-I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 ,Bi~ed.: QQ _fhej ntpr,~~-i.?ry .a ~~l/a~_IEr~: ~t Mi:!y~3J
-gp12, th.f '6Q)f tiL~glafed-fo(FY 1:1 O 2_, _su!)Ject to penod1c-a_dJU!l'Jl~nts. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 0~s-n}aM1 1aoyw, s3:1 , . 2012, -d-istrib-"-u tio ns" o f sf-a- te- r o~u-n-ciation E-un-o,ng f o_,h .. F-Y =J f-i-i.2 w e re Cgso --$ss
si15,44s NLRSD l:-$3{.797,()38 PGSSD :'$3'8
'992
228 ~ri:~,i~IJotrnE:gtf6.f,~tat~ F.,91
i~~-~!~of,f'!5:~b.Sfi~'.~~+~~~t~~,:f9r,.ft
)Jf1Z,at ,9y_3t' ~o~ 2
subJ~ct tg :Renod1~:stdJt1strn~nts.,: \Y,~n=U?? J9.!l9w~: Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 ,:[{~~:9~)~:~~i~f9l~,~li_i?.}
'~'l:~J~~w~ah~~'.~Plf9~fctilaf~J1~i~f::May}M r 2012? fo~ ffY,1:111.2, subJeGt1tP
P~F19.9Jf:>.9dJ!-.!~Ji]Em,ts: E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Base(~ri !hE: inforryiption
~v~ila~I~:: fht1
'AfS~_j
aJgul~~d {af _M~~y'9f ,2QJ2~-for FY111.:f 2, sybject Jo peri9qffadjy_Jrne!:)!s, 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 June 30, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. BJ1~~-~~pn,: . ~~:,.~~f9rrj,~ti,q~~~'Q!i1~~9!~.
th,f
AD!
:&~Iffi_yl~t\td.\~-.~~J~-~j_42Q_12
&f6.r: FY11 /J2
' subject, to:J?,enoq_i_q ~dN.fill1Jerit,~, G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Qi~tf~~.~ti?P~}qrJ:Y.,,:1) l,1~ -~fM~Y':~)
\?Q1t1
,lqt~W~ . -~,1~1t~1
~ffe4,\\'.~lf9Nn~ht alcyJated fqf:FXJ
1/17)tJ~s $14
-s7a
72_o-:~y_bj~c.(fifpefi9~ic: agjQ$trn~off H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011, for FY10/11, 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. Actal as of Jun~3o, io12 Q!Stf_[~utiofis-f9.fr
y
:I1if2 aLrvi.Y j_:1, -~gJ~
-~!~ [~e.t_c1JJ9![ferts.
(aJc
ula}e~ ,fcfr_FY ~11f1'2, at..rviay,~1
\?Q1g'/suTuje~[ t9:~p~'i-12dl9 a~dju~trr'lDi~
:wre: J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 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. In January 2011, General Finance was notified to pay the second 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 June 30, 2012 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 09/1 O: 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 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1,020,436.26 PCSSD - $1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1 ,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271 ,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11/12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD -$1 ,778,000.70 ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 05/66 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. 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. 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. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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
NLRSD - 6
and 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
NLRSD - 7
and 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: i..::RSD - 8
NLRSD - 2
and 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
NLRSD - 2
and 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
NLRSD - 2
and 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
NLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger
PCSSD - 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. 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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
NLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger
PCSSD - 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Bids were released in July 2011 , for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-4 7 passenger buses and 1-4 7 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities & Transportation submitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen (16) buses for the three Districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSD Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 Passenger buses On April 3, 2012, The Office of State Procurement sent out the request for bids for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses being purchased. The bid opening will take place on April 19, 2012. The breakdown of the buses was submitted previously. On May 9, 2012, The Office of State Procurement was awarded the bid for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses from Diamond States Bus Sales in Conway, AR. Three (3) 47 passenger buses@ $67,054.00 each Thirteen (13) 65 passenger buses @ $68,575.00 each Total bid awarded is for $1,092,637.00 Buses should be delivered sometime in August. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each School Year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 13 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 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 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11 /12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 . 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11/12. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 percent 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.- Tfie 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 vis its 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 fi led 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. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 conciuded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additionai 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts were held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and School Improvement visits. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 and October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised Monitoring Plan is finalized and approved, the ADE Monitoring Staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff Development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) Staff Development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5 and 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 from 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. On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 from 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. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995_ 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (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 from 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors 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 lntervenors. 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 from 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 lntervenors 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 lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors 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 lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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, 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 from 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 (QOM), 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 QOM has proposed a 2008-2009 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 "district-wide, 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. 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 iri monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 County 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 County 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. 30 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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 updated 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. 31 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. On January 13, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that 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 the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 32 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General -Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski Gounty School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment
advanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs
discipline
school facilities
scholarships
special education
staff
student achievement
and monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for District Staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE Legal Department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the District starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The State has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case reiates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 35 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, 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 Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, stated that on March 19, 2012, they were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release the State from the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The settlement schedules had not been discussed in the last two years. Mr. Richardson also stated that on March 29, 2012, the two main things that were submitted to the Courts were Charter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gap. Mr. Morris stated the big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary areas in the last Court Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part of the County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the PCSSD facilities plan. Due to bad weather conditions during Spring Break, Mr. Morris was unable to visit any facilities. Next week, if the weather permits, he will visit facilities that are not testing. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. Transportation and facility funding are to continue being provided until being released from the Court. There has been no feedback on LRSD from Mr. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negative impact on their litigation. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no response to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 36 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor Court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 37 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 38 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 was not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993
ADE Director's Communication 93-205
Act 145 of 1989
ADE Director's Memo 91-67
ADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education
Arkansas 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. 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. 39 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 Legislative Session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999, at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999, at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999, at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County Districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. 40 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 and 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 scho-oi 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. 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. 41 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 42 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 wfll 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 Distriets 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. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011, 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 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 June 30, 2012 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. 0n 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (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. 0-uring 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (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 attarning 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (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 8evelopment, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation Monitoring Process and the update on Test Validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its Quarterly Meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 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 June 30, 2012 (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 I ntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist Districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist Districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13 and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to Court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12 and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its Executive Summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 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 June 30, 2012 (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 and 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 and 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 met 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (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 Si:immary 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. 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 June 30, 2012 (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. 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) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 53 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 54 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 or 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. 55 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 56 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 57 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 , 20
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>Arkansas. Department of Education</dcterms_creator>