5385 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 212.14 149832 1/14/2011 1186 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 38,271.87 149833 1/14/2011 1177 BANK OF THE OZARKS 481,200.67 149834 1/14/2011 10 C.T.A 5,276.88 149835 1/14/2011 1635 CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 57 29.41 149836 1/14/2011 5003 COLONIAL LIFE \u0026amp; ACCIDENT 122.91 149837 1/14/2011 9342 CONSECO LIFE 28.75 149838 1/14/2011 101904 CREDIT SERVICE CO 276.22 Page T-5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149839 1/14/2011 5033 DATAPATH ADMINISTRATIVE S 312.50 149840 1/14/2011 947 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINI 94,850.47 149841 1/14/2011 10444 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISIO 204,726.78 149842 1/14/2011 2209 FABER AND BRAND LLC 220.34 149843 1/14/2011 4089 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY 381.21 149844 1/14/2011 10688 GREAT AMERICAN ADVISORS 4,428.74 149845 1/14/2011 8829 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 592.60 149846 1/14/2011 8787 ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEME 425.00 149847 1/14/2011 5403 ING - 457 575.00 149848 1/14/2011 5332 ING RETIREMENT PLANS 2,537.50 149849, 1/14/2011 5000 ING SERVICE CENTER 150.00 149850 1/14/2011 3260 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 50.00 149851 1/14/2011 10328 JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY 151.03 149852 1/14/2011 8805 JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN 3,392.88 149853 1/14/2011 4909 LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN PL 316.82 149854 1/14/2011 1184 LIFE INSURANCE OF SOUTHWE 2,535.43 149855 1/14/2011 5782 MARKT MCCARTY TRUSTEE 2,293.60 149856 1/14/2011 3323 MET LIFE 3,109.32 149857 1/14/2011 100186 MG TRUST COMPANY LLC 6,462.67 149858 1/14/2011 101927 MICHIGAN STATE DISBURSEME 125.00 149859 1/14/2011 8801 MID SOUTH ADJUSTMENT CO I 170.76 149860 1/14/2011 100158 NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS INC 242.30 149861 1/14/2011 2060 NLR EDUCATORS CREDIT UNIO 38,784.69 - 149862 1/14/2011 5043 NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK 72.90 149863 1/14/2011 66666 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 480.26 149864 1/14/2011 516 OCSE 2,322.33 149865 1/14/2011 4949 PHEAA 96.96 149866 1/14/2011 5474 PIONEERC REDIT RECOVERYI 320.52 149867 1/14/2011 9310 SBG-VAA 698.00 149868 1/14/2011 2202 TASC 13,734.14 149869 1/14/2011 101735 THE MCHUGHES LAW FIRM LLC 245.28 149870 1/14/2011 9337 U SABLE LIFE 2,457.86 149871 1/14/2011 100844 U SABLE LIFE 14,231.80 149872 1/14/2011 100845 U SABLE LIFE 4~312.30 149873 1/14/2011 100846 U SABLE LIFE 4,576.75 149874 1/14/2011 9340 US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE C -- - - 2,054.82 149875 1/14/2011 4211 US ABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY . 3_5.23 .. ~. : - 149876 1/14/2011 9345 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 7,142.96 149877 1/14/2011 100824 US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATI 278.32 149878 1/14/2011 2927 UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COU 660.97 149879 1/14/2011 10228 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AM 1,033.05 149880 1/14/2011 2953 VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY 17,437.00 149881 1/14/2011 2954 VALIC-VARIABLE ANNUITY LI 175.00 149882 1/14/2011 100843 VISION SERVICE PLAN (AR) 3,804.95 - 149883 1/13/2011 4927 AFLAC 32.10 149884 1/13/2011 100161 ARETHA ADAMS 10.00 149885 1/13/2011 100842 ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE 2,087.67 149886 1/13/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 55.99 Page T-6 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149887 1/13/2011 3800 BOBBIE RIGGINS 10.00 149888 1/13/2011 4148 CAREY SMITH 45.00 - 149889 1/13/2011 1084 EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY 1,801.60 149890 1/13/2011 10444 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISIO 3,122.58 149891 1/13/2011 3429 FRED HOKES 45.00 149892 1/13/2011 6203 GARY L STEPHENS 12.50 149893 1/13/2011 7446 INTEGRATION SERVICESC ORP 863.98 149894 1/13/2011 4057 LUCI A STEPHENS 12.50 149895 1/13/2011 101648 MAILFINANCE 391.24 149896 1/13/2011 3317 MCKINZIE L RILEY 45.00 149897 1/13/2011 3323 MET LIFE 24.27 149898 1/13/2011 8990 NCS PEARSON INC 5,789.27 149899 1/13/2011 1117 NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELECTRI 646.93 149900 1/13/2011 3971 OTIS RAY BANKS 10.00 149901 1/13/2011 100320 SARA RICHMOND 90.80 149902 1/13/2011 9527 SHI 580.00 149903 1/13/2011 3330 SPRINT 7,367.77 149904 1/13/2011 3801 THOMAS DWAYNE NOBLE Ill 12.50 149905 1/13/2011 9337 US ABLE LIFE 42.28 149906 1/13/2011 100846 US ABLE LIFE 126.31 149907 1/13/2011 9340 US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE C 27.65 149908 1/13/2011 9345 U SABLE LIFE/CANCER 209.64 149909 1/13/2011 100843 VISION SERVICE PLAN (AR) 401.78 149910 1/13/2011 6448 HEWLETT-PACKARD 133,504.84 - 149911 1/13/2011 1937 NORTH POINT FORD 40,051.55 149912 1/13/2011 1141 SPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC 41.69 149913 1/13/2011 100845 U SABLE LIFE 74.34 149914 1/14/2011 99 AGATE 1,400.00 149915 1/14/2011 100920 BONNIE CURLIN 39.48 149916 1/14/2011 3200 BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RES 215.00 149917 1/14/2011 10512 DANA MCCOY 59.22 149918 1/14/2011 7364 DAWNE CARROLL 43.26 149919 1/14/2011 101608 DEBBIE ROPER BRYAN 97.02 149920 1/14/2011 4678 JANET FOSTER 104.58 149921 1/14/2011 100789 JENNIFER ZINK 405.33 149922 1/14/2011 4438 KATE SLAY 28.98 149923 1/14/2011 101179 KEVIN DAVIS 77.70 149924 1/14/2011 8271 MARIA TOUCHSTONE 212.80 149925 1/14/2011 10335 MARTHA NORTON 1,312.50 149926 1/14/2011 92797 MORRIS \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES 1,211.60 149927 1/14/2011 8990 NCS PEARSON INC 592.47 149928 1/14/2011 2864 NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT 240.00 149929 1/14/2011 7077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE ACTIVITY 84.08 149930 1/14/2011 102028 SHRYLETTAW ILSON 27.72 149931 1/14/2011 8246 STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR EDU 987.00 - 149933 1/14/2011 1970 ADT SECURITYS ERVICESIN C 1,435.34 149934 1/14/2011 117 ALL AMERICAN INC. 825.22 149935 1/14/2011 1114 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERV. 40.30 Page T-7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149936 1/14/2011 131 ARKANSAS FLAG \u0026amp; BANNER IN 198.11 149937 1/14/2011 5774 CARLEX 29.90 149938 1/14/2011 100985 COMCABLES.COM 78.48 149939 1/14/2011 1084 EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY 913.01 149940 1/14/2011 100474 GODDESS PRODUCTS, INC. 258.81 149941 1/14/2011 10072 KAREN COLEMAN 68.02 149942  1/14/2011 2735 KESSLERTSE AM SPORTS 1,080.00 149943 1/14/2011 4128 OFFICE DEPOT 1,177.07 149944 1/14/2011 7042 PREMIUM REFRESHMENTS ERVI 10.80 149945 1/14/2011 2398 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 80.50 149946 1/14/2011 2531 SCHOLASTICIN C 360.00 149947 1/14/2011 2569 SCHOOL SPECIAITY 120.36 149948 1/14/2011 100844 US ABLE LIFE 299.40 149949 1/18/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 31.50 149950 1/18/2011 1177 BANK OF THE OZARKS 6.04 149951 1/18/2011 947 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINI 0.18 149952 1/18/2011 1184 LIFE INSURANCE OF SOUTHWE 16.88 149953 1/19/2011 7845 AAMSCO 600.66 149954 1/19/2011 101956 ALICIA ANN SIMS 371.25 149955 1/19/2011 9846 ALISHA HERRING 103.74 149956 1/19/2011 8716 AMANDA STUCKEY 98.53 149957 1/19/2011 7978 ANDRIA SMITH 112.14 149958 1/19/2011 9381 APPLIED PRACTICE, LTD 167.83 - 149959 1/19/2011 9107 AR SPANISHI NTERPRETERT R 258.25 149960 1/19/2011 100123 ARKANSAS CHILDRENS HOSPIT 2,090.00 149961 1/19/2011 493 BARNES AND NOBLE 5,111.91 149962 1/19/2011 10511 BRANDY NESSELRODT 89.88 149963 1/19/2011 90021 BRENDA PARKER 38.85 149964 1/19/2011 100069 BRODART 114.13 149965 1/19/2011 3226 BROOKE BRICKER 58.80 149966 1/19/2011 3200 BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RES 1,592.00 149967 1/19/2011 101725 CAROLINE CROW 15.QO 149968 1/19/2011 6741 DIEDRA GASKALLA 117.52 149969 1/19/2011 9005 EAi EDUCATION ORDERS 336.48 149970 1/19/2011 3419 FOLLETT EDUCATONAL SERVIC 1,109.00 149971 1/19/2011 102030 JENNIFER SKAGGS 8.23 149972 1/19/2011 8701 JENNY OBANNON 85.79 149973 1/19/2011 101693 JOAN WORTHEN 51.16 149974 1/19/2011 10271 JUST FOR KIDS 1,121.25 149975 1/19/2011 1696 KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO 184.91 149976 1/19/2011 8560 KEVA RODGERS 52.08 149977 1/19/2011 829 KIM REYNOLDS 132.30 149978 1/19/2011 100883 LESLIE EASON 63.84 149979 1/19/2011 100532 LINDY JONES 66.36 - 149980 1/19/2011 5668 MCDONALD DASH 281.49 149981 1/19/2011 3380 MENTORING MINDS 917.40 149982 1/19/2011 101181 MICHELE TRETTER 65.52 149983 1/19/2011 655 MINDWARE 54.84 Page T-8 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 149984 1/19/2011 101908 MOLLY SMITH 405.00 149985 1/19/2011 6613 NANCY STEWART 49.14 149986 1/19/2011 2028 NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS 134.82 - 149987 1/19/2011 4128 OFFICE DEPOT 373.44 149988 1/19/2011 101288 OLA PERRY 73.08 149989 1/19/2011 10292 PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICE 2,970.00 149990 1/19/2011 4459 REBECCA WINTERS 34.86 149991 1/19/2011 487 SAMANTHA CURRAN 34.86 149992 1/19/2011 4462 SARAH CHILDERS 139.02 149993 1/19/2011 4967 SARAH RALEY 106.26 149994 1/19/2011 38 SCHOOLS PECIALT Y 83.95 149995 1/19/2011 8246 STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR EDU 987.00 149996 1/19/2011 101768 STUDY TO SUCCEED.COM 174.96 149997 1/19/2011 1655 SUSAN MATTHEWS 26.46 149998 1/19/2011 101704 TABITHA ROSEBERRY 133.14 149999 1/19/2011 101870 TALKltllG POINTS PEDIATRIC 3,465.00 150000 1/19/2011 10500 TEACHERS' DISCOUNT 324.39 150001 1/19/2011 2494 TERRI FRENCH 133.56 150002 1/19/2011 4691 THERAPY PROVIDERS PA 4,475.00 150003 1/19/2011 3085 WORLD BOOK SCHOOL/LIBRARY 1,087.20 150004 1/21/2011 4314 AEA 415.02 150005 1/21/2011 8476 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 382.50 150006 1/21/2011 4927 AFLAC 587.42 150007 1/21/2011 6614 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERV 150.00 - 150008 1/21/2011 2338 AR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIR 792.42 150009 1/21/2011 1256 AR TEACHER RETIREMENT RET 1,269.69 150010 1/21/2011 100842 ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE 3,134.09 150011 1/21/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 34,916.18 150012 1/21/2011 1186 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 303.73 150013 1/21/2011 1177 BANK OF THE OZARKS 43,007.76 150014 1/21/2011 9695 CAPITAL ONE BANK 10.00 150015 1/21/2011 1635 CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 57 88.72 150016 1/21/2011 5003 COLONIAL LIFE \u0026amp; ACCIDENT 53.81 150017 1/21/2011 9342 CONSECO LIFE 5.29 150018 1/21/2011 2566 CREDIT BUREAU SERVICESA S 128.74 150019 1/21/2011 947 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINI 6,562.02 150020 1/21/2011 10444 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISIO 40,098.91 150021 1/21/2011 8829 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 25.00 150022 1/21/2011 5332 ING RETIREMENT PLANS 290.00 150023 1/21/2011 5000 ING SERVICE CENTER 125.00 150024 1/21/2011 3260 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 25.00 150025 1/21/2011 8311 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 48.48 150026 1/21/2011 8805 JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN 1,158.92 150027 1/21/2011 4909 LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN PL 390.43 150028 1/21/2011 1184 LIFE INSURANCE OF SOUTHWE 2,187.45 - 150029 1/21/2011 5782 MARKT MCCARTY TRUSTEE 1,463.60 150030 1/21/2011 3323 MET LIFE 755.50 150031 1/21/2011 2060 NLR EDUCATORS CREDIT UNIO 5,236.44 Page T-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 150032 1/21/2011 5043 NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK 139.50 150033 1/21/2011 516 OCSE 3,112.75 150034 1/21/2011 2634 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GE 269.54 150035 1/21/2011 2202 TASC 192.96 150036 1/21/2011 9337 U SABLE LIFE 471.68 150037 1/21/2011 100844 U SABLE LIFE 1,646.80 150038 1/21/2011 100845 U SABLE LIFE 549.82 150039 1/21/2011 100846 US ABLE LIFE 1,040.06 150040 1/21/2011 9340 US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE C 589.89 150041 1/21/2011 4211 US ABLE LIFE-VOLUNTARY 4.93 150042 1/21/2011 9345 US ABLE LIFE/CANCER 1,733.18 150043 , 1/21/2011 100824 US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATI 66.48 150044 1/21/2011 2927 UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COU 34.83 150045 1/21/2011 10228 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AM 5.90 150046 1/21/2011 2953 VALIC-VARIABLE ANNUITY 775.00 150047 1/21/2011 100843 VISION SERVICE PLAN (AR) 716.87 150048 1/20/2011 5889 A \u0026amp; A FIRE \u0026amp; SAFETY COM PA 1,587.60 150049 1/20/2011 8850 A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC 361.00 150050 1/20/2011 4861 AGATE 225.00 150051 1/20/2011 8852 AHA PROCESSIN CORPORATED 6,000.00 150052 1/20/2011 102004 ALMA RENEE DAWSON 2,347.77 150053 1/20/2011 241 AMERICAN PAPER \u0026amp; TWINE CO 2,255.04 150054 1/20/2011 101989 ANDREA M JOHNSON 2,224.66 - 150055 1/20/2011 1101 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE 298.80 150056 1/20/2011 10391 AT\u0026amp;T LONG DISTANCE 125.72 150057 1/20/2011 5113 AUDREY MOORE 405.00 150058 1/20/2011 101974 BELLA FLORA 64.45 150059 1/20/2011 102000 BOBBIE J MCCARTY TRUMAN S 2,221.37 150060 1/20/2011 574 BRANDON COMPANY 27.59 150061 1/20/2011 101991 BRONWYN MACFARLANE 2,234.26 150062 1/20/2011 101990 CARISSA LACY 2,364.31 150063 1/20/2011 101992 CAROL MILLER 2,307.25 . 150065 1/20/2011 318 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 58,934.91 150066 1/20/2011 101993 CHARLES F RUSSELL 3,097.64 150067 1/20/2011 7345 CHARLES POPE 246.00 150068 1/20/2011 101999 CHARLOTTE EARWOOD 2,471.21 150069 1/20/2011 2845 CICl'S PIZZA 100.00 150070 1/20/2011 1602 COCA-COLA USA 3,738.75 150071 1/20/2011 101982 DANNY J FLETCHER 2,985.97 150073 1/20/2011 34 DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS 32,333.48 150074 1/20/2011 102033 DISTRICT V FBLA 72.00 150075 1/20/2011 1040 ECOLAB INC 1,671.84 150076 1/20/2011 1051 ED'S SUP PLY CO 114.06 150077 1/20/2011 3756 ELAINE BURTON 328.69 - 150078 1/20/2011 101978 ELIZABETH BLAKE 2,231.72 150079 1/20/2011 102003 ELIZABETH CLIFFORD 2,334.42 150080 1/20/2011 2730 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL OF H 314.14 150081 1/20/2011 432 FOLLETT LIBRARY 791.40 Page T-10 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check listing for Period 7 January 2011 150082 1/20/2011 5318 GALAXY FURNITURE 1,198.80 150083 1/20/2011 102008 GEORGINE STEINMILLER 2,346.46 150084 1/20/2011 101997 GLORIA CLAY 2,215.20 - 150085 1/20/2011 100474 GODDESS PRODUCTS, INC. 1,187.98 150086 1/20/2011 1283 GOPHER 34.95 150087 1/20/2011 90032 GREGG THOMPSON 31.49 150088 1/20/2011 101998 HAROLD DAVIDSON 2,312.56 150089 1/20/2011 101981 HOLLY DEWEY 2,315.28 150090 1/20/2011 102001 JACKIE L WHITEHEAD 2,220.41 150091 1/20/2011 3185 JANET E THOMAS P.T. 387.34 150092 1/20/2011 102030 JENNIFER SKAGGS 100.33 150093 1/20/2011 101984 JUDGE LARRY JR 2,401.02 150094 1/20/2011 10866 KENDRA LEIRER 735.00 150095 1/20/2011 2473 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERI 368.00 150096 1/20/2011 1156 LITTLE ROCK FARMERS ASSOC 1,203.14 150097 1/20/2011 101995 LORI M ALTSCHUL 2,972.62 150098 1/20/2011 102006 LOU GREGORIO 2,421.58 150099 1/20/2011 101980 MARGARET BUFORD 2,471.05 150100 1/20/2011 4946 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 83.42 150101 1/20/2011 101988 MARY ANN BUTLER 2,329.86 150102 1/20/2011 101994 MEGAN WITONSKI 2,434.50 . 150103 1/20/2011 1983 NL R WINTEMP SUPPLY 1,838.78 150104 1/20/2011 2097 NLR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 24.00 150105 1/20/2011 1117 NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELECTRI 441.20 150106 1/20/2011 4128 OFFICE DEPOT 53.45 150107 1/20/2011 101986 PEGGY KEA TON WOODALL 2,373.11 150108 1/20/2011 100661 PETTUS OFFICE PRODUCTS 1,574.46 150109 1/20/2011 2216 PIONEER DISTRIBUTING CO 9,125.41 150110 1/20/2011 7042 PREMIUM REFRESHMENT SERVI 88.24 150111 1/20/2011 6289 PRO-ACT INC 259.20 150112 1/20/2011 101453 PYRAMID ART, BOOKS \u0026amp; CUST 5,290.66 150113 1/20/2011 8899 PYRAMID EDUCATIONAL CONSU 8,748.07 150114 1/20/2011 101907 QUEST EDUCATION SYSTEMS 179.00 150115 1/20/2011 101983 ROGER C GUEVARA 2,419.49 150116 1/20/2011 102002 RUBY BURGESS 2,322.15 150117 1/20/2011 2398 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 254.52 150118 1/20/2011 101985 SANDY KAY RAY 2,295.35 150119 1/20/2011 310 SHARI COSTON 2,268.91 150120 1/20/2011 101987 SHELLY ALBRITTON 2,531.32 150121 1/20/2011 102034 STEPHANIE THIEBAULT 922.00 150122 1/20/2011 102005 SUE M GARNER 2,379.30 150123 1/20/2011 92950 THE LIBRARY STORE 89.83 150124 1/20/2011 8385 TRACY CHRISMAN 1,270.00 150125 1/20/2011 224 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 1,000.00 150126 1/20/2011 224 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 1,250.00 - 150127 1/20/2011 224 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 1,500.00 150128 1/20/2011 224 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 1,500.00 150129 1/20/2011 8781 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 250.96 Page T-11 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 150130 1/20/2011 102007 WINSTON F SIMPSON 3,126.42 150131 1/20/2011 1315 XEROX CORPORATION 1,109.71 - 150137 1/20/2011 92851 TURNER DAIRY 21,531.79 150138 1/20/2011 101939 BUILDING \u0026amp; UTILITY CONTRA 141,902.69 150139 1/20/2011 4369 HM RECEIVABLESC O LLC 889.80 150140 1/20/2011 101287 JIM HENRY 950.00 150141 1/20/2011 8718 MITCHS TIRE SERVICE 590.00 150142 1/20/2011 10860 SOFA MART 1,915.92 150143 1/20/2011 5420 TROUTMAN OIL CO INC 27,234.57 150144 1/20/2011 2164 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 4,062.55 150145 1/20/2011 8781 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 718.09 150146 1/20/2011 7072 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 600.00 150147 1/20/2011 101489 WINDSTREAM COMMUNICATIONS 106,786.72 150148 1/21/2011 8850 A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC 718.00 150149 1/21/2011 92159 A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES 89.73 150150 1/21/2011 7845 AAMSCO 342.91 150151 1/21/2011 3104 ANTHONY CANTRELL 30.00 150152 1/21/2011 1114 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERV. 446.09 150153 1/21/2011 91249 ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENT 70.49 150154 1/21/2011 6827 ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISH 1,740.00 150156 1/21/2011 3006 BARBARA HARTWICK 29.15 150157 1/21/2011 3800 BOBBIE RIGGINS 30.00 150158 1/21/2011 5484 BRAD BOLDING 30.00 150159 1/21/2011 690 CARLTON-BATESC O. 10.78 150160 1/21/2011 101783 CASSANDRA KAY JACKSON 30.00 150161 1/21/2011 101245 CHRISTOPHERB ROCKM OORE 30.00 150162 1/21/2011 4333 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES 1,005.65 150163 1/21/2011 1279 CORKYS 164.50 150165 1/21/2011 92383 CURRY'S TERMITE \u0026amp; PEST CO 1:803.60 150166 1/21/2011 3988 DAVID W WYMER 90.00 150167 1/21/2011 3937 DERRICK GREENWOOD 70.00 150168 1/21/2011 2514 DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRU 11,668.82. 150169 1/21/2011 7073 EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 295.00 150170 1/21/2011 3862 EDWIN E ETHERIDGE 90.00 150171 1/21/2011 101729 EPS/SCHOOLS PECIALTYIN TE 45.50 150172 1/21/2011 100249 EUGENE DOGGETT 25.00 150173 1/21/2011 102043 FAQUAN HARRIS 70.00 150174 1/21/2011 101348 FAYRENE NOONER 30.00 150175 1/21/2011 2882 FERRELLGAS 20.52 150176 1/21/2011 432 FOLLETT LIBRARY 1,670.39 150177 1/21/2011 6203 GARY L STEPHENS 62.50 150178 1/21/2011 100764 GCR NORTH LITTLE ROCK TIR 1,500.00 150179 1/21/2011 100474 GODDESS PRODUCTS, INC. 395.32 150180 1/21/2011 100860 HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSIT 1,250.00 - 150181 1/21/2011 7446 INTEGRATIONS ERVICESC ORP 1,745.28 150182 1/21/2011 3521 JACQUES MUMFORD 50.00 150183 1/21/2011 10843 LETITIA KELLY 1,254.37 150184 1/21/2011 8439 LINDA LEE 13,000.00 Page T-12 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 150185 1/21/2011 1988 LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. 51.74 150186 1/21/2011 93165 LOWE'S 870.35 150187 1/21/2011 4057 LUCI A STEPHENS 37.50 150188 1/21/2011 8988 MB ELECTRONICS 133.87 150189 1/21/2011 101648 MAILFINANCE 271.20 150190 1/21/2011 5085 MARDEL #8 16.83 150191 1/21/2011 101963 MARTY ALLEN 30.00 150192 1/21/2011 101328 MEGAN JONES 30.00 150193 1/21/2011 1983 NL R WINTEMP SUPPLY 365.68 150194 1/21/2011 1262 NAPA AUTO PARTS 332.26 150195 1/21/2011 2087 NLR WELDING SUPPLY 87.59 150196 1/21/2011 55555 NLRSD WAREHOUSE 1,960.00 150198 1/21/2011 1117 NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELECTRI 66,813.31 150199 1/21/2011 2154 NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY 1,682.64 150200 1/21/2011 2131 NORTH LITTLE ROCK WINN ELS 753.76 150201 1/21/2011 2453 NSSLHA MID SOUTH CONFEREN 150.00 150202 1/21/2011 4128 OFFICE DEPOT 1,715.08 150203 1/21/2011 3971 OTIS RAY BANKS 30.00 150204 1/21/2011 3797 PAMELA JACKSON 50.00 150205 1/21/2011 101487 PANERA BREAD 276.36 150206 1/21/2011 1849 PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHIN 1,604.92 150207 1/21/2011 101157 PETTIT \u0026amp; PETTIT COUNSUL Tl 859.95 150208 1/21/2011 100661 PETTUS OFFICE PRODUCTS 371.30 150209 1/21/2011 3487 PHYLLIS THOMPSON 55.00 - 150210 1/21/2011 7042 PREMIUM REFRESHMENT SERVI 90.84 150211 1/21/2011 2446 REFRIGERATION\u0026amp; ELECTRIC 554.16 150212 1/21/2011 3943 REGINALD JOHNSON 120.00 150213 1/21/2011 7077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE ACTIVITY 38.85 150214 1/21/2011 2398 SAMS CLUB DIRECT 227.42 150215 1/21/2011 3821 SARAH J SHEPPARD 30.00 150216 1/21/2011 2569 SCHOOL SPECIAITY 1,181.43 150217 1/21/2011 2698 STANLEY HARDWARE CO 161.44 150218 1/21/2011 1006 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 403.17 150219 1/21/2011 100192 STEVEN OROBONA 729.30 150220 1/21/2011 2530 SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; 815.83 150221 1/21/2011 2770 SUPREME FIXTURE CO 34,843.00 150222 1/21/2011 101807 TEODOR E GONZALES JR 55.00 150223 1/21/2011 6761 THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES 476.22 150224 1/21/2011 101996 THEODORE MARTIN BECK 2,244.88 150225 1/21/2011 2890 TREADWAY ELECTRICC OMPANY 778.81 150226 1/21/2011 2164 UTILITY BILLING SERVICES 412.98 150227 1/21/2011 8781 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 221.68 150228 1/21/2011 5291 WILLIAM DAVIS 50.00 150229 1/21/2011 3945 WILLIE JONES 50.00 150230 1/21/2011 1185 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREME 33.55 - 150231 1/21/2011 1177 BANK OF THE OZARKS 6.44 150232 1/21/2011 947 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINI 0.24 150233 1/21/2011 1184 LIFE INSURANCE OF SOUTHWE 17.98 Page T-13 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Check Listing for Period 7 January 2011 150234 1/21/2011 101337 1 TO 1 TUTOR LLC 29,645.00 150235 1/21/2011 92159 A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES 99.52 - 150236 1/21/2011 5468 ABC SUPPLY CO INC 199.80 150237 1/21/2011 101347 ACADEMIC TUTORING SERVICE 28,253.33 150238 1/21/2011 101956 ALICIA ANN SIMS 371.25 150239 1/21/2011 4593 AMERICAN FIRST RESPONSE 3,853.71 150240 1/21/2011 100123 ARKANSAS CHILDRENS HOSPIT 8,250.00 150241 1/21/2011 113 ASPMA 300.00 150242 1/21/2011 442 BASICS PLUS 138.15\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1827","title":"Multiple court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2011-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1827"],"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":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_148","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":["2010-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/148"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT e ~ OF EDUCATION RECEti'VfED JAN : ., 2011 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Tom w. Kimbrell December 3 0, 201 0 Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Uttle Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Utile Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 BSMIHDY Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2010 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C-6~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 BSM/HCY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for December, 2010. BY: ~ C -~~ .~C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on December 30, 2010, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. M. Samuel Jones, m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ C .6 ~ J 7eye~ Lasiter IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ 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 December 31, 201 O B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 ~ ========== C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 \" l=el.inda .~~ . ca et.Jla efqJer.,,F'f =======,,.\n..\"\"\"-\"'=b,~ct fq s w~re as' , ~SD - $58,M 1 ,45~ t.-JLRSQ - $@, 7~\n99J -CS$E\u0026gt;\n- $44 313,S~ 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 December 31, 2010 ~ased on the inform~tion av~ilable, the.ADE'\"'calculated at November 30 2010: for FY10/11 subect to eriodic adustrnents 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 December 31, 2010 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 December 31, 2010 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 ,O.istributiqns for FY :1 Ol11 at November 30, 2_010, tetaled $\n5,985,375. Allotme :\nf balculated for FY 16/11 was $15,498,.75 subject to eriodic adustments 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 December 31, 2010 ~ased on the information available, the ADE 'calculated at November 30 201d for FY10/11, subject to eriodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September.:. June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 The North Little Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $58,059. The $58,059 was refunded to the ADE on June 28, 2010. J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31 , 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1,471,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 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 December 31 , 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724, 165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71,210 per unit and two 4 7 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 201 O 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 December 31, 2010 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 December 31 , 2010 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 December 31 , 201 O The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1 . Projected Ending Date 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 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 December 31, 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 201 O Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11. 13 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 December 31 , 2010 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 201 O (Continued) On October 11, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the 8 Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua  lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31. Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201 -A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided update information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. 30 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 December 31 , 201 O 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 December 31 , 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 31 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 December 31 , 2010 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 December 31 , 2010 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 December 31 , 2010 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 December 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 32 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 December 31 , 2010 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 33 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 December 31, 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 3 5 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 December 31, 2010 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 36 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 37 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 December 31 , 2010 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 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 38 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 December 31, 2010 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. 39 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 December 31, 2010 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua interveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lnterveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterveners were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 201 O (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 3. Actual as of December 31, 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. b n December  1 ~\n2010, tl:lei 'Arkansas $tate Board of Educ~tic:m reviewed ao  roved the f.\u0026gt;MT and its executive sum ma!}.' for the month of November 53 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 December 31 , 2010 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. 54 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 December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 55 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 December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 56 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 December 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 201 O 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\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_92","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":["2010-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/92"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RE~i.:u~'!ED DEC 1 u 2010 DESE CFFICE OF Dr.TomW.Kimbrell November 30, 2010 Commissioner GREG\niT/DN MON/TOP.ING State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Utile Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado A Dr. Ben Mays W Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 -rkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of Novemb~r 2010 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ' ())C.\u0026amp;~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on November 30, 2010, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite I 895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~c.~~ JeCLasiter UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December IO, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE' s Project Management Tool for November, 20 I 0. BY: ~C-6~ Jeremy C. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-2005 Ark. 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-82a866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's-progress-against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 Based on the information available at bctoper 31 , 2010, th~ ADE calculated for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 On October 31, 2010, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 10/11 were as follows: LRSD - $15,938,523 NLRSD - $9,759,543 PCSSD - $12,085,4.61 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 10/11 at October 31 , 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $58,441,252 NLRSD - $35,784,992 PCSSD - $44,313,364 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 November 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at October 31 , 2010 for FY10/11 , 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 November 30, 2010 Basedon -the informafon available\nfffei ADE calculated arbctobef': 31, 2010 or FX1_0/11, S!Jpject to_~~iQtJic-adj~sfhl~nts. ~It shoufcitie- no'tedthatcurrently-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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511,455. 1\n3ased on the informatiqn avaTiable, ,t~ ADE calculated at Octg~er 3r, 2-01Q f9J FY10/11, su.!\n?ject to p~riodic adjustments. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 Distributio-ns for FY 10/11 at October 31, 201 O\ntotaled $4,169,161. A_llotment ,calculated for FY 10/11 was $15,286,918 subject to periodic a_gj9.tments: 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 November 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. J. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 QJs,friolJtjonslor'J=y~'foI11 at Octobef~1, 20] .Q. were: J,.RSP~-$98,1,03~ NL,RSD - -$f,197,782 pcsso\n_ _t2 ,~Q9s,ssey tt,e ali9tments cafculate9 for FY 1 0J1J at Qctooer 3_1, 2010, subject to Qeriodlc adjustm~hts,. were: '.LRSD.: $4,905,188 NLRSD - _$5,988,9f5 PCS~D - $10,47.8,331 T-he North Littie Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $58,059. The $58,059 was refunded to the ADE on June 28, 2010. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 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 November 30, 2010 In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Endlng Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31 , 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/1 O transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following bad been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD -$1,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 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 November 30, 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was .generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for tbe Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to~M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1-997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet arid M-to-M l::luses at a cost of $024,879. 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\n. NLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.0D each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M b11ses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,036,115.00. 8 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larg-er fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales.. The buses for the LRSD include 8' - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 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 November 30, 2010 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 November 30, 2010 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 November 30, 2010 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to IVlagnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99t00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 9/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07 /08. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY- 10/11. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 Distribution in July- 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 -1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . 13 11. 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 November 30, 201 0 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then ft was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 14 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 15 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. -on October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review re.commendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring -Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the-Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development r.egarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30~p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 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 achieement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, 'ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities- in academic achievement for biack students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegr.egation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to  exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or par=tial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the-school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the 8 Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review tbe Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking  nitar/ status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31. Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville ou1 of the PCSSD would hi  der efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th -tl .S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 up9ate on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, _discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school distri.cts in Pulaski County continue to receive the_same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working GroLJp met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the -1\\Jorth Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requeste_d delays_ in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided update information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also  stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. 30 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 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 November 30, 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 31 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 November 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of th is report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 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 November 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 32 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 November 30, 2010 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, ando-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise- and the data used to support their conclusrons were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 33 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 November 30, 2010 (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 fheir 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 concfudes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegr..egation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no law$ under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter sch\"ool proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. anhe ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 36 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 37 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 November 30, 2010 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 November 3D, 2010 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 November 30, 2010 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 38 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 November 30, 2010 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. 39 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua interveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lnterveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterven.ers 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, 19S9. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to fhe Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, tl\"le Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was r::,otified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized . On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board _of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary tor the month of April. On June 11, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved-the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the moAth of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June.  On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and ifs executive summary for the month of December. On Febr:uary 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT anclits executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11 , 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool , and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the SettlemeP.t Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Co tinued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, .the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 3. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 53 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 November 30, 2010 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. 1-n October 1995, two c0mputer 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 NGA/COE peer team visits. 54 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the -draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 55 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. (ConUnued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 1-11 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, c1nd by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 56 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 November 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, vis itation 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\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_43","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":["2010-10"],"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.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/43"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-10 19 (501) 682-4475 ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer i\\RKANSAS DEPARTi\\tENT OF EDUCATH)N October 29. 2010 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3--1-93 Mr. John W. \\Valk.er John Walker. P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72203-1510 [ 1 - 0 LUTIJ oedliijRlffiP!rJ!G Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock. AR 7220 I RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Sc/1001 District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Educations Project Management Tool for the month of October 2010 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C.-~~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsd ,--\"'E OF DESEGREGrt TION lnONITOP.ING i_\n:--\n1TED STATES DISTRICT COCRT EASTER..'\\/ DISTRICT OF ARKA\\JSAS WESTER\" DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCIIOOL DISTRICT V. \u0026gt;lo. LR-C-82-866 Vv RW PULASKI COGNTY SPECIAL SCI IOOL DISTRICT NO. I. et al NOTICE OF FILING PLANTIH DEFE\u0026gt;ID. \\NTS In accordance with the Court s Order of December I 0, 1993. the Arkansas Department of Education hereb1 gives notice of the filing of the ADE\"s Project Management Tool for October. 20 I 0. BY: .Je _ C. Lasiter. General Counsel .\\rk. Bar No. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERTJF[CATE OF SER\\'[CE I. Jerem, Lasiter. certif) that on October 29, 2010. f caused the foregoing document to be served b) depositing a copy in the L.\nnited States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to each of the folio\\\\ ing:\n\\,Ir. Christopher Heller Frida). Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark -WO West Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ~lr. John W. \\Valker John Walker. P .. \\. 1723 Broad\\\"a, Little Rock. AR 72206 \\Ir. Mark Burnette Mitchell. Blackstock. Barnes \\Vagoner. Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72203-15 l 0 Office of Desegregation :Vfonitoring One L.\nnion . ational Plaza 12-+ West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. A.R 7220 l Mr. tephcn W. Jones Jack, L: on \u0026amp; Jones -+25 ,,_,est Capitol. Suite 3-+00 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. M. Samuel Jones. If[ Mitchell. Williams. Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Wood) ard -+25 \\\\'est Capitol. Suite 1800 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 7220 l IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVl::N-oRS 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, 2010 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010  .. ,5!'aff.~ble\nJn,i ====-==~~QJ'~OJO ~\"'--\"'~:.W.:..1.c=. .= ==[=lo=d=iG adjust', . 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, 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511,455. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 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 , 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 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 October 31, 2010 In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1 ,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 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 , 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in th,e 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 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, 2010 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 , 2010 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 October 31 , 2010 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 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, 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 201 O Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11. 13 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 dispa[ities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 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 vis ited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted , and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201 -A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress rn reduclng disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The  Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to  exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the st Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 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 October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201 -A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enroflments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided update information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) u oots fnPula'sl\u0026lt;iC . - 30 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 , 2010 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 , 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 31 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 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 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, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 32 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 , 2010 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impedes deseg reg ati on. 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. 33 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 October 31, 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 36 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, the ADE sent letters .to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 37 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, 2010 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 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 38 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 , 2010 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. 39 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, 2010 (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 r3, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua interveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lnterveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterveners were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of Apri l. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State  Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education .reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the-Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of JU.f'.le and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT anct its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 3. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and appro_ygg tt,e PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. 53 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 , 2010 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 h,ad 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. 54 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 , 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 school$ commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 55 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 , 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits.  Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 56 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 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of th is report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2010 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resourc\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_198","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capasity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2010-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Public libraries--Arkansas--Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capasity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/198"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n?,oo_ ?W.95 0 Polly Ramer From: Date: To: Subject: Polly, \"Ring, Jean\" \u0026lt;Jean.Ring@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, March 07, 2011 1 :43 PM \"'Polly Ramer\"' \u0026lt;paramer@odmemail.com\u0026gt; M to M's There are still 2 NLRSD students that are M to M for 10/11. So the figures should be 337 .83 for the county and 2.00 for NLRSD. Sorry I was late getting back to you!! Jean A. Ring Director, Finance and Accounting Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 P (501) 447-1089 F (501) 447-1158 Page 1 of 1 3/7/2011 Polly Ramer From: \"BERRY SHARON\" \u0026lt;SBERRY@pcssd.org\u0026gt; Date: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 4:02 PM To: \"Polly Ramer\" \u0026lt;paramer@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Subject: RE: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Sorry, below are the figures for ADM: Little Rock - 792.36 North Little Rock - 180.69 THANKS! Sharon From: Polly Ramer [mailto:paramer@odmemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20111:37 PM To: BERRY SHARON Subject: Re: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Sharon, Page I of I Sorry, but I cannot open the attachment. Can you either send it in another format or just email me the ADM's from LRSD and also from NLRSD? Just for comparison, last year those numbers were 877.96 from LRSD and 240.52 from NLRSD. Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. Polly From: BERRY SHARON Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 201112:53 PM To: paramer@odmemail.com Cc: BROWN DERRICK Subject: ADM for Cycle 3 for M to M Attached is the District ADM report for Cycle 3 for M to M. If you need anything else, please let me know. THANKS! Sharon Berry Assistant Director IT Pulaski County Special School District 3/4/2011 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2010/11 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 40 40 40 DISTRICT: 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 0.00 0.00 15877.50 QUARTER NO. 3 4 5 6 DAYS PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7662.50 579.00 396.98 588.54 1 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 602.99 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 396.98 588.54 602.99 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1001-CENTRAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 22 20 206 218 6 20 0 0 0 0 121 107 0 4 724 10 19 15 187 166 10 12 2 0 0 0 104 106 2 624 11 25 18 198 ~ 156 6 5 0~ 0 0 0 110 '3610 7 2 628 Pl\n~ -7~\n. 12 13 13 136 ~ 88 4 3 2~ 0 0 124 90 3 3 480 CENTRAL TOTAL: 79 66 727 628 26 40 4 1 0 0 459 410 7 9 c._ ~-- 1002-HALL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 3 2 119 139 28 37 0 0 0 0 8 10 0 0 346 10 2 2 142 135 22 27 0 0 0 0 15 5 0 1 351 11 2 2 122 ~ 120 20 20 0 ~ 0 0 0 17 f~ . 11 0 315 1\u0026lt;s7) 12 3 139 77 10 15 0 \" 0 0 0 9 12 0 0 266 HALL TOTAL: 8 9 522 471 80 99 0 0 0 0 49 38 1 1 1278 1003-MANN M/5 I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 2 5 89 61 11 8 3 0 0 0 54 35 3 272 07 7 6 70 t 84 10 10 ~o 0 0 52 ~ 45 2 288 ,, 1?1 ~~ 08 4 6 75 64 14 8 0 0 0 0 43 50 4 269 MANN M/5 TOTAL: 13 17 234 209 35 26 4 0 0 0 149 130 8 4 (s29 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 1 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1005-PARKVIEW I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 7 4 80 92 16 8 1 0 0 0 63 43 1 2 317 10 85 78 11 14 0 0 54 40 2 289 11 0 5 75 58 12 7 \\.). 2 0 0 53 0-.: 41 3 258 ? J ~ 12 4 71 V'ti 60 11 2 3 ~ 0 0 0 53 It~ 44 2 252 PARKVIEW TOTAL: 9 14 311 288 50 31 6 3 0 0 223 168 8 5 -1116 1006-BOOKER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 16 17 3 95 02 0 0 31 26 6 5 0 0 0 0 13 11 0 93 03 0 0 31 25 2 5 0 0 0 0 18 10 2 94 0 0o \u0026gt; \"\n. 04 0 0 26 28 2 9 0 0 0 21 11 2 0 99 j6 05 0 26 27 5 0 0 14 15 0 92 K 0 24 25 3 6 0 0 0 5 16 0 0 81 BOOKER TOTAL: 3 1 166 153 16 34 1 1 0 1 87 80 6 5 \u0026lt;'5-5_4_\n_\n.-- 1007-DUNBAR M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 3 2 147 134 7 7 0 0 0 0 17 19 0 4 340 07 2 112 l'\\ 112 7 9 \u0026lt;J 0 0 0 13 11 3 1 272 q// \\~ 08 3 0 98 97 5 4 0 0 0 0 8 16 0 1 232 DUNBAR M/S TOTAL: 8 3 357 343 19 20 1 0 0 0 38 46 3 6 844 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 2 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I008-FAIR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 0 97 138 4 10 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 266 10 0 130 ~ 122 9 7 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 283 11 0 0 81 ~ 73 6 3 ~o 0 0 4 ~ 8 0 0 176 ct6 7i) 12 0 59 63 5 5 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 FAIR TOTAL: 0 3 367 396 24 25 1 1 0 0 22 28 0 0 009-FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 75 81 6 4 0 0 0 0 7 12 0 187 07 0 0 82 ~74 14 1 0 \"' 0 0 0 7 7 0 186 ~11o 08 0 2 78 89 6 3 0 0 0 9 17 0 0 205 FORST HTS M/S TOTAL: 1 2 235 244 26 8 1 0 0 0 23 36 0 2 578 010-PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 3 69 58 3 2 0 1 0 0 61 74 274 07 4 11 68 ~ 67 2 8 1 ~ 1 0 0 67 ~1 77 0 307 p1i 1 3 61 rro 75 0 0 ~ 08 1 1 80 76 0 0 300 PUL HTS MIS TOTAL: 6 17 198 200 6 11 2 3 0 0 208 227 1 2 ~o/ I012-MCCLELLA I GRADEi I = I AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 1 0 144 134 20 14 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 330 10 0 0 117 )..:. 113 9 15 0 l\" 0 0 0 3 ~ 6 0 264 ~{)o 11 0 0 93 0o 82 11 9 0 O(J 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 203 12 0 0 83 48 11 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 151 MCCLELLA TOTAL: 1 0 437 377 51 41 1 0 0 0 12 27 0 1 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 3 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I013-HENDERSN M/S !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 0 0 105 10 8 0 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 211 07 4 2 98 15 8 0 0 0 10 7 0 0 257 3~lT) 08 2 2 115 91 9 11 2 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 246 HENDERSN M/S TOTAL: 6 4 318 275 34 27 3 0 0 0 22 23 0 2 714 015-CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 1 66 92 18 20 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 207 07 70 i 81 15 17 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 3 0 0 191 1S4 08 0 0 79 75 14 22 0 0 0 0 ~ 4 0 0 195 CLOVR M/S TOTAL: 1 2 215 248 47 59 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 '593 016-MABEL M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 06 0 2 93 106 11 14 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 241 , ~ 116 J. 07 0 0 70 10 10 0 0 0 12 ~ 11 0 231 ~')7. 08 0 0 96 ~ 91 12 13 0 0 0 9 3 0 226 MABEL M/S TOTAL: 0 2 259 313 33 37 1 1 0 0 30 20 1 1 c.__698 ) 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 4 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1017-BALE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 20 25 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 61 02 0 0 19 33 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 60 03 0 19 27 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 59 04 0 2 22 rt-24 2 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 'll 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 22 f\\\" 24 2 0 \" 0 0 0 0 'r 0 2 52 1110 K 2 24 19 6 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 61 p 0 0 6 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 BALE TOTAL: 3 6 132 162 15 18 1 1 0 0 11 12 0 3 C 1018-BRADY I GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 25 25 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 59 02 0 0 27 21 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 60 03 0 0 14 ~,, 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 37 04 0 0 14 \"' ~ ?JJu 20 2 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 , ~ 05 0 0 21 19 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 K 0 27 23 6 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 p 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 BRADY TOTAL: 1 0 137 130 17 19 0 0 0 0 11 11 1 0 021 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 5 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1020-MCDERMOT I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 1 0 21 20 4 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 59 02 0 0 18 23 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 57 03 0 0 20 27 6 6 0 0 0 0 5 4 70 04 25 ~ 31 2 2 J 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 71 \"- ,ij 1J7. 05 0 0 24 '- 24 3 \\) 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 1 0 0 55 K 2 0 19 fl 19 5 4 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 60 p 0 0 12 14 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40 MCDERMOT TOTAL: 4 1 139 158 26 25 1 0 0 1 28 25 1 3 ~2 1021-CARVER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 23 22 2 0 0 0 0 16 14 0 0 81 02 0 0 20 23 2 3 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 72 03 3 20 ~ 23 3 0 0 0 8 r\\ 11 1 0 72 04 0 3 23 ~ 21 4 0 0 0 8 \\'{\\ 17 0 0 78 tt 1\"' 05 2 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 8 11 75 K 1 3 15 16 2 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 52 p 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19\n..\u0026gt; ) CARVER TOTAL: 8 8 130 141 9 15 0 2 0 0 56 76 3 1 ~9 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 6 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1022-BASELINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 4 16 7 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 11 12 12 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 45 03 0 0 10 14 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 04 0 0 11 1 11 5 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 41 ef~ I, 05 0 0 7 15 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 K 0 0 12 18 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 51 p 0 0 3 3 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 BASELINE TOTAL: 0 0 58 89 51 67 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 277 023-FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM p 3 37 ~ 35 2 4 0 0 43 ~ 46 4 3 180 _)o} FAIR PRK TOTAL: 1 3 37 35 2 4 0 1 1 0 43 46 4 3 ?.i8o.: .----- 1024-FORST PK I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 2 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 31 27 0 73 02 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 25 32 0 68 03 2 7 n... 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 19 27 0 66 \u0026lt; G j'? 7. 04 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 33 21 0 0 72 05 2 0 9 4 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 24 28 0 0 67 K 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 23 0 0 63 p 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 21 11 0 40 FORST PK TOTAL: 7 7 40 29 5 5 2 0 0 0 181 169 4 0 449 ) 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 7 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1025-FRANKLIN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 19 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 02 0 0 28 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 03 0 0 30 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 04 0 0 36 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 2 0 0 58 0 05 0 0 21 ~ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 K 0 0 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 55 p 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 FRANKLIN TOTAL: 0 0 167 135 4 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 320 1027-GIBBS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 12 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 43 02 2 1 8 14 0 0 0 0 9 7 2 0 45 03 2 0 15 q 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 46 04 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 46 ~\u0026gt;l 05 0 1 13 13 0 0 2 0 0 8 9 0 48 K 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 39 p 0 14 15 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 39 GIBBS TOT AL: 11 4 87 78 4 7 0 3 1 0 53 51 6 1 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 8 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1028-CHICOT !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 58 58 27 28 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 179 02 0 0 42 r\\ 61 23 22 0 ~ 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 155 I.~, 1-- K 0 71 ~ 78 28 30 0 'll 0 0 0 5 ~ 4 0 0 217 p 0 0 61 58 45 32 0 ~ 0 0 0 4 4 206 ?r51 - CHICOT TOTAL: 0 1 232 255 123 112 0 1 0 0 16 15 1 1 029-WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 18 13 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 2 47 02 0 0 15 21 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 03 0 0 23 S:l\\ 15 3 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 47 C 04 0 0 20 0 17 2 2 0 0 0 3 0\\ 4 0 0 49 pJ. IJ 'l 05 0 0 18 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 K 0 0 13 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 39 p 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 20 WEST HIL TOTAL: 0 0 108 111 21 16 0 1 0 0 10 19 2 3 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 9 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1030-JEFFRSN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 10 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 31 0 0 77 02 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 33 0 0 73 03 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 17 0 0 52 04 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 23 o... 33 0 0 67 (6Jo ~ 0 2 --..:: 05 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 \"l 30 0 0 60 K 2 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 27 0 0 59 p 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 15 0 0 40 JEFFRSN TOTAL: 5 2 42 35 4 0 1 0 0 0 153 186 0 0 032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 0 11 14 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 47 02 0 10 10 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 43 03 0 0 17 (.) 24 10 11 0 0, 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 66 G 'I. 0v. \\ jtJ~ 04 0 0 16 :i 17 6 8 0 \" 0 0 0 6 'h 4 3 0 60 ~ 05 0 0 12 12 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 41 K 0 0 19 16 8 12 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 61 p 0 0 12 10 5 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 40 DODD TOTAL: 0 2 97 103 53 55 0 0 0 0 16 23 4 5 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 10of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1033-MEADCLIF !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 02 0 0 18 18 8 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 52 03 0 0 20 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 39 04 0 0 17 t 18 8 0 ~ 0 0 0 3 \\ 4 0 0 51 117 05 0 0 25 \\'\\. 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 ?i 0 0 0 50 f K 0 0 23 18 3 5 0. 0 0 0 2 0 0 52 p 0 0 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 MEADCLIF TOTAL: 0 0 137 104 22 25 0 0 0 0 14 10 0 0 \u0026lt;-__? 1035-M L KING !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL I 01 0 0 45 43 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 100 02 0 1 37 52 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 100 03 0 45 34 2 0 0 C 1 0 0 3 0 0 87 04 0 0 42 J } 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 6 0 0 103 qo1, 05 0 0 49 ii 40 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 101 K 0 0 42 34 2 0 0 0 3 4 0 88 p 0 0 31 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 56 M L KING TOTAL: 1 1 291 278 7 5 0 3 0 0 15 31 1 2 ~ 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 11 of21 1036-ROCKFELR I GRADEi AF AM Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 24 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 45 02 0 0 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 03 0 0 21 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 44 _0_4 __ 0_ _ 0_ _ 1_8~'.,--2__0_ ___ 0 __ 0_~~,.?\"--0 0_ _ 0 _ 2 2 _5'.....,...._3_ _ o __ o_ __ 44_ _ ~J1 05 o o 20 ()r, 15 o o o o o o T 3 o o 40 K O O 23 29 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 57 p 3 26 36 4 0 2 0 0 14 14 103 -... ROCKFELR TOTAL: 1 3 153 154 6 2 1 2 0 0 21 28 2 1 374/ 1037-GEYER SP I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 20 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 02 0 0 12 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 03 0 0 22 ~ 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 u _o_4 __ 0_ _ 0_ _ 1_3_~~~_1_s_ o_ __ 5 __ o_~~--o ___ o __ o_ ______ o __ o ___ 3__5_ ii% 05 0 0 12 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 K O O 28 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 GEYER SP TOTAL: P O O 18 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 125 87 8 14 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 ~40 7 L 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 12 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1038-PUL HT E I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 11 48 02 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 12 19 0 0 49 03 0 0 12 11 0 0 '\\. 0 0 0 15 21 2 0 62 04 2 0 18 18 2 0 -f\\. 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 62 ~f! fl' 05 2 20 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 15 1 2 76 K 0 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 0 0 36 PUL HT E TOTAL: 4 6 71 71 3 3 0 1 0 0 75 92 4 3 333 1040-ROMINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 30 27 3 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 70 02 0 31 22 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 67 03 0 0 32 20 7 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 63 ,10 04 0 0 31 f\"t) 25 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 i 05 0 0 19 25 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 K 0 0 21 25 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 58 p 0 0 17 13 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 40 ROMINE TOTAL: 0 1 181 157 32 27 0 0 0 0 5 11 1 1 ~6 ) '-.:..,.:.. 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 13 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1041-STEPHENS !GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 36 34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 02 0 0 40 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 03 0 0 24 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 04 0 0 38 ~ 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2 0 63 q~?~ 05 0 0 28 t 32 0 0 'o 1 0 0 1 \"' 1 0 0 64 K 0 0 33 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 68 p 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 35-=---- STEPHENS TOTAL: 0 0 210 197 11 5 0 1 0 0 4 7 2 1 ~ 1042-WASHNGTN !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 41 40 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 86 02 0 35 28 0 0 0 2 0 71 03 0 0 26~ 40 2 0 {) 0 0 0 2 0 73 C\\, r'fj 04 0 42~ 39 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 qi7. ' 0 0 85 05 0 0 36 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 K 0 0 33 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 p 0 0 24 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 59 WASHNGTN TOTAL: 0 2 237 259 6 10 0 1 0 0 5 8 1 5 ~ 10/1412010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 14 of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1043-WILLIAMS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 5 3 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 0 0 64 02 3 6 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 65 03 3 4 22 ~ 15 2 2 ~ 0 0 13 11 0 2 76 04 6 2 27 18 2 0 0 12 f) 10 2 0 82 9~7 ', Cl j 05 5 7 23 15 0 3 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 75 K 3 3 11 19 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 54 WILLIAMS TOTAL: 25 25 113 105 4 8 3 3 0 0 64 61 3 2 ~~ 1044-WILSON I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 16 18 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 47 02 0 0 14 23 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 12 X?14 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 39 04 0 12 15 0 ~ i~ 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 34 05 0 15 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 1~ 1. K 0 0 10 18 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 41 p 0 0 14 12 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40~ WILSON TOTAL: 0 2 93 122 19 34 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 1 293 045-WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL p 0 2 54 61 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 126 WOODRUFF TOTAL: 0 2 54 61 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 126 o, 1 10 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 15of21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1046-MABEL EL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 1 24 25 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 65 02 0 1 21 14 6 7 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 58 03 0 0 27 31 5 4 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 75 04 0 0 17 17 2 4 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 48 '1~7 05 0 0 33 32 5 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 77 K 0 0 19 21 4 5 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 58 p 0 0 12 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MABEL EL TOTAL: 0 2 153 145 28 30 0 2 0 0 26 12 2 1 047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 2 3 16 28 4 7 1 0 0 4 15 83 02 3 2 25 22 8 4 1 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 77 03 0 27 n 14 3 5 0 2 0 0 11 ~ 9 0 0 72 D) 04 0 21 f\\ 22 4 4 1 0 0 0 9 7 0 1 70 i~7i) 05 0 3 25 16 2 7 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 68 K 0 22 26 7 12 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 1 82 p 2 0 9 12 5 7 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 40 TERRY TOTAL: 9 9 145 140 33 46 3 3 0 1 44 55 1 3 --49-2 - 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 16of 21 Little Rock School District , October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1048-FULBRIGH I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 20 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 35 31 0 0 103 02 3 4 9 10 0 2 0 0 15 22 0 68 03 5 17 23 0 0 0 0 20 26 0 0 94 04 2 22 a 15 2 2 0 'l) 0 0 0 18 \"\" 23 0 86 :P7,, 3 9 ~ 7 0 2 0 \\j: 05 0 0 0 31 ~ 23 0 0 76 ~ t K 6 4 17 ' 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 29 2 0 104 p 3 3 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 16 0 0 FULBRIGH TOTAL: 19 19 99 83 6 10 2 3 0 0 156 170 2 2 049-ROBERTS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM 01 7 4 5 14 2 4 0 0 0 40 53 0 131 02 6 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 49 32 0 114 03 11 2 0 0- 0 0 0 32 ~ 44 0 0 106 04 8 2 8 2 0 0 \\}' 0 0 0 36 34 0 108 ~11\" 05 2 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 28 0 64 K 2 4 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 36 43 1 119 p 2 3 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 28 0 0 6,9 ROBERTS TOTAL: 27 15 74 74 10 8 0 1 0 0 225 262 4 2 O2~ / 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 17 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1050-0TTER CR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 27 4 8 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 76 02 0 26 40 2 5 0 0 0 6 4 0 86 03 2 28 34 6 8 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 99 04 2 29 D 38 5 8 0 :, 0 0 0 5 ~ 13 0 0 101 U'l(o 05 2 32 22 2 4 0 0 0 0 7 ' 8 0 79 K 0 26 27 7 6 0 2 0 0 6 5 0 81 p 0 0 12 11 3 4 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 40 OTTER CR TOTAL: 7 4 175 199 29 43 0 4 0 0 50 48 2 1 /562 1051-WAKEFIEL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL 01 0 0 32 32 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 87 02 0 0 37 33 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 f1 ~1 1f\n1 03 0 0 37 26 5 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 82 04 0 0 33 41 8 9 0 ' 0 0 0 1 \" 2 0 95 05 0 0 37 38 10 10 0 0 0 2 101 K 0 0 30 26 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 p 0 0 16 15 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 WAKEFIEL TOTAL: 0 0 222 211 65 62 1 1 0 0 2 9 4 1 578 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 18 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1052-WATSON I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 03 0 0 49 '\\.... 49 18 18 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 141 \u0026amp;o,1 04 0 0 47 ~ 51 16 18 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 4 0 0 139 05 0 0 42 -~ 40 22 16 0 ' 0 0 1 0 0 123 =) WATSON TOTAL: 0 0 138 140 56 52 0 2 0 0 8 7 0 0 /4o3 1703-FELDER ALC I GRADEi AF AM I BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL ~ 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1) -\nJ./-v 07 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 /41' I 08 0 5 J l, 4 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 I )- ~D 09 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 /l~iO i)J 10 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 _,,o ,G 17 I , 11 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ,:i .# :\u0026gt; 12 0 0 0 (,zQ 1 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 1 'g FELDER ALC TOTAL: 1 0 26 55 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 85 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 19 of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1711-HAMILTON AC !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 14 i'.f 'I? 07 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 08 0 0 14 9 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,V~ 09 0 0 30 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 90 10 0 0 28 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 78 tp11\u0026gt; 11 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 35 12 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HAMIL TON AC TOTAL: 0 0 97 179 1 4 0 0 0 0 9 16 0 0 306 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 20of 21 Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 725-AL T AGCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 t~SJ) rj-\n,~~ 02 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 i? p ~ ..J- 7 (),I, (_)I, //? 03 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 f / I _,,1) 04 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 f '-'~ (ff' 1-J\nJl?-\"D1 ~~ 05 0 0 o ~l 6 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 2. 0 0 0 6 .\n2.3 :\n,\n, {) I\niof l ()o' 06 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 07 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 /r\u0026gt;il~P 08 0 0 1 I I 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 8 11_ ~f\nJi~-17 )-' 7 09 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1' ~.-, 10 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 f() 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 ,~ K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALT AGCYTOTAL: 0 0 7 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 58 1767-ACC LP !GRADEi AF AM I BF I BM HF I HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 10 0 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 25 ?\n/1- ~' 27 2 0 0 0 0 1 5J 4 0 0 60 \u0026gt; 12 0 0 41 68 5 8 ' 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 133 ACC LP TOTAL: 0 0 66 96 7 9 1 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 e~/ GRAND TOTA~L:. 269 265 8,619 8,563 1,135 1,204 41 47 2 3 2,667 2,750 91 87 25,743 I , /21,../4..I CJ ~(,, 5 0 0 0 I 0 IQ I , / D 0 g~ t/71/\u0026gt; ,JJ.~ All- o 0 1 --/o r, I\"'\"- ---L--'- I'?- '. \u0026lt;\" c-' / /Cl ,0 0 :S~ -- -- --- ,17,c5,Y ~ 1-1./:\n_ ~-3/01 ,,:?5~, \") 0- 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services Page 21 of 21 .. Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Enrollment By Grade Report With Agency FINAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF I NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 25 18 629 641 111 125 3 5 0 1 241 268 11 10 2,088 02 19 21 602 \\ 634 120 102 5 5 0 0 8 7 1,959 03 15 16 649-{J 607 96 112 :{ 9 0 0 9 6 1,956 04 26 18 668 ~ 643 71 109 3 0 0 10 5 2,004 05 18 18 635 603 77 89 2 6 0 0 182 207 6 12 1,855 /~,~~/ 06 7 13 645 66 63 3 1 0 0 161 ~ 165 4 7 1,749 07 18 21 581 73 64 4 .K... . 2 0 0 164 ~ 165 4 6 1,775 08 11 13 622 618 61 63 5 '\u0026lt;~ 1 0 0 157 175 5 4 1,735 5\n)..~9- 09 33 27 688 801 74 91 1 1 0 0 207 186 1 6 2,116 10 22 19 698 .'5::6:7 8 61 75 3 1 0 0 185 ~ J 173 4 4 1,923 11 27 25 605 ):~ 546 58 45 2 2 0 0 191 ~ 175 6 2 1,684 12 15 21 534 414 46 36 7 2 0 0 196 160 5 4 1,440 71(.,~ K 23 20 631 633 116 134 0 4 0 1 203 219 9 7 2,000 p 10 15 432 458 105 96 0 5 2 150 169 9 7 1,459 TOTAL: 269 265 8,619 8.563 1,135 1,204 41 4 2 3 2,667 2,750 91 87 25,743 ~ V Elert\\..) ~-y(, 5 ~'t99\n,9~7 1-a,3 I l~1. /?1 A._l,1 I 0\n... ~~ g,\u0026gt; /.JII !, \u0026lt;is99 --- _____,---/ ~9 13, ~9~ r,1..,or I~ -$)9 ,\nft\u0026gt;~ ----- r ~-- ~-7 ,n1,~ 0 (,, r/ 111 hit\u0026gt; ~ I 0 ~7 .} 7. 5.? --- ~ \u0026lt;?\" I $,~\n,-5 10/14/2010 Department of Computer Information Services I /-/1? Page 1 oft C v.,., -_)  ~~:.\nJo:s Air _,?t-1/ 7:\nC:. /-73 ?/C. /..5 C ~ /J' ,,,c\n/~--/.. ~5 / ~ G:r ..V,iif-1 ~..yl? f 7, ?7 I,, 91. ~ :\n),lq8 /4 .... I cef,J. ./... .\nL., 5.-Vc-2/' t.,1f --r::\n~1 / ?, t:'\n. -I ~ ~ ~----- ?6~4-, SCHOOL CAPACITIES HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY PORT. CLASSRMS CAPACITY TOTAL CAPACITY CENTRAL 2276 20@25 500 2776 J.A. FAIR 1200 6@ 25 150 1350 HALL 1754 0 0 1754 MCCLELLAN 1440 0 0 1440 PARKVIEW 1200 6@25 150 1350 Subtotal 7870 32@25 800 8670 MIDDLE 0 CLOVERDALE 885 0 0 885 DUNBAR 888 4@25 100 988 FOREST HEIGHTS 780 0 0 780 HENDERSON 960 4@25 100 1060 MABEL VALE 681 8@25 200 881 MANN 900 0 0 900 PULASKI HEIGHTS 858 0 0 858 Subtotal 5952 16@25 400 6352 ELEMENTARY 0 BALE 488 0 0 488 BASELINE 360 0 0 360 BOOKER 645 2@25 50 695 BRADY 528 0 0 528 CARVER 556 1 @25 25 581 CHICOT 749 6@25 150 899 DODD 271 8@25 200 471 FAIR PARK ECC 304 0 0 304 FOREST PARK 400 2@25 50 450 FRANKLIN 532 0 0 532 FULBRIGHT 565 10@25 250 815 GEYER SPRINGS 358 0 0 358 GIBBS 472 0 0 472 JEFFERSON 471 0 0 471 KING 715 0 0 715 MABEL VALE 443 0 0 443 MCDERMOTT 453 4@25 100 553 MEADOWCLIFF 358 0 0 358 OTTERCREEK 537 4@25 100 637 PULASKI HEIGHTS 350 0 0 350 ROBERTS 895 0 0 895 ROCKEFELLER 481 0 0 481 ROMINE 507 0 0 507 STEPHENS 646 0 0 646 TERRY 575 6@25 150 725 WAKEFIELD 607 0 0 607 WASHINGTON 836 0 0 836 WATSON 591 12@25 300 891 WESTERN HILLS 320 0 0 320 WILLIAMS 585 0 0 585 WILSON 340 0 0 340 WOODRUFF - ECC 160 0 0 160 Subtotal Elem. 16098 55@25 1375 17473 Subtotal Mid. 5952 16@25 400 6352 Subtotal H.S. 7870 32@25 800 8670 Grand Total 29920 103@25 2575 32495 Alternative Schools HAMILTON 912 0 0 912 FELDER (Badgett) 162 0 0 162 --- ACC at METRO 250 0 0 250 Alternative Total 1324 0 0 1324 11-01-10 Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation Caoacitv Calculator For District Use K-5 Elementarv Kinderaarten thru 5th Grade # General # S12ecial~ Student 10-11 % Classrooms Rooms Net Caoacitv Enrollment Ca12aci~ Amboy 22 6 16 400 335 84 Belwood 15 9 6 150 138 92 Boone Park 31 13 18 450 315 70 Crestwood 29 10 19 475 478 101 Glenview 17 9 8 200 160 80 Indian Hills 34 9 25 625 595 96 Lakewood Elem 22 4 18 450 406 91 Lynch Drive 29 12 17 425 270 64 Meadow Park 13 5 8 200 172 86 North Heiqhts 31 12 19 475 395 84 Park Hill 24 10 14 350 277 80 Pike View 25 9 16 400 346 87 Seventh Street 28 12 16 450 262 59 Total _,.4875 4149 86 I Redwood Pre-K J 1-,, J,./ 0 tJ l.. - Pre-k - 5 total i.---- \\ \\ /( ~,-'I-'\n\\ / - DEC - J 2010 TOPSJ Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportatio Capacity Calculator For District Use 6-12 Secondary 6th Grade thru 12th Grade # General #of Student Classrooms Students Caoacitv West Campus 65 30 1657.5 East Campus 60 30 1530 Lakewood Middle 33 30 841.5 Ridqeroad Middle 28 30 714 Rose City Middle 16 30 408 Poplar Street Middle 31 28 737 Secondary Total 5887 Arqenta Alternative District Total 10762 10-11 I % I Enrollment Ca~ac1ty 1452 88 1350 89 695 83 453 64 138 34 625 85 4713 80 8862 83 ~ EC - 2010 l=flCEOF DESEGREGMttOTNIOITNO RING Oct 10 2010 HIGH SCHOOLS B w CENTRAL 1355 869 FAIR 763 50 HALL 993 87 MCCLELLAN 814 39 PARKVIEW 599 391 ACC 162 15 HAMITL ON/SWLA 198 17 FELDER 65 2 ALT. AGENCIES 15 3 SUB TOTAL 4964 1473 MIDDLES CHOOLS CLOVERDALE 463 21 DUNBAR 700 84 FORESTH EIGHTS 479 59 HENDERSON 593 45 MABEVL ALE 572 50 MANN 443 279 PULASKHI EIGHTS 398 435 HAMILT ON/ SWLA 78 8 FELDER 16 0 ALT. AGENCIES 11 6 SUB TOTAL 3753 987 ELEMENTARY BALE 294 23 BASELINE 147 12 BOOKER 319 167 BRADY 267 22 CARVER 271 132 CHICOT 487 31 DODD 200 39 FAIR PARK 72 89 FORESTP ARK 69 350 FRANKLIN 302 8 FULBRIGHT 182 326 GEYERS PRINGS 212 6 GIBBS 165 104 JEFFERSON 77 339 KING 569 46 MABEVL ALE 298 38 MCDERMOTT 297 53 MEADOWCLIFF 241 24 OTTERCREEK 374 98 PULASKHI EIGHTS 142 167 ROBERTS 148 487 ROCKEFELLER 307 49 ROMINE 338 16 STEPHENS 407 11 TERRY 285 99 WAKEFIELD 433 11 WASHINGTON 496 13 WATSON 278 15 WESTERNH ILLS 219 29 WILLIAMS 218 125 WILSON 215 22 WOODRUFF 115 4 ALT. AGENCIES 21 2 SUB TOTAL 8465 2957 GRANDT OTAL 17182 5417 LRSDO FFICIALE NROLLMENT 2010-11v s. 2009-10 October 1, 2010 Oct 1 2009 0 TOTAL %BLK B 232 2456 55.2% 1296 54 867 88.0% 880 198 1278 77.7% 1115 95 948 85.9% 742 126 1116 53.7% 601 17 194 83.5% 178 3 218 90.8% 215 1 68 95.6% 47 0 18 83.3% 18 726 7163 69.3% 5092 109 593 78.1% 498 60 844 82.9% 647 40 578 82.9% 587 76 714 83.1% 657 76 698 81.9% 514 107 829 53.4% 440 48 881 45.2% 371 2 88 88.6% 70 1 17 94.1% 9 0 17 64.7% 10 519 5259 71.4% 3803 47 364 80.8% 280 118 277 53.1% 196 68 554 57.6% 330 38 327 81.7% 288 46 449 60.4% 285 239 757 64.3% 519 119 358 55.9% 162 19 180 40.0% 72 30 449 15.4% 59 10 320 94.4% 309 63 571 31.9% 160 22 240 88.3% 219 37 306 53.9% 158 12 428 18.0% 80 20 635 89.6% 612 65 401 74.3% 310 62 412 72.1% 277 47 312 77.2% 275 90 562 66.5% 386 24 333 42.6% 149 67 702 21.1% 18 374 82.1% 322 62 416 81.3% 343 20 438 92.9% 447 108 492 57.9% 420 134 578 74.9% 404 25 534 92.9% 538 110 403 69.0% 305 43 291 75.3% 240 73 416 52.4% 221 56 293 73.4% 231 7 126 91.3% 74 0 23 91.3% 23 1899 13321 63.5% 8694 3144 25743 66.7% 17589 w 0 TOTAL %BLK 940 168 2404 53.9% 62 52 994 88.5% 99 178 1392 80.1% 36 62 840 88.3% 430 106 1137 52.9% 21 12 211 84.4% 12 6 233 92.3% 1 0 48 97.9% 4 0 22 81.8% 1605 584 7281 69.9% 19 106 623 79.9% 81 45 773 83.7% 70 36 693 84.7% 47 96 800 82.1% 73 61 648 79.3% 348 79 867 50.7% 407 36 814 45.6% 9 3 82 85.4% 2 1 12 75.0% 4 1 15 66.7% 1060 464 5327 71.4% 21 42 343 81.6% 7 108 311 63.0% 196 43 569 58.0% 33 44 365 78.9% 157 34 476 59.9% 35 226 780 66.5% 52 98 312 51.9% 99 9 180 40.0% 353 25 437 13.5% 7 7 323 95.7% 574 52 786 20.4% 15 29 263 83.3% 112 30 300 52.7% 341 11 432 18.5% 62 14 688 89.0% 46 58 414 74.9% 60 44 381 72.7% 40 60 375 73.3% 89 71 546 70.7% 180 13 342 43.6% 51 11 384 83.9% 17 52 412 83.3% 6 14 467 95.7% 153 118 691 60.8% 23 139 566 71.4% 18 25 581 92.6% 18 92 415 73.5% 35 26 301 79.7% 155 66 442 50.0% 24 35 290 79.7% 15 5 94 78.7% 2 0 25 92.0% 2996 1601 13291 65.4% 5661 2649 25899 67.9% NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas RACIAL COMPOSTION OF SCHOOLS  Incl ding Kindergarten D Oc ober 1, 2010 School Enrollment Black % Non-black % Amboy 335 229 68% 106 32% Belwood 138 111 80% 27 20% Boone Park 315 284 90% 31 10% Crestwood 478 129 27% 349 73% Glenview 160 132 83% 28 18% Indian Hills 595 154 26% 441 74% Lakewood 406 101 25% 305 75% Lynch Drive 270 231 86% 39 14% Meadow Park 172 156 91% 16 9% North Heights 395 242 61% 153 39% Park Hill 277 138 50% 139 50% Pike View 346 245 71% 101 29% Seventh Street 262 255 97% 7 3% Elementary Total: 4,149 2,407 58% 1,742 42% Poplar Street Middle 625 366 59% 259 41% Lakewood Middle 695 288 41% 407 59% Ridgeroad Middle 453 357 79% 96 21% Rose City Middle 138 117 85% 21 15% Middle School Total: 1,911 1,128 59% 783 41% NLRHS-East Campus 1350 740 55% 610 45% NLRHS-West Campus 1452 829 57% 623 43% Total High School: 2,802 1,569 56% 1,233 44% I District Total: 8,862 5,104 58% 3,758 42% R I FC - J 2010 ORING LEA: 6002050 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 20 5 4 2 K 53 5 3 22 01 66 13 7 18 02 58 6 5 24 03 48 8 1 15 04 54 5 7 21 05 56 4 5 20 - --- Totals ,,. 355 46 32 122 w/o PK 335 41 28 120 21.97% 67.04% 1 North Little Rock School District Amboy Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 3 0 0 0 0 21 2 5 0 0 0 0 17 4 2 0 0 0 0 17 3 4 0 0 0 0 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 19 4 4 0 0 0 0 116 19 20 0 0 0 0 109 17 20 0 0 0 0 10.99% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002053 White Grade Total M F M K 23 1 1 01 20 1 1 02 31 3 2 03 18 5 2 04 32 0 1 05 14 2 0 1/\"\" Totals {138 l/ 12 7 13.77% Black F 7 10 10 4 17 3 51 North Little Rock School District Belwood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 60 2 6 0 0 0 0 80.43% 5.80% 0.00% 0.00% I \\ I Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002054 North Little Rock School District Boone Park Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl .Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 56 1 2 20 28 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 K 56 3 2 17 33 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 44 2 1 18 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 49 0 2 24 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 53 2 1 25 22 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 57 0 4 27 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 56 1 1 24 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -? \\ Totals 371 9 13 155 177 8 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 w/o PK 315 8 11 135 149 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.93% 89.49% 4.04% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002055 White Grade Total M F M K 82 31 24 01 83 30 29 02 79 27 30 03 75 31 22 04 79 26 29 05 80 29 27 Totals 478 174 161 70.08% North Little Rock School District Crestwood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 13 10 1 2 0 1 0 0 11 10 0 1 0 2 0 0 11 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 1 0 2 0 0 0 62 67 3 3 5 3 0 0 26.99% 1.26% 1.67% 0.00% J1fo Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002056 White Grade Total M F M PK 18 0 0 K 37 5 5 01 30 3 1 02 21 1 2 03 26 1 0 04 22 1 2 OS 24 2 2 Totals 178 13 12 w/o PK 160 13 12 14.04% Black F 11 14 10 8 8 9 6 66 55 North Little Rock School District Glenview Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 1 3 0 0 0 0 77 1 2 0 0 0 0 83.71% 2.25% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002057 North Little Rock School District Indian Hills Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F K 95 38 32 12 8 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 105 31 40 18 13 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 97 31 42 11 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 03 98 38 32 14 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 04 98 31 34 12 14 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 102 31 32 11 20 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Totals 595 200 212 78 76 9 3 5 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 69.24% 25.88% 2.02% 1.85% 0.84% 0.17% 0.00% LEA: 6002058 White Grade Total M F M K 60 20 26 01 72 27 26 02 72 25 23 03 72 29 25 04 64 23 18 OS 66 14 25 Totals ~406 138 143 ~ 69.21% North Little Rock School District Lakewood Elementary October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 4 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 13 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 11 8 0 4 0 1 0 0 8 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 12 8 0 1 2 0 0 0 10 9 4 1 1 2 0 0 58 43 7 7 4 5 1 0 24.88% 3.45% 2.22% 0.25% 1o l Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002059 White Grade Total M F M 06 625 105 106 Totals 625 105 106 33.76% North Little Rock School District Poplar Street Middle October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 185 181 17 21 2 3 0 1 185 181 17 21 2 3 0 1 58.56% 6.08% 0.80% 0.16% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0.00% 0.64% LEA: 6002060 North Little Rock School District Lynch Drive Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 3 2 21 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 54 3 4 22 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 38 3 1 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 52 5 3 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 42 6 0 17 15 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 44 1 3 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 40 2 1 17 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _,,.-- l Totals 310 23 14 140 126 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK'-- -270 20 12 119 112 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.94% 85.81% 2.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 LEA: 6002061 North Little Rock School District Meadow Park Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 20 1 2 11 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 25 0 0 12 9 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 31 2 1 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 4 1 15 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 0 0 14 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 0 0 10 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 33 0 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Totals 192 7 4 97 74 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK - 172 6 2 86 70 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.73% 89.06% 4.17% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% JI 111 /D LEA: 6002063 North Little Rock School District North Heights Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 1 3 9 13 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 54 5 2 16 15 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 61 1 6 23 16 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 60 9 1 18 9 8 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 78 3 2 28 25 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 62 2 5 17 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 80 3 3 31 23 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---., Totals 435 24 22 142 122 55 69 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK -395 23 19 133 109 53 57 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.57% 60.69% 28.51% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002064 North Little Rock School District Park Hill Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 19 4 1 5 5 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 53 9 3 15 11 9 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 55 7 2 14 20 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 so 7 10 9 9 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 46 3 8 9 16 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 34 4 3 9 9 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 39 9 4 12 5 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,.-\"j Totals ,,,,.......,29/6 43 31 73 75 39 32 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 w/o PK \u0026lt;- ---277 39 30 68 70 38 30 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 25.00% 50.00% 23.99% 0.68% 0.34% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002065 North Little Rock School District Pike View Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 5 3 9 18 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 59 6 8 15 22 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 54 7 1 18 21 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 70 6 8 24 26 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 47 3 5 15 21 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 52 8 3 19 15 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 64 6 4 30 19 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 386 41 32 130 142 21 11 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK 346 36 29 121 124 18 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.91% 70.47% 8.29% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 LEA: 6002069 North Little Rock School District Seventh Street Elementary October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F PK 40 1 1 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 52 0 0 26 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 39 0 0 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 0 0 23 30 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 03 41 1 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 35 0 0 17 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 42 0 2 21 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.---. Totals l/\"'\"302 1-- 2 3 143 150 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w/o PK ~ 262 1 2 123 132 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.66% 97.02% 0.99% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002070 White Black Grade Total M F M F 07 375 86 104 91 08 320 89 83 69 ~ Totals 695 175 187 160 52.09% 41.44% North Little Rock School District Lakewood Middle October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 73 8 9 3 1 0 0 55 7 10 3 4 0 0 128 15 19 6 5 0 0 4.89% 1.58% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002075 White Black Grade Total M F M F 09 794 155 144 215 10 556 101 120 132 ~ \\ Totals/ 1350 ,/ 256 264 347 ,_ 38.52% 54.81% North Little Rock School District NLRHS East Campus October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 230 27 16 3 2 0 0 163 11 19 6 3 1 0 393 38 35 9 5 1 0 5.41% 1.04% 0.07% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.15% 0.00% . , LEA: 6002076 North Little Rock School District NLRHS West Campus/Argenta October 1, 2010 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more Grade Total M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 09 65 5 1 40 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 156 15 7 74 52 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 615 105 133 143 194 20 14 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 616 118 146 144 166 15 14 3 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 /\"\" i Totals 11.?) .../243 287 401 428 42 31 5 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 36.50% 57.09% 5.03% 0.90% 0.41% 0.07% 0.00% . . LEA: 6002077 White Black Grade Total M F M F 06 16 2 0 11 07 59 6 2 24 08 63 4 1 32 -- Totals .../.i._38_ /_12, .- 3 67 10.87% 84.78% North Little Rock School District Rose City Middle October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 50 4 2 0 0 0 0 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% . . LEA: 6002702 White Grade Total M F M 07 224 14 9 08 229 17 8 Totals V453 31 17 10.60% North Little Rock School District Ridgeroad Middle Charter October 1, 2010 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat F M F M F M F 80 98 17 5 1 0 0 0 95 84 8 16 0 0 1 0 175 182 25 21 1 0 1 0 78.81% 10.15% 0.22% 0.22% ..).I Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% LEA: 6002067 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 245 16 10 88 Totals 245, 16 10 88 10.61% 82.86% North Little Rock School District Redwood Preschool October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat M F M F M F 115 5 8 1 0 0 0 115 5 8 1 0 0 0 5.31% 0.41% 0.00% Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.00% 0.82% . .., LEA: 6002000 White Black Grade Total M F M F PK 538 37 28 196 228 K 703 126 110 195 206 01 698 127 116 206 192 02 727 124 129 211 199 03 666 130 98 184 195 04 659 101 109 205 191 05 696 103 106 208 215 ..1/,~,.' I I, {!/J ~ IQ3/ 06 641 107 106 196 183 07 658 106 115 195 197 08 612 110 92 196 161 09 859 160 145 255 246 10 712 116 127 206 215 11 615 105 133 143 194 12 616 118 146 144 166 -\u0026lt; \"./ -\n,, , z., .,,, \"' .P Totals 9400 1570 1560 2740 2788 North Little Rock School District October 1, 2010 Count Hispanic Asian M F M F 15 27 1 2 25 30 6 4 29 23 1 4 28 29 2 3 24 26 6 1 26 21 4 2 30 23 4 4 ~\n_ 18 21 2 3 26 14 4 1 17 28 3 4 30 16 3 2 15 22 7 3 20 14 1 3 15 14 3 5 O 318 308 47 41 Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1/.J)h) 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 (, \" .r 11 7 2 2 1 5 lw/o PK I 88621 15331 15321 25441 25601 3031 2811 461 391 101 61 I I I 33.30% I 58.81% I 6.66% I o.94% I 0.19% I 0.04% I 0.06% I November 23, 2010 Margie Powell One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1610 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 NOV\n~ ) 2-IO C~FICEOF DESEGREGt OA ITTIO RIHG Attached is an updated copy of the 2010-2011 October 1 Enrollment Report to replace the copy you received earlier this month. There was a minor error in calculations and an additional 13 students have been added to the secondary enrollment. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. CiJ~Bc~ Brenda Bowles, Ed. D Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services C Sam Jones, Attorney PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black !1Q Adkins PreK PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 School Total 35 1,,1.f3 1 30 ~) 24 11 Jv 9 140  47.14% 52.86% School Total Including_ PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 47.14% 52.86% 2 Baker Elementa,:y_ 01 13 15 22 19 12 15 96 02 16 19 25 22 14 13 109 03 9 14 17 18 7 16 81 04 14 16 9 20 8 7 74 05 9 14 18 11 10 7 69 KF 13 10 16 \\ 17 14 12 82 ~/t:' IL,? f-) School Total H. ~ 107 ?' 107 ~'~ I!l. 511  31.70% 68.30% !U C[Y_stal Hill Elementa,:y_ 01 26 20 43 38 2 3 132 02 17 19 32 35 5 109 03 20 25 31 26 4 107 04 29 12 31 36 2 2 112 05 26 27 38 30 4 2 127 KF 18 18 38 32 6 5 117 School Total 136 'J-121 213 \\ 197 23 14 704 36.51% ' 63.49% PK 6 i 9 11 ,)? 10 3 1 40 -5) School Total Including_ PK 142 , 130 224 207 ~ 12 744 .,/ 36.56% 63.44% 21_ Bay_ou Meto Elementary_ 01 3 3 31 31 70 02 4 0 27 32 2 0 65 03 3 1 17 29 0 51 04 2 0 27 28 1 59 05 2 3 19 21 0 2 47 KF 4 24 25 0 2 56 School Total 18 8 145 166 4 7 348 7.47% \u0026amp;i 92.53% PK 0 i~ 0 10~~, 10 0 0 20 1 Schoof Total Including_ PK 1! ~ 155 176 1 z 368 V' 7.07% 92.93% 2. Clinton Elementa,:y_ 01 23 33 25 29 7 9 126 02 29 29 26 20 5 8 117 03 31 28 33 23 3 119 04 29 28 25 13 6 3 104 05 28 28 13 13 1 2 85 KF 25 31 21 31 6 8 122 School Total 165 177 143 \\ 129 26 33 673 50.82% 49.18% PK 15 ~')-, 25 21 0  11 5 l,~ 2 79 ?'., School Total Including_ PK 1801 202 164@ 140 ~\nJi 752  50.80% 49.20% RE E!VED i\nOV\n~ 0 2010 3-8 Q,CfiOCEF DEStGfi~Q1~1.TiOl~NNI TORING PUU\u0026gt;.SKI COUNTY SPEaAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ~ Dupree Elementary 01 18 17 15 9 5 2 66 02 10 13 12 10 0 5 so 03 15 12 11 6 3 2 49 04 10 8 11 10 2 5 46 OS 10 11 8 2 4 42 KF 10 J 14 10 9 3 4 so o'1- /~ a1 \u0026gt;l Schoof Total ll. l I. Z M. 1.. ll 303 48.84% 51.16% 102 Harris Elementary 01 18 11 5 2 0 37 02 14 15 3 0 3 1 36 03 19 14 3 3 2 42 04 12 13 3 4 2 35 OS 13 11 3 2 31 KF 17 16 4 4 43 '7' '1 11'? 9' ,C\\ Schoof Total ~ ~ -21? -11 11. z 224  77.23% 22.77% 103 Jacksonvi/le Efementar'i. 01 9 16 5 5 7 2 44 02 18 16 8 8 2 4 56 03 22 20 4 6 4 4 60 04 19 16 6 9 4 4 58 OS 16 18 2 4 4 4 48 KF 18 ~~ 9 10 9 8 2 56 ., 1L\u0026lt; ~' I Schoof Total 102 ~\nl. ~ ~ l!l. 322./ 61.18% 38.82% 104 Landmark Elementary 01 7 5 10 11 4 3 40 02 4 6 9 12 4 2 37 03 8 12 10 15 5 3 53 04 12 6 14 11 4 3 50 05 7 7 11 11 2 39 KF 7 4 20 14 7 53 School Total 45 40 74 ~ 74 26 13 272 31.25% 68.75% PK 3 \" 6 9 11.t 10 7 5 40 1 School Total Including PK ~ ~ 1 M ll. 1.!!. 312  30.13% 69.87% 105 Lawson Elementary 01 7 5 11 19 2 0 44 02 5 6 18 15 2 1 47 03 3 4 13 21 2 2 45 04 5 4 18 20 0 0 47 OS 6 7 26 15 2 2 58 KF 6 6 16 9 0 38 Schoof Total 32 32 102 ? 99 9 5 279 22.94% 77.06% PK 1 l.\u0026lt;.t, 3 a? 1 I 3 20 ~\"?\u0026gt; Schoof Total Including PK ll.\nl. 110 ill 1Q . 299 22.74% 77.26% 4-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA - 14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 106 Tolleson Elementary_ 01 6 4 13 16 4 44 02 10 5 22 10 1 49 03 6 8 14 12 3 44 04 10 15 8 8 3 2 46 05 10 5 8 12 3 39 KF 14 15 19 15 4 2 69 School Total 56 52 84 73 14 12 291 37.11% 62.89% PK 4 I~~ 17 iJ 10 ~jl 3 40 ~ School Total Including PK ~ 101 \\ ll. 1. 331  35.05% 64.95% 108 Oak Grove Elementa!}'. 01 4 8 21 19 5 4 61 02 2 15 12 5 3 38 03 9 3 14 8 4 5 43 04 6 4 16 13 5 4 48 05 5 3 12 17 4 45 KF 7 7 15 12 6 49 School Total 33 26 93 81 29 22 284 20. 77% 79.23% PK 2 11 13 r) 15 13 6 60 )\\} School Total Including PK\n!_ 1d\" E. 106? ~ ~ 1() l! 344  20.93% 79.07% 110 Robinson Elementary_ 01 4 2 10 5 2 24 02 3' 4 12 11 3 34 03 5 11 16 12 2 47 04 8 5 11 12 1 38 05 8 7 7 10 2 3 37 KF 2 0 9 8 4 2 25 School Tola/ 30 29 65 58 14 9 205 28. 78% 71.22% PK\n11 0 4 H 7 7 2 20 .J,' School fatal Including PK ~ @ ,~ M. 11 ~~ 11 225  26.22', ~ 111 Scott Elementary_ 01 5 11 5 0 23 02 5 3 7 9 0 0 24 03 5 4 5 16 0 31 04 4 7 4 6 0 1 22 05 0 6 13 9 0 29 06 2 2 2 5 1 13 KF 4 2 13 7 0 27 School Total 25 25 55 57 3 4 169 29.59% 70.41% PK ~~~ 2 6 1 9 1 'l 20 ,1). School Total Including PK ll. 1. 1.? 66 1 . 189 / 28.04% ZLifili 5-8 ' PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 112 Sherwood Elementar'i_ 01 6 8 12 17 7 3 53 02 7 6 16 17 3 5 54 03 12 8 17 14 4 56 04 14 10 15 13 3 56 05 12 10 17 17 3 60 KF 10 7 18 12 2 8 57 School Total  61 49 95 90 22 19 336 32.74% 67.26% PK 2 l ... 2 5 q 8 1 ~~ 20 School Total Including_ PK g 1 100 ~ ll. 356...,,, 32.02 67.98% 113 S'i_lvan Hills Elementar'i. 01 7 14 13 13 50 02 14 6 15 7 3 46 03 19 11 12 9 0 52 04 14 10 16 12 0 53 05 12 18 16 14 4 2 66 KF 18 13 17 12 4 2 66 School Total 84 72 89 67 13 8 333 46.85% 53.15% PK 1 ry 5 6 \"~ Op1 20 ~ School Total Including_ PK ~ 1\" ll. ~ H 11 !1 353-./' 45.89% ~ 119 Jacksonville Middle School 06 89 56 43 52 6 7 253 07 67 67 32 31 6 5 208 08 80 67 57 34 4 6 248 .., L, 0 ., 236 J1\n') School Total 190 132 117 ll 11. 709  60.08% 39.92% 120 Fuller Middle School 06 48 55 34 21 8 4 170 07 53 54 38 33 9 7 194 08 54 ,, 52 32 35 6 4 183 ,:-\"' _,, ~?--~ ~ School Total 155 w. 104 ll. 1i 547 57.77% 42.23% 122 S'i_lvan Hills Middle 06 61 69 62 71 5 5 273 07 45 44 41 44 5 4 183 08 53 55 48 46 8 5 215 7 '\u0026gt;,\" ) q ~ School Total 159 168 151 161 11. H 671  ~ ~ 123 Jacksonville Hig_h 09 103 83 41 51 5 4 287 10 52 74 45 50 3 3 227 11 68 55 45 43 4 2 217 12 46 80 51 30 4 3 214 School Total 269 292 182 174 ll !1 945 59.37% 40.63% 6-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEaAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 125 Mills High 09 64 so 47 33 9 7 210 10 54 57 40 47 9 5 212 11 69 43 31 35 6 9 193 12 62 51 16 30 4 2 165 :J~'7' ,A ~l School Total 249 201 134 145 M ll 780  57.69% 42.31% 126 Oak Grove High 09 52 40 so 49 4 6 201 10 34 20 24 31 3 113 11 26 20 16 26 2 3 93 12 21 f 22 15 22 0 5 85 ..,,_o,, School Total ??J,'.J 133 102 105 ~ 128 2 1i 492  47.76% 52.24% 127 Robinson High 09 35 32 42 32 6 3 150 10 10 24 24 30 4 2 94 11 28 24 41 27 4 2 126 12 29 17 38 24 3 5 116 ..,, J 'J ,,..t.'-l --\nO.. School Total 102 2Z 145 113 ll. 11 486 40.95% 59.05% ill Sylvan Hills High 09 72 55 59 58 8 3 255 10 42 48 35 38 4 7 174 11 44 42 45 so 8 4 193 12 38 qo 49 52 52 5 7 203 -\"\" \u0026gt;-llr ~ 196 ~ 194\n):. School Total 191 198 ?. ll 825  47.27% 52.73% 129 Cato Elementary 01 7 10 17 16 1 52 02 4 7 25 12 2 51 03 7 8 13 11 0 0 39 04 9 5 16 20 3 3 56 OS 11 5 22 20 0 0 58 KF 5 4 15 21 1 47 School Total 43 39 108 100 6 7 303 27. 06% 7 72. 94% PK 2 1\n4 2 9 ). 7 0 1? 0 20\nf}  School Total Including PK ~ ~ 117 ') 107 ~ z 323  26.63% 73.37% 130 Pinewood Elementa[Y_ 01 21 22 11 20 2 77 02 22 20 11 15 2 4 74 03 13 18 11 13 3 0 58 04 24 23 11 13 5 2 78 OS 22 16 13 8 4 2 65 KF 21 11 19 ,!J~ 11 3 1 11 76 p\n,,'(\" -\n,?) School Total 123 ~ 110 ~ M 11!~ ll 428 / 54.44% 45.56% 7-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 135 College Station Elementar'i 01 13 12 2 2 1 31 02 11 11 2 0 2 0 26 03 11 7 5 2 0 0 25 04 9 11 7 2 31 05 11 16 4 6 39 KF 10 9 3 0 0 23 0 School Total 65 66 23 12 5 4 175 74.86\nJr. 25.14% PK 6 0\" 6 2 1 0 \\ \\ 2 17 School Total Including PK I1 ll l. 11  ~ 192./' 74.48% 25.52% 136 North Pulaski High 09 51 34 61 65 8 4 223 10 37 35 63 59 13 6 213 11 38 35 49 43 11 12 188 12 34 50 47 57 4 4 196 f!,'lu 160 :3\u0026gt;- I ,y \u0026gt; School Total 154 220 224 ~  820 38.29% 61.71% 137 Arnold Drive Elementar\ny_ 01 0 13 20 5 7 46 02 3 5 16 9 1 9 43 03 4 3 6 6 2 4 25 04 6 3 10 5 1 26 05 1 4 5 6 2 5 23 KF 2 3 8 17 5 5 40 '1_ School Total 17 18 58 63 16 31 203 17.24% 82. 76% PK 2 ,J 2 15 /1 7 3 ? 8 37 School Total Including PK 1! gJ2 I1 I2. 1! 12 240 ~ 83.75% 139 Oakbrooke Elementar\ny_ 01 14 17 23 19 0 6 79 02 18 16 23 15 0 73 03 18 18 36 18 0 0 90 04 21 14 21 25 2 84 05 22 10 21 24 79 KF 22 19 28 22 0 92 I '/ .,, School Total 115 94 152 ._/123 4 9 497 42.05% 57.95% ~ 11 r ., PK 5,., 8 13 2 40 School Total Including PK 120 105 160 136  1.1 537/ 41.90% 58.10% 140 Northwood Middle 06 38 28 51 50 14 8 189 07 36 49 57 44 12 7 205 08 36 40 43 49 9 11 188 ,, /'rt' r ~, School Total 110 117 151 143 ~  582  39.00% 61.00% 8-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPEOAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA  14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 141 Tay_lor Elementary: 01 23 20 11 13 0 0 67 02 25 18 11 12 1 68 03 8 16 9 10 2 2 47 04 22 30 6 7 1 68 05 13 16 12 9 3 0 53 KF 25 1 21 16 14 4 81 'J 1161- 'I)' '1 384/ 61.72% \u0026amp; School Total 121 g g 11 i 38.28% 142 Pine Forest Elementar::t. 01 13 15 33 32 3 5 101 02 9 15 25 22 2 3 76 03 10 16 27 37 3 5 98 04 22 13 32 27 0 96 05 12 9 37 30 5 3 96 KF 11 9 34 4 20 2 5 81 -71 )?,. q ~ School Total Zl Zl 188i) 168 ~ ~ E. 548  ~ 71.90% 143 Robinson Middle 06 26 25 44 37 8 10 150 07 25 26 33 27 4 2 117 08 29 26 39 23 9 2 128 r1 .\u0026gt; School Total Q )9 Zl ill ll l1 H. 395  39.75% 60.25% 146 Bates Elementary: 01 17 16 24 16 4 7 84 02 13 10 11 10 8 9 61 03 15 26 17 17 2 8 85 04 21 18 21 6 3 6 75 05 18 16 14 10 9 5 72 KF 17 13 14 15 6 9 74 School Total 101 f\ni 99 101 74 32 44 451 44.35% ~ 55.65% PK 6i 9 11 ciit\u0026gt;9 4 ii 40 School Total Including PK 107 108 112 l ~ ~ ~ 491 43.79% 56.21% 1j2, Maumelle Middle 06 57 55 78 70 10 9 279 07 40 51 78 64 3 7 243 08 59 52 69 \" 64 5 3 252 \u0026gt;- ,.:\n\" J i. School Total 156 158 225 198 11!. 11 774/ 40.57% 59.43% 150 Chenal Elementar::t. 01 10 10 41 32 2 5 100 02 12 14 36 27 5 2 96 03 11 11 25 30 6 4 87 04 15 15 30 26 3 90 05 19 16 22 32 4 4 97 KF 8 ,\u0026gt;ti 6 29 ~ 44 j'-1 89 ? J., School Total li ll 183 ~ 1 191 11 11 559  ~ 73.70% 9-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black PreK Totals 91 118 185 161 59 48 673 32.54% 67.4611 KF 294 248 416 380 90 85 1513 01 275 284 422 407 79 80 1547 02 275 264 407 342 74. 77 1439 03 283 298 366 360 59 68 1434 04 337 286 368 346 59 56 1452 05 293 283 361 337 69 61 1404 E/ementa Totals wlo PreK 1757 417 8789 38.91% 61.09% 3,,J,, Elementa Totals with PreK 475 9461 38.46% 61.54% 06 321 290 314 306 52 44 1327 07 266 291 279 243 39 32 1150 08 311 292 288 251 41 31 1214 09 377 294 300 288 40 27 1326 10 229 258 231 255 36 24 1033 11 273 227 35 32 1010 12 230 26 979 19/i i Seconda Totals 1007 116 8039 48.76% 51.24 District Totals w/o PreK 3764 3576 4198 3954 693 543 16818 43.62% 56.3811 District Totals with PreK 3855 3704 4383 4116 751 691 17501- 43.19% 56.8111 \"1,{\n9~. i,\n,  I I, -3 .\u0026gt;J~f~ 7, 8-8 November 12, 2010 Margie Powell, Federal Mo Office of Desegregation Mo oring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: Enclosedis a copy of the October State reporting. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 NOV. 2010 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 This data is being utilized for If you have any questions please con ncerely, /,1 ~,,),-- /(yv---{1 Dr. Brenda Bowles, Assistant Superintende for Equity and Pupil Services c Sam Jones, Attorney RECE~\\fED NOV 1 J. ~ 2010 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFIOCFE SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 DESEGREG1Ai1T0I1OllIT' ORING Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black M Adkins PreK PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 School Total 35 31 30 24 11 9 140 47.14% 52.86% School Total Including_ PK 35 31 30 24 11 9 lli 47.14% 52.86% U Baker Elementary 01 13 15 22 19 12 15 96 02 16 19 25 22 14 13 109 03 9 14 17 18 7 16 81 04 14 16 9 20 8 7 74 05 9 14 18 11 10 7 69 KF 13 10 16 17 14 12 82 School Total H ~ 107 107 ~ l.Q 511 31.70% 68.30% ~ Crystal Hill Elementary 01 26 20 43 38 2 3 132 02 17 19 32 35 109 03 20 25 31 26 4 1 107 04 29 12 31 36 2 2 112 05 26 27 38 30 4 2 127 KF 18 18 38 32 6 5 117 School Total 136 121 213 197 23 14 704 36.51% 63.49% PK 6 9 11 10 3 1 40 School Total Including_ PK 142 130 224 ~ ~ 11 lli 36.56% 63.44% ~ Ba~ou Meto Elementart. 01 3 3 31 31 1 70 02 4 0 27 32 2 0 65 03 3 17 29 0 51 04 2 0 27 28 1 59 05 2 3 19 21 0 2 47 KF 4 24 25 0 2 56 School Total 18 8 145 166 4 7 348 7.47% 92.53% PK 0 0 10 10 0 0 20 School Total Including_ PK 1! !! 155 178 ~ z 388 7.07% 92.93% 11. Clinton Elementart. 01 23 33 25 29 7 9 126 02 29 29 26 20 5 8 117 03 31 28 33 23 1 3 119 04 29 28 25 13 6 3 104 05 28 28 13 13 1 2 85 KF 25 31 21 31 6 8 122 School Total 165 177 143 129 26 33 673 50.82% 49.18% PK 15 25 21 11 5 2 79 School Total lnctc,:'ing_ PK lli 202 164 140 ll ~ 752 50.80% 49.20% ~ 1 - 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Bid Percentages Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ~ Dupree Elementary 01 18 17 15 9 5 2 66 02 10 13 12 10 0 5 50 03 15 12 11 6 3 2 49 04 10 8 11 10 2 5 46 05 10 11 8 7 2 4 42 KF 10 14 10 9 4 50 Schoo/ Total !J. I !l ll ll ll. 303 48.84% 51.16% 102 Harris Elementary 01 18 11 5 2 0 37 02 14 15 3 0 3 36 03 19 14 3 3 2 42 04 12 13 3 4 2 35 05 13 11 3 2 31 KF 17 16 4 4 43 Schoo/ Total ll fill l! 11 11 l lli 77.23% 22.77% 103 Jg_cksonvil/e Elementary 01 9 16 5 5 7 2 44 02 18 16 8 8 2 4 56 03 22 20 4 6 4 4 60 04 19 16 6 9 4 4 58 05 16 18 2 4 4 4 48 KF 18 9 10 9 8 2 56 Schoo/ Total 102 ~ ~  1!1 lQ 322 61.18% 38.82% J.!M Landmark Elementary 01 7 5 10 11 4 3  rJ 02 4 6 9 12 4 2 37 03 8 12 10 15 5 3 53 04 12 6 14 11 4 3 50 05 7 7 11 11 2 39 KF 7 4 20 14 7 53 School Total 45 40 74 74 26 13 272 31.25% 68.75% PK 3 6 9 10 7 5 40 Schoo/ Total Including PK ~ ~ u ~ ll 11 m 30.13% 69.87% 105 Lawson Elementa!l'. 01 7 11 19 2 0 44 02 5 6 18 15 2 1 47 03 3 4 13 21 2 2 45 04 5 4 18 20 0 0 47 05 6 7 26 15 2 2 58 KF 6 6 16 9 0 38 School Total 32 32 102 99 9 5 279 22.94% 77.06% PK 1 3 8 4 ~ 20 Schoo/ Total Including PK ll ~ 110 m 1Q . 299 22.74% 77.26% 2-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name ~Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 106 Tolleson Elementary 01 6 4 13 16 4 44 02 10 5 22 10 49 03 6 8 14 12 3 44 04 10 15 8 8 3 2 46 05 10 5 8 12 3 39 KF 14 15 19 15 4 2 69 School Total 56 52 84 73 14 12 291 37.11% 62.89% PK 4 4 17 10 2 3 40 School Total Including_ PK Q ~ 101 ~ 11 11 m. ~ 64.95% 108 Oak Grove Elg_mentar:Y 01 4 8 21 19 5 4 61 02 2 1 15 12 5 3 38 03 9 3 14 8 4 5 43 04 6 4 16 13 5 4 48 05 5 3 12 17 4 4 45 KF 7 7 15 12 6 2 49 School Total 33 26 93 81 29 22 284 20.77% 79.23% PK 2 11 13 15 13 6 60 School Total Including_ PK ~ ll. 106 ~ ~ l! ~ 20.93% 79.07% ill Robinson Elementary 01 4 2 10 5 2 24 02 3 4 12 11 3 34 03 5 11 16 12 2 47 04 8 5 11 12 1 38 05 8 7 7 10 2 3 37 KF 2 0 9 8 4 2 25 School Total 30 29 65 58 14 9 205 28.78% 71.22% PK 0 0 4 7 7 2 20 School Total Including_ PK\nlQ ~ ~ M 11 11 225 26.22% 73.78% 111 Scott Elementa!Y 01 5 11 5 0 23 02 5 3 7 9 0 0 24 03 5 4 5 16 0 31 04 4 7 4 6 0 22 05 0 6 13 9 0 29 06 2 2 2 5 1 13 KF 4 2 13 7 0 27 School Total 25 25 55 57 3 4 169 29.59% 70.41% PK 2 6 9 1 20 School Total Including_ PK il ll. !! M ~ ~ ill 28.04% 71.96  3-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 112 Sherwood Elementart. 01 6 8 12 17 7 3 53 02 7 6 16 17 3 5 54 03 12 8 17 14 4 56 04 14 10 15 13 3 56 05 12 10 17 17 3 60 KF 10 7 18 12 2 8 57 School Total 61 49 95 90 22 19 336 32.74% 67.26% PK 2 2 5 8 2 20 School Total Including_ PK ll 1. 100 !! ll 11. 356 32.02% 67.98% ill Sylvan Hills Elementart. 01 7 14 13 13 2 50 02 14 6 15 7 3 46 03 19 11 12 9 0 52 04 14 10 16 12 0 53 05 12 18 16 14 4 2 66 KF 18 13 17 12 4 2 66 School Total 84 72 89 67 13 8 333 46.85% 53.15% PK 5 6 7 0 20 School Total Including_ PK M l1 M ~ 11 ~ 353 45.89% 54.11% 119 Jacksonville Middle School 06 89 56 43 52 6 7 253 07 67 67 32 31 6 5 208 08 80 67 57 34 4 6 248 School Total 236 190 132 117 1. 1. 709 60.08% 39.92% 11.QF uller Middle School 06 48 55 34 21 8 4 170 07 53 54 38 33 9 7 194 08 54 52 32 35 6 4 183 School Total 155 161 104 ~ ll ~ 547 57.77% 42.23% 122 Sylvan Hills Middle 06 61 69 62 71 5 5 273 07 45 44 41 44 5 4 183 08 53 55 48 46 8 5 215 School Total ill m ill ill 1. ~ 671 48.73% 51.27% 123 Jacksonville Hig_h 09 103 83 41 51 ~ 4 287 10 52 74 45 50 3 3 227 11 68 55 45 43 4 2 217 12 46 80 51 30 (\"- 3 214 School Total 269 292 182 174 1. ll 945 59.37% 40.63% ii 4-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ill Mills High 09 64 50 47 33 9 7 210 10 54 57 40 47 9 5 212 11 69 43 31 35 6 9 193 12 62 51 16 30 4 2 165 School Total .ill w. 134 145 ~ ll 780 ~ 42.31% 126 Oak Grove High 09 52 40 50 49 4 6 201 10 34 20 24 31 3 1 113 11 26 20 16 26 2 3 93 12 21 22 15 22 0 5 85 School Total 133 102 105 128 ! ll 492 47.76% 52.24% ill Robinson High 09 35 32 42 32 6 3 150 10 10 24 24 30 4 2 94 11 28 24 41 27 4 2 126 12 29 17 38 24 3 5 116 School Total ill !l ill 113 11 11 486 40.95% 59.05 128 Sr/van HIiis High 09 72 55 59 58 8 3 255 10 42 48 35 38 4 7 174 11 44 42 45 50 8 4 193 12 38 49 52 52 5 7 203 School Total 196 194 191 198 ~ 11 ill 47.27% 52.73% ~ Cato Elements!}'. 01 7 10 17 16 1 52 02 4 7 25 12 1 2 51 03 7 8 13 11 0 0 39 04 9 5 16 20 3 3 56 05 11 5 22 20 0 0 58 KF 5 4 15 21 47 School Total 43 39 108 100 6 7 303 27.06% 72.94% PK 2 2 9 7 0 0 20 School Total Including PK ~ ~ 117 107 . l 323 26.63% 73.37 119. Pinewood Elements!}'. 01 21 22 11 20 2 77 02 22 20 11 15 2 4 74 03 13 18 11 13 3 0 58 04 24 23 11 13 5 2 78 05 22 16 13 8 4 2 65 KF 21 11 19 11 11 76 School Total II ill !.1Q I! ~ 11 11 ill 54.44 45.56 5-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black 135 f\n_ol/eg_eS tation Efementa/'.Y_ 01 13 12 2 2 1 1 31 02 11 11 2 0 2 0 26 03 11 7 5 2 0 0 25 04 9 11 7 2 31 05 11 16 4 6 1 39 KF 10 9 3 0 0 23 0 Schoof Total 65 66 23 12 5 4 175 74.86% 25.14 PK 6 6 2 0 2 17 .choof Total Including_ PK lJ. ll ~ ll ~  192 74.48% 25.52% 136 North Pulaski High 09 51 34 61 65 8 4 223 10 37 35 63 59 13 6 213 11 38 35 49 43 11 12 188 12 34 50 47 57 4 4 196 Schoof Total 160 154 220 224 ~ ~ 820 38.29% 61.71% 137 Arnold Drive Efementa!Y. 01 0 13 20 5 7 46 02 3 5 16 9 1 9 43 03 4 3 6 6 2 4 25 04 6 3 10 5 1 1 26 05 1 4 5 6 2 5 23 KF 2 3 8 17 5 5 40 Schoof Total 17 18 58 63 16 31 203 17.24 82.76 PK 2 2 15 7 3 8 37 Schoof Total Including_ PK !l. 1Q ll ~ !l. ~ 240 16.25% 83.75% 139 Oakbrooke Efementa!Y. 01 14 17 23 19 0 6 79 02 18 16 23 15 0 1 73 03 18 18 36 18 0 0 90 04 21 14 21 25 2 84 05 22 10 21 24 79 KF 22 19 28 22 0 92 Schoof Total 115 94 152 123 4 9 497 42.05 57.95 PK 5 11 8 13 2 40 Schoof Total Including_ PK 120 105 ill! ill ~ 11 537 41.90% 58.10% 140 Northwood Middle 06 38 28 51 50 14 8 189 07 36 49 57 44 12 7 205 08 36 40 43 49 9 11 188 Schoof Total 11.Q 117 151 143 ~-- ~ 582 39.00% 61.00% \" 6-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 Black White Bid Bid Name Other Percentages Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Black Non-Black ill Ta'{_lorE lementary 01 23 20 11 13 0 0 67 02 25 18 11 12 1 1 68 03 8 16 9 10 2 2 47 04 22 30 6 7 2 68 05 13 16 12 9 3 0 53 KF 25 21 16 14 4 81 School Total 116 121 M g 11 J! ill 61.72% 38.28% 142 Pine Forest Elementary 01 13 15 33 32 3 5 101 02 9 15 25 22 2 3 76 03 10 16 27 37 3 5 98 04 22 13 32 27 0 2 96 05 12 9 37 30 5 3 96 KF 11 9 34 20 2 5 81 School Total l1 l1 ill 168 1. n 548 28.10 71.90 143 Robinson Middle 06 26 25 44 37 8 10 150 07 25 26 33 27 4 2 117 08 29 26 39 23 9 2 128 School Total ~ l1 116 !!l 11 Y. 395 39.75% 60.25% 146 Bates Elementary 01 17 16 24 16 4 7 84 02 13 10 11 10 8 9 61 03 15 26 17 17 2 8 85 04 21 18 21 6 3 6 75 05 18 16 14 10 9 5 72 KF 17 13 14 15 6 9 74 School Total 101 99 101 74 32 44 451 44.35% 55.65% PK 6 9 11 9 4 40 School Total Including PK 107 108 ill ~ ~ ~ ill ill'.lli 56.21% 149 Maumelle Middle 06 57 55 78 70 10 9 279 07 40 51 78 64 3 7 243 08 59 52 69 64 5 3 252 School Total ill 158 .ill ill 11 u m. 40.57% 59.43% 150 Chenal Elementary 01 10 10 41 32 2 5 100 ... 02 12 14 36 27 5 2 96 03 11 11 25 30 6 4 87 04 15 15 30 26 3 90 ,, 05 19 16 22 32 4 4 97 KF 8 6 29 44 89 School Total 1. 11 133 191 u u fil 26.30% 73.70% 7-8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEX/RACE TOTALS BY LEA -14 October 2010 TOTAL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT Black White Other Percentages Bid Bid Name Grade Male Female Male Female .Mfil! Female Total Black Non-Black PreK Totals u 12B ill w ~ g, m 32.54 87.48%! Kf 294 248 416 380 90 BS 1513 01 275 284 422 407 79 80 1547 02 275 264 407 342 74 77 1439 03 283 298 366 360 59 68 1434 04 337 286 368 346 59 56 1452 OS 293 283 361 337 69 61 1404 Elementao,\n: Totals w/o PreK mz !W lMQ lm WI w: 1~ 38.91% 81.091 Elementao,\nT:o tals with PreK 184B 1791 2525 2334 4B9 475 9462 38.46 81.54%1 06 319 288 312 301 51 43 1314 07 266 291 279 243 39 32 1150 08 311 292 288 251 41 31 1214 09 377 294 300 288 40 27 1326 10 229 258 231 255 36 24 !033 11 273 219 227 224 35 32 1010 12 230 269 219 215 20 26 979 Secondary Totals 2005 1911 1B56 1777 262 215 B026 48.79 51.21%11 District Totals wlo PreK ~ ~ 41~ ~ ~ ~ l~l~ 43.83 srnII District Totals with PreK is~ ~ ~m ilU m. ~ 1Z,4Bf. 43.20% 58.80%11 8-8 ELEMENTARY Class PRE-K SCHOOLS Capacity (Rev,sed) Blk NB Adkins 526 72 66 Arnold Dr 453 6 31 Baker 428 0 0 Bates 863 16 24 Bayou Mato 697 0 20 Cato BOO 4 16 Chenal 550 0 0 Clinton 840 40 39 Coll Sta 439 12 5 ~talHIII 870 15 25 Ouoree 496 0 0 Hanis 906 0 0 Jax Elem 850 0 0 Landmark 711 10 30 Lawson 372 4 16 Oak Grove 626 17 43 Oakbrooke 553 17 23 Pine Forest 554 0 0 Pinewood en 0 0 Robinson 544 0 20 Scott 294 3 17 She\u0026lt;wood 561 4 15 Svtilan Hills 606 6 14 TavlOf 566 0 0 ToHeson 561 8 32 Total Elem: 15,345 234 436 SECONDARY Cius SIXTH SCHOOLS (\"R-cervtyt sedl Bl\u0026lt; NB 7 Leamlno Academ-. 90 2 0 Star Acadernv TBA 0 0 FulerMiddle 1360 103 67 Jax MlckUe 990 141 108 Jax Hinh 1360 0 0 Maumele Middle 840 113 168 MIDSH lah 1130 0 0 North Pulasij Hloh 1050 0 0 Northwood Mid 1030 68 124 Oak Grove tflQh 1130 0 0 RobinsonM id 650 51 98 Robinson Hlah 770 0 0 Svtvan HIits Mid 1060 131 140 Svl\\lan Hills HkJh 1120 0 0 Tola! Secondary 12.600 607 705 TOTAL ENROLLMENT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ht Quartff Enrotlmi1nt TNI Count 2010--11:O ctober 1l, 2010 (Le1W11lnARc ad*nrt St.r Acll\u0026lt;f\"myrmwcounted '\" 11epftratP 1choots\",) KIND FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % 138 ,t ~ .... - o. 0  - o \u0026lt; -,,\"'.'i0l' J:'!\"'Liu o or 0 l!\".!0 !',. 0, 0\n O 72 52.2% 37 6 34 40 2 44 46 8 35 43 8 17 25 10 17 27 6 15 21 '\"\"' {46) 19.2% 0 24 59 83 27 68 95 35 74 109 24 57 81 30 44 74 23 46 69 ~.r.,:\n~o0 =\"I 163 31:9% 40 30 44 74 33 52 85 23 38 61 41 44 85 38 37 75 34 39 73 --o. 215 43.6% 20 5 49 54 6 64 70 4 61 65 4 47 51 2 58 60 5 42 47 w\u0026lt;1\u0026gt; .,~o \"\"--.o 26 7.1% 20 9 38 47 17 35 52 11 41 52 15 25 40 14 42 56 16 42 58 li.\nrJ.Dl\n.\\\naO _,,..,. 'llij 26.5% 0 14 75 89 20 60 100 26 70 96 22 64 86 30 60 90 35 62 97 '~ 147 26.3% 79 56 66 122 56 72 128 60 58 118 60 60 120 58 47 105 55 29 84  .,\"'1). 385 50.9% 17 19 4 23 25 7 32 22 5 27 18 8 26 21 11 32 28 11 39 1~5 74.0% 40 37 81 118 47 87 134 38 73 109 46 60 106 41 71 112 54 74 128 . ..,.,0 wn ,.,, ... 276 36.9% 0 24 26 50 37 30 67 24 26 50 27 22 49 18 28 46 22 21 43 .. , .. o i,I ......., I 152 49.8% 0 35 9 44 28 7 35 30 7 37 35 8 43 27 11 38 23 7 30 ~ ~ _,,. 178 78.4% 0 28 29 57 26 18 44 34 22 56 42 18 60 35 22 57 34 14 48 :i. ... ~( j\n'll'O ~ 199 61:8% 40 11 42 53 13 27 40 10 27 37 19 33 52 20 30 50 14 25 39 .,,,:\u0026gt;\nO ., ~- 97 31.2% 20 12 26 38 13 32 45 11 36 47 7 38 45 9 38 47 14 45 59 ,..t-..-4-r0- iO. , 70 23.3% 60 14 34 46 11 51 62 4 34 38 14 30 44 10 38 48 8 37 45 :iCt.\"\"0 \n78 22.6% 40 41 51 92 31 48 79 34 39 73 36 54 90 35 49 84 31 48 79 ~'l\u0026lt;.O ~. '$ 225 41.9% 0 20 81 81 27 74 101 23 52 75 26 74 100 35 61 96 19 75 94-.:-ovc ... D 150 27.4% 0 38 40 76 43 35 78 43 32 75 32 26 58 46 30 76 38 26 64 ~(J \\t., ~-- 240 55.9% 20 4 21 25 7 17 24 8 26 34 15 31 46 13 25 38 15 22 37 ~o 0 ,, 62 27.7% 20 8 21 29 7 16 23 8 16 24 9 22 31 11 10 21 6 23 29 4 8 12 56 29.6% 19 16 40 56 13 41 54 14 39 53 21 36 57 23 34 57 22 37 59 ...-..:...1  .,: - . 113 31.8% 20 33 34 67 20 29 49 20 26 46 30 22 52 25 29 54 29 37 66 ..,..,.!),\u0026gt;: ,-.:.\u0026lt;1.T'i, 163 46.0% 0 48 34 82 44 24 68 43 24 67 24 21 45 so 16 66 29 23 52 ~ .... , ..,,\n:,.,.DI..,~ ( 238 62.6% 40 29 39 68 10 32 42 13 32 45 14 30 44 22 22 44 15 24 39 -.,o  0 - ., ' 111 34.5% 670 561 957 1518 563 990 1553 544 893 1437 589 847 1436 623 830 1453 575 824 1399 4 8 12 3,693 39.0'.4 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 11:O u11rtltfE nrollrnftf'ltT otI Coont201n.11: Octobr 1. 2010 (Ul111mfnoA Clldemv ~t.r ACJ1dNnyn nw eounffld \"\" a P~\"'ht- \"~honh, ...) SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH TOTAL SECONDARY TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % NonBlack \n. 2 3 4 7 10 3 13 19 3 22 10 1 11 5 1 6 1 0 1 50 80.6% 12 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 24 29 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 24 45.3% 29 170 106 85 191 105 n 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 57.8% 229 249 132 71 203 143 99 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 59.9% 278 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 166 71 237 123 102 225 123 91 214 128 90 218 540 60.4% 354 281 88 152 240 109 143 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 40.1% 463 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 117 0. 211 110 101 211 108 81 189 115 51 166 450 57.9% 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 135 214 73 139 212 73 113 186 86 110 196 311 38.5% 497 190 88 118 206 76 112 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 39.4% 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 107 195 52 58 110 46 49 95 42 42 84 228 47.1% 256 149 50 84 114 54 70 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 40.1% 232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 84 150 36 61 97 52 74 126 46 72 118 200 40.7% 291 271 88 0. 182 104 105 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323 48.8% 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 130 256 88 83 171 87 106 193 87 117 204 388 47.1% 436 13121555 588 1143 601 609 1210 685 653 1338 492 545 1037 40. 515 1009 505 482 987 3,939 49.0'.4 4,097 I 7,632 43.6'!. 9,8821 TOTAL ELEMENTARY Non-Black 66 193 348 278 341 239 411 371 51 471 153 49 123 214 231 267 312 397 189 162 133 242 191 142 211 5,785 TOTAL 19.4% 62 54.7% 53 42.2% 543 40.1% 694 39.6% 894 59.9% 773 42.1% 777 61.5% 808 60.6% 584 52.9% 484 59.9% 387 59.3% 491 51.2% 662 52.9% 824 51.0% 8,036 56.4o/,I 17,514 .,,. Page4 of5 Total 47.8% 138 80.8% 239 68.1% 511 56.4% 493 92.9% 367 73.5% 325 73.7% 558 49.1% 756 26.0% 196 63.1% 747 50.2% 305 21.6% 227 38.2% 322 68.8% 311 76.7% 301 77.4% 345 58.1% 537 72.6% 547 44.1% 429 72.3% 224 70.4% 189 68.2% 355 54.0% 354 37.4% 380 65.5% 322 61.0% 9,478 R C DEC- r 2010 R tA Office of Educational Accounlabtily. Pnnted oo 10/22/2010 at 11:15 AM.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_79","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":["2010-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/79"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTJ\\t\\ENT OF EDUCATIO Dr. Tom w. Kimbrell September 30. 20 I 0 Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melboume Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Chri tophcr Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark -IOO West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 '.'vlr. John'-.\\'. \\,\\ 'alker John Walker, P. :.\\. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation \\lonitoring One t nion National Plaza 12-t West Capitol. Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen \\\\ '. Jones Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones -l25 West Capitol. Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. !'vi. Samuel Jones 1II Mitchell, Williams, Selig. Gates \u0026amp; V-. oodyard -l25 West Capitol ,\\venue. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220 I RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. C.:.S. Di!\ntrict Court .Vo. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am l'iling the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 20 IO in the abo\\.erefcrenced case. [f you have any questions. please feel free to contact me at your conwnience. Sincerely, ~C-(X~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel RECEIVED OCT 1 2 2010 CfFICE OF DESEGREGil.T\\Ori MONITORING UNITED STATES DfSTRICT COURT EASTER.' DISTRICT OF ARKr\\\\'SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCl!OOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WR W PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. et al DEFE~DA1' TS OTICE or FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December l 0. 1993, the Arkansas Depanmem of Education hereby gi\\es notice of the filing of the ADEs Project Management Tool for September, 20 l 0. C . ~ J:::\u0026gt; 8 y: o-.---...... Jey(. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar I o. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERT[FICATE OF SERV[CE [, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on September 30,2010. [ caused the foregoing document to be erved b1 depositing a copy in the United States mail. postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: \\Ir. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark -+00 West Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I -3-t93 Mr. John W. Walker John v\\'alker. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Vlr. :v1ark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, [\\ers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation i\\[onitoring One Gnion National PlaLa 12-+ \\\\'est Capitol. Suite 1895 Little Roel\u0026lt;. AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones -+25 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, :\\R 7220 I i\\lr. :vi. Samuel Jones, [II Mitchell. Williams. Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard -+25 \\,Vest Capitol. Suite 1800 Little Rock. :\\R 7220 I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Based on the information available at August 31, 2010, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 10/11 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. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 201 O Based on the information available at August 31, 2010, the ADE calculated for, FY10/11 , subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 On August 31, 2010, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 10/11 were as follows: LRSD - $5,312,841 NLRSD - $3,253,181 PCSSD - $4,028,487 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 10/11 at August 31 , 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $58,441,252 NLRSD - $35,784,992 PCSSD - $44,313,364 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2010 for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2010 for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511 ,455. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 201 O for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Distributions for FY 10/11 at August 31 , 2010, totaled $1 ,389,721. Allotment calculated for FY 10/11 was $13,897,197 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. J. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Distributions for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, were: LRSD - $4,905, 188 NLRSD - $5,958,194 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The allotments calculated for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,905,188 NLRSD - $5,887,319 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The North Little Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $159,655. They repaid $88,780 in June of 2010. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of September 30, 201 O In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L.  ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equaf installments. At January 31 , 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1,471,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/1 O: LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724, 165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair. lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of September 30, 201 O The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of September 30, 201 O Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school. year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress . made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development . regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The  Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Gtoup met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court superv1s1on. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the 81 Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 2 7 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided update information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be .sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 30 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 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 September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 31 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 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 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 32 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (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 Distric~ were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 33 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 201 O (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua interveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lnterveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in w_hich ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterveners were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14,  2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11 , 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 3. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 9, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 13, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 52 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 September 30, 2010 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice train ing on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2010 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 fo\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_45","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":["2010-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/45"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\u0026gt;-~-~ ,A.RKANSA.S -~ ~._\"1,c,ii~\n':?..S.\"4' t DEPART1\\1ENT RECEIVED OF E DUCATl01 . SEP - \"1 2010 omceoF Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Naccaman Williams Springdale Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Toyce Newton Crossett Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 (501) 682-4475 - ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer August 3 1, 20 10 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 \\Ir. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 :-V1r. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock. Barnes, Wagoner, hers \u0026amp; neddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 DESEGREGAllON MONITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union ational Plaza l 2..J. West Capitol. Suite l 895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; .Jones ..J.25 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. M. Samuel Jones T[] Mitchell, \\,\\'ii Iiams, Selig. Gates \u0026amp; Wood) ard 425 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter. [ am advising you that ram filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project f\\(anagement Tool for the month of August 20 l O in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions. please fee l free to contact me at your convenience. Si ncerely, ~:.:~1___ General Counsel . L':\\flTED STATE DfSTRICT COCRT EASTER:\\! Df TRICT OF ARKANSAS \\.VESTER.t'\\J DIVISfO:\\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. ~o. LR-C-82-866 WR\\\\,' PULASKf COC, TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al OTfCE OF FfLING PLAlNTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance \\,\\ith the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project tvlanagement Tool for :\\ugust. 2010. BY .2:::S:J ~2~:~unsel Ark. Bar . o. 2001-2005 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFfCATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on August 31, 2010, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol , Suite 2000 Litt le Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones .lack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones -.J.25 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol , Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220 I _2(g___ Je\"@ Lasiter IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 B.__ Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 4~l~~rllititMt~~~~@ef[9.it-1B:~tiD.fwMm~~~ LRSD - $55,837,670 NLRSD - $33,911 ,339 PCSSD - $42,968,852 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 August 31 , 2010 s \u0026gt;:e, info \"'- 'M . ~eaicutafea\"a Hi.ff ~ 3 w1--20:10\nfo: ,,:_r,: ~3-~ - ::i..,--.... ______ .. ~li\u0026gt;ti_\n..:_: . ~. eeMo 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 August 31 , 2010 ~~~tlfat~ailigit0U]jjyJ:~~~ = -~ 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. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 On September 10, 2009, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,212 per court order. The final Magnet payment for FY 08/09 was $511,455. ID l\n'.:rca1eti1~te'EJj\"i\"at.~'tlabH'e1,1J\"~:0~gf{Qg ~\"'-\"'-,-w._...__., . ...,,,=-~.,_,,-.J.?.\n......,.=\n1~~ ~\nii\n' Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 'IDistFio m~,f! . ~ .@~ ia'c\"'u ..fE*t..eEfLf . 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 August 31 , 2010 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2010 for FY 09/10, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. J. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 Distributions for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, were: LRSD - $4,905,188 NLRSD - $5,958, 194 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The allotments calculated for FY 09/10 at June 30, 2010, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD- $4,905,188 NLRSD - $5,887,319 PCSSD - $10,478,331 The North Little Rock School District was overpaid for M-to-M in the amount of $159,655. They repaid $88,780 in June of 2010. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 In September 2007, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 07/08 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 August 31, 2010 In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 08/09 to the Districts. In August 2009, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In January 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 In September 2009, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 08/09 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 08/09: LRSD - $4,236,159.97 NLRSD - $1,300,628.11 PCSSD - $3,482,736.87 In September 2009, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $1,389,350 NLRSD - $443,807.63 PCSSD - $1,114,952.61 In January 2010, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $2,778,700 NLRSD - $887,615.26 PCSSD - $2,229,905.22 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 August 31, 2010 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year.  In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,1 15. In March 2008, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010 for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of August 31, 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 201 O 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 August 31 , 2010 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 August 31 , 201 O The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribu ion in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total a~ due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the QOM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. 13 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 August 31 , 2010 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996 . . A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data  element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. _The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201 -A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE _Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30  p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier,  Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired , the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next  Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasibility study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court superv1s1on. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June. 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The court ruled that the district could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County school districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD bein~ declared unitary and the Joshua interveners filing a notice of appeal to the st Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua interveners have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua interveners. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lnterveners filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lnterveners. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lnterveners requested that school desegregation monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the district, or on the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lnterveners. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lnterveners objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 of 2008. Act 2 was passed in the special legislative session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the district. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an independent district. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in federal district court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a federal desegregation monitoring office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article saic\nI that ODM has proposed a 2008-09 budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the school districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that legislators, attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and representatives of the three school districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new charter schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"districtwide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the district court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduied for January 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General, received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new charter schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three school districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the school choice law and the charter school law. The LRSD has said that charter schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments.  Another article talked about the first court hearing with U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an attorney for the Pulaski Special School District, Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three districts to continue even if the districts are all unitary. John Walker, an attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since state funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1 .6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public charter schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North . Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a federal court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving charter schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the district. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure provided update information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of elementary schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said charter school applications will appear in the next State Board meeting agenda. 29 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 August 31, 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 30 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 August 31 , 201 O The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 31 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 August 31 , 2010 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17-1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 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 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 32 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 33 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 August 31, 2010 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 34 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 35 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, a letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, a letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 36 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 August 31 , 2010 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 Ag~eement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 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 August 31 , 2010 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 37 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 August 31 , 2010 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. 38 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) During the months of Febr,uary 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 39 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lnterveners filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua interveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lnterveners of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lnterveners were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan  would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 42 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and . approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 8, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 10, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 14, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 19, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 3. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 (Continued) On March 8, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 12, 2010, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. ~ ,0A9.,gu~t ~\n?6:fb~ ~h~ Arkansas -- r~_yi cl,,mRJ:.Q~d tp_g f?MI _andi!-'executiVtl_till}maryJoiJ e moQ!_[ 52 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 August 31, 2010 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 wa? 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. 53 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information.  In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July . monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 54 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 55 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 August 31 , 2010 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 56  VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2010 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 August 31, 2010 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2010 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 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 provid\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1851","title":"Multiple court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2010-08/2010-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2010-2019","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1851"],"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":["92 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":8,"next_page":9,"prev_page":7,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":84,"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}}]}}