{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1190","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Assessment Notebook, Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2000-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Students","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Assessment Notebook, Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1190"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["214 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\ns\np.~ ~nnln,gr B~~q, :, L,_. ft.n d,.~y ijlU at i On \\A,M9 lL .\\.iAP.O TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 26, 2001 Board of Education ?~l-1-6( eflu_J)N'l}. -~ fxw: ~~~/ cru I ~s~ J FROM: . .) ~/\\Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction THROUGH: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program The Board of Education approved the current assessment program in August 1999. Attached for the Board's information is a matrix that outlines the tests administered in 2000-01, dates, grade levels, and definitions. In addition to the tests listed on the matrix, we also have others, such as the Language Assessment Scale used to identify limited-English proficient students\ndiagnostic and screening tests used to . identify students for special education\nthe ASVAB at the high school to identify vocational aptitudes\nAdvanced Placement tests for students in grades 10-12\nthe SAT in grades 11-12 who need it for college admission or scholarships\ncredit by examination at the end of the year for credit recovery\nplacement examinations for entry or re-entry of home schooled students\ntests that teachers administer as a part of their instructional program\nand so forth.  After many discussions evaluating this program during 2000-01, including feedback from parents, students, principals, teachers, counselors, and curriculum and assessment staff, we have determined the need to revise the program. We request the Board's approval of the following amendments to our program: 1. Eliminate the fall administration of the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) in reading, language, mathematics, and science for grades 3-11-except for students new to the District. Rationale: We learn very little valuable information from the fall scores that we do not already know from the spring scores received a few months earlier. Eliminating these tests would save considerable staff time at both the District and school levels-in planning, administering the tests, scanning the answer documents, running reports, distributing reports, interpreting and analyzing the reports, etc. We would save money in licensing fees, scan sheets, delivery costs of materials to and from schools, paper to Board of Education - Memo July 26, 2001 Page Two run the reports for students/parents, schools, and central office, etc. Perhaps most importantly, we would save at least a week of instructional time for virtually all students since schools tend to shut down instruction when any grade level is being tested. By continuing to test in the fall the new students to the District, we would then have diagnostic information for all students, and we would be able to have necessary data for SAIPs (Student Academic Improvement Plans) and to compute a growth score for all students. 2. Eliminate all AL Ts in grades 10-11 at the high school level. Rationale: Using the AL Ts at the high school level in any meaningful way has presented several problems. Perhaps the one that is most important is that high school students have few courses in common at any grade level since many of them repeat courses, take advantage of choices they have (e.g., taking either Algebra II or Statistics to satisfy graduation requirements), and/or intentionally delay some courses (e.g., a science or social studies course) in order to take Career Focus courses or electives in which they have interests. In other words, the grades 10-11 AL Ts are not necessarily aligned with the courses that the students are taking. It is, therefore, difficult to interpret the scores since we are not always clear about which courses the students have actually completed. Another high school issue is that they already take so many other tests, and the AL Ts are so unimportant to them that they lack motivation to do well. Students take both the SA T9 and PLAN in grade 10, and almost all of them take either the end-of-course Algebra I or Geometry test required by the state. In grade 11 by the time they receive their ALT scores, they have already taken all the required state endof- course/level tests, their last SAT9, PLAN, the PSAT, and, perhaps, either the ACT or SAT. The grade 10-11 ALT scores, therefore, are not going to be significantly informative to anyone. 3. Eliminate the mathematics and science AL Ts at grade 9 (leaving only the reading and language AL Ts at this grade level). Rationale: Again, the issue is alignment. Once students start taking Algebra I the mathematics ALT is not helpful. The ALT science test at grade 9 is not well aligned with Active Physics and Physics I Pre-AP at this grade level either since so few students in the nation even take a physics course. We can make the case with the National Science Foundation that our criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) for mathematics and science are better measurements for program evaluation and the diagnosis of individual student needs than the AL Ts. Board of Education - Memo July 26, 2001 Page Three 4. Eliminate the mathematics ALT for students in grades 7-8 who are enrolled in Algebra I or higher-level mathematics. Rationale: The ALT is not a good test for students after they begin Algebra I. 5. Eliminate the criterion-referenced tests in English language arts administered at the end of the second and third quarters, grades 3-8. (The CRTs used at the end of mathematics modules in grades 3-8 and the end-of-unit tests used in grades 3-8 in science will continue since they are an important part of the evaluation plan submitted to the National Science Foundation.) Rationale: Staff at both the District and school levels have recommended that the energy and money spent on the current CRTs in language arts would be better used in providing quality professional development for teachers in how to write their own assessments and how to use rubrics (scoring guides) in assessing student performance. The data gathered from language arts CRTs have not been helpful at the . District or school levels in assessing program effectiveness since the instruction in this area is highly individualized. The content (what students read, as opposed to skills emphasized) and sequence of lessons also varies from classroom to classroom. The value of the assessment results is at the teacher level\nthe assessment instrument, therefore, will likely be of higher value if designed by the teachers, particularly if they have been trained. Other issues in the language arts is the cost in time of scoring openended responses and the related delay in getting results back to the schools. 6. Begin the grade 9 Civics/United States History assessment in spring 2002. Rationale: The SA T9 battery includes a social studies assessment in grades 5, 7, and 10, but these tests are not necessarily aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks for social studies, nor the District's grade-level and course benchmarks. The social studies staff recommend that we add this assessment so that we measure students' understanding of key concepts in United States government, civics, and history. This test can also prepare students to take the up-coming State end-of-course test in United States History, as well as provide the school and the District with diagnostic information in this subject area and evaluation data for the program. Our initial plans were to begin this assessment in spring 2001 . We made a decision to delay it due to the illness of the Director of Social Studies and due to a need to align our item bank with other important social studies assessments, such as the assessment used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. BAL/adg Attachments I I I I i l District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 Grade TEST K I 1 2 LRSD Observallo11 Survey Sepl. \u0026amp; Sepl. \u0026amp; Sep!. \u0026amp; bohoviorAI obss,vstion of lllmcr skms April April  April LRSD Achi0ver11enl Level Tes! (ALT) Rssdt,rg, LsnguafJ Arts, Alef/o, \u0026amp; Scislfco I LRSD 1st O\\lerler CRT, October 1 LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, Januarv LRSD Jrd Quarter CRT, March End or Module - Malh End of Uni! - Science End or Level Social Sludle~ Tesl April 3  4 5 I 6 7 8 Sepl \u0026amp; Aorll Seo! \u0026amp; Aorll Seol \u0026amp; Aoril Seol.\u0026amp; Aoril Sep! \u0026amp; April Seol \u0026amp; Aorll Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Langtia_ge Ms Arts Aris Aris Aris Aris Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language Aris Aris.: Arts Aris Aris .Aris As Modules are As Modules are tis Modu'.es are As Modules As Modules /Is Modules compleled compleled corppl11led are compleled are compleled are compleled As Units are As Unlls aro \" AsUnll'iare NJ Unll:s are As Unlls an, completed compleled COOlpluled compleled co111pleled 9 Seo! \u0026amp; Aorll Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geomelry, Trigmiomelrv Algeb1 a 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, T rlgonornelrv May 10 Sep! \u0026amp; April Sep! \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, I Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geon1elry, Geomelry, Trlgonomelrv Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Algebra t \u0026amp; 2, Geomelry, Geomelry, Triaonomelrv Trigonometry 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geornelry, Trigonometry Algeb1a l \u0026amp; 2,1 Geometry, . , Trlaonomelr-v  \\~~l .. 'll:.11%\nate?~Elr.J... ~ IUllttr. ~--~- .Uti(WJ.\n.~FH~.ni'\":m\"'~JI ~'.J!li.:r~~~,:t:_~..,l ~ .- f:~ .S!f:. ~nn1jfr7-$. =~Jl.l:!: . ... ,,f!ii::,11' i.:S::::l:::a:::le::..:B=-e=n:::c::l.::.1m:.:a=:r:::k::..:: ::M.::,iO::.:r..:\u0026amp;:...:L::::::ra=cr_....:..._ _- l------l---~1-------1-------+---'A-'\\o\"-r'-ll-'._+-~---1--.c....A,p:'- ri'-l -+-----1----,-A\n-p_ri_l -1--~--- , :2(1 - ....~\n~r' . End or Course Algebra_ I May May Mav Mav Mav May End or Course Geomeltv Mav May Mav May Mav End or Course Lileracv Mav '-~,.... lf(i'~\"\"Ji.llj:r~f:\n(\u0026gt;\n...., .~'.'\"''~ 'i111i-'. ~a1i1):\\1'J,.\":P.1~'l\n.:\"ilj._, ,,_ ' l-t-\\: ' , - ' .' $A T-9: Nomr Rfsrencsd ToI Seplember Seplember Seplember PLAN Oct \u0026amp; Nov EXPLORE Oct - FelJ. PSAT NAEP lrandomlv selecled schools 1 February February Ocl (plaGIIGB} .October February 7118/00 Revised DRAFT 1. t I I - Glossary of Terms LRSD Observation Survey is an assessment instrument developed by Marie Clay to assess K-2 students in letter identification, word identification, concepts about print (CAPS)\nwriting vocabulary, and dictation. The Developmental Reading Assessment is also used-as part of this assessment. LRSD Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) are tests consisting of multiple levels. 111e ALT measures student progress in mastering the skills of Mathematics, Reading, Language, and Science. The District administers the ALT to students in grades 2-11. LllSD Crileria referenced test are administered in math, science, social studies and language arts to measure student progress in mastering the district's curriculum. End-of -Course Algebra )/Geometry are *criterion-Teferenced state assessments administered to eligible students** at the end of course to measure application of core knowledge and skills in the content areas. End-of-Comse Literacy is a criterion-referenced state assessment administered to eleventh grade studenls to measure application of core knowledge and skills in the content area. State Benchmark E:ums are criterion-referenced assessments designed to measure how well students are learning the state's academic standards in Mathematics and Literacy (reading and writing). The Primary, Intennediate, and Middle Level Benc~ark Exams are administered to students in grade~ 4, 6, and 8, respectively. Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition (SAT 9) is a norm-referenced assessment designed to test broad concepts in specific subject areas. Nomi-referenced tests are initially administered lo a national sample of students in order to develop testing \"norms\" or normative results thal will be used in comparing local stndenl performance. As such, norm-referenced testing fostrument9 provide important information on how students in Arkansas perform when compared to nnlional sample group results. The state mandates norm-referenced testing of students in grades 5, 7, and JO. PLAN academic tests are designed to measure student attainment of the knowledge and skills acquired through the early years of high school, specifically among tenth giade students in the fall term. There are four PLAN academic tests: English, Mathematics, Reading and Science Reasoning. PLAN is the second part of the ACT assessment program. EXPLORE serves as the first step in an integrated series of American College Test (ACn assessment programs designed to enhance eighth grade students'  preparation for careers, vocational training, or higher education. EXPLORE is made up primarily of four academic achievement tests: English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning. Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) assesses knowledge and skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through experiences outside the class1oom. The PSAT measures critical reading skills, verbal reasoning, math problem-solving skills, and writing skills. Juniors take the test to prepare for college admission tests. Test results provide valuable feedback about academic skills and can be used to identify students for honors classes. This is the qualifying test for the National Merit Program. National Assessment of Educnlional Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what st11dents in the United Stales know and can do in various academic subjects. NAEP is authorized by Congress and directed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NAEP assessments are administered to rep1esentative samples of students at the national and state levels in grades 4, 8, and 12. *Criterion rcrerenced examinulions are based on the A1kansas Cu1Ticulum Framewo1ks and designed to measure student accomplishment of the conlent standai ds therein. ** All students who llave completed the course of study.   District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LRSD Observation Survey Sept. \u0026amp; Sept. \u0026amp; Sept. \u0026amp; behavioral obse,vstion of literacy skiffs April April April LRSD Achievement Level Test (ALT) Reading, Language Arls, Math, \u0026amp; Science April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April LRSD 1st Quarter CRT. October Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, January Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language LRSD 3rd Quarter CRT, March Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts As Modules are As Modules are As Modules are As Modules As Modules As Modules End of Module - Math compleled compleled completed are completed are completed are completed As Units are As Units are As Units are As Units are As Units are End of Unit - Science completed completed completed completed completed End of Level Social Studies Test State Benchmark: Math \u0026amp; Literacy April April April End of Course Algebra I May May End of Course Geometry May End of Course Literacy SAT-9: Norm Referenced Test September September PLAN EXPLORE Oct - Feb PSAT NAEP (randomly selected schools) February February 7/18/00 Revised DRAFT 9 Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry May May 10 Sept \u0026amp;April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometrv May May September Oct \u0026amp; Nov 11 Sept \u0026amp;April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometrv Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry May May Oct (practice) .. October 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry - -:-, ~ ,- ...  :1-'' \u0026gt; May May February    SAS Co EN-S ING, ASSESSMENT,~ PROGRAM Arkansas Department of Education Ray Simon, Director June 1999 Revised June 2000    INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students, has the following purposes:  To improve student learning and classroom instruction\n To provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\n To provide program evaluation data\nand  To assist policymakers in decision-making. Based on principles of rigor, clarity, and fairness, ACTAAP makes student achievement of the academic standards the shared priority of all public schools, school districts, education service cooperatives, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on their practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. Finally, it will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates \"that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments.\"    ACADEMIC STANDARDS The first component, a set of clear, challenging academic standards, defines what students should know and be able to do in the basic academic core. Arkansas' academic standards are delineated in ten state curriculum framework documents. Written by Arkansas classroom teachers, the curriculum frameworks are revised on a State Board of Education adopted schedule to ensure that state learning expectations will prepare students to succeed in increasingly more demanding post secondary education and in an ever more competitive job market. As part of Smart Start and Smart Step, and as a support and supplement to the curriculum frameworks, K-8 Benchmark documents in Language Arts and Mathematics have been created. These documents are examples of how a school district might implement the curriculum frameworks by grade level. The K-8 Curriculum Model documents also contain suggested instructional strategies, classroom assessments, and a K-3 grade-level skills checklist. Other supportive curriculum documents built around the academic standards are under development. 2    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The second component, professional development, is a coordinated set of planned, research-based best practice, learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. It shall be tied with school improvement planning and with licensure renewal requirements. Thirty approved professional development hours annually will be required for each certified employee in the school district. Beginning in January 2002, thirty approved professional development hours annually over a five-year period shall be required to renew a teacher or administrator license. To be eligible, professional development activities must produce teaching and administrative knowledge and skills designed to improve students' academic performance. Such activities may include approved conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, and college/university coursework. Approved professional development activities shall relate to the twelve areas adopted by the State Board of Education: content (Grades K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. All approved professional development activities, whether individual or school wide, shall be based on the improvement of student achievement on statemandated criterion-referenced examinations and other related indicators as defined by ACTAAP . 3    STUDENT ASSESSMENT The third component is a student assessment program, which includes both criterionreferenced and norm-referenced tests in the academic core. Criterion-referenced tests are customized around the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement of the state academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with the expected performance levels set by the State Board of Education. 1 orm-referenced tests provide information to compare the performance of Arkansas students against the performance of a sample of students from across the country (norming/standardization group). Because norm-referenced tests are not built exclusively around Arkansas' academic standards and because their purpose is to group students based on their performance relative to the norming group, they can best be used for assisting in broad program evaluation and in individual student diagnosis. Norm-referenced test data will not be a primary statemandated indicator within the accountability component, but will be reported annually on the School Performance Report. State-Mandated Assessments The results of all assessments should be used during the school improvement planning process to help the school focus on the Arkansas academic standards and the need to increase proficient student performance around those standards. State-mandated assessments shall be as follows: Assessments Grade Level Month Administered Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Grade 4 April Intermediate Benchmark Grade 6 April Middle Level Benchmark Grade 8 April End-of-Course - Algebra I When Completed January/May End-of-Course - Geometry When Completed January/May End-of-Course - Literacv Grade 11 Januarv/Aoril Norm-Referenced Grades 5 7 and 1 O Seotember The Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams, as well as the End-ofCourse Exams, will be given late in the school year to allow maximum instructional time for covering the academic standards. Special provisions will be made for an alternate administration in January for those secondary students on a block scheduling system. The Literacy End-of-Course Exam will be given to students in Grade 11 to allow time for additional remediation, at the school's option, before graduation. These exams are tailored to Arkansas' curriculum standards, and their performance levels are absolute and held constant over time. The results of the End-of-Course Exams shall become a part of each student's transcript or permanent record. 4    An academic improvement plan means a plan which details supplemental and/or intervention and .~remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student not performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion-referenced examinations. The norm-referenced tests will be given in early fall of the school year in order to provide teachers with immediate and initial performance assessment data on students currently enrolled or newly enrolled in classes and content areas. The performance of Arkansas students taking the norm-referenced tests in the fall will be compared to the performance of a norming group who took the same tests during the same period in the fall, thus ensuring the reliability, validity and fairness of comparison. Score reports will be returned early in the school year for classroom teachers to use the testing information to address the individual student learning needs, and to modify the instructional program, teaching strategies, and/or classroom assessments as needed. Instruction then can focus fully on the Arkansas academic standards throughout the year and on increasing proficient student performance around those standards. Schools may request a waiver from the fall to a spring testing date. Such waivers will only be granted after a written plan is presented to the ADE and the school agrees to the guidelines as established. The timing of such requests must also fall within the deadlines as established by the testing company. As another part of the student assessment program for Grades K-4, schools shall select performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools to assess primary grade students. Any student in Grades K-4 failing to perform at the proficient level in reading and writing literacy or mathematics shall be evaluated as early as possible within each of the Grades K-4 academic years. Those students shall be evaluated by personnel with expertise in reading and writing literacy or mathematics who shall develop and implement an academic improvement plan, using ADE sanctioned early intervention strategies for Grades K-1 students and remediation strategies for Grades 2-4 students. These strategies should assist the students in achieving the expected standard. Schools serving Grades 5-12 shall establish a plan to assess whether children are performing at the proficient level in order to help assure eventual success on every portion of the Intermediate, Middle Level, and End-of-Course Benchmark Exams. For accountability purposes, no points will be assigned for the results of these performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools. Act 855 of 1999 mandates that students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level during the regular school year shall participate in an ADE approved remediation program or a summer school remediation program to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. Those schools electing not to offer a summer school program shall offer an ADE approved remediation program during the regular school year to students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level. 5    Optional Assessments There are other assessments which are optional for student and school participation. These include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), college entrance examinations (e.g., ACT and SAT), Advanced Placement testing, PLAN, EXPLORE, and others. Some of these may be included as indicators on the School Performance Report or in the annual school report to the public. ote: Although AEP is optional for individual school districts, state participation is mandated by Act 999 of 1999 . 6    ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS '\",,I,. .  Accountability is a comprehensive, focused process designed to improve student learning. It is a shared responsibility of the state, school, district, public officials, educators, parents, and students. The ACTAAP accountability model focuses on each individual school and is constructed around a three-tiered system that includes statewide indicators, individual school improvement indicators, and a locally-generated school accountability narrative. Once appropriate time has elapsed to evaluate trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators and a statistically-defensible point assignment system can be developed, points for each of the statewide and individual school improvement indicators will be given. This point system will form the basis for rewards and sanctions. These three tiers allow for meaningful and appropriate state and local involvement to implement accountability within clearly articulated parameters. ACTAAP encourages proactive corrections by individual schools and their local districts through the development and application of strategies using the school improvement process as a planning instrument. Performance Levels The primary goal of the accountability system is to assure that all students achieve grade-level performance. In this system, grade-level performance is defined as performing at the proficient or advanced level on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Four performance levels have been established for these exams: advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. The only tests for which scaled scores defining these levels have been set are the Primary Benchmark and Middle Level Benchmark Exams. Similar scales will be established by the State Board of Education as additional tests are completed and data become available. Definitions of Performance Levels Advanced students demonstrate superior performance well beyond proficient grade-level performance. They can apply Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills to solve complex problems and complete demanding tasks on their own. They can make insightful connections between abstract and concrete ideas and provide wellsupported explanations and arguments. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. 7    Basic students demonstrate a need for some additional assistance, commitment, or study to reach the proficient level. They show substantial skills in reading, writing, and mathematics\nhowever, they only partially demonstrate the abilities to apply these skills. Below Basic students fail to show sufficient mastering of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics to attain the basic level. Performance Levels for the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Examinations Performance Scaled Score Ranges for Scaled Score Ranges for Level Performance Levels for Performance Levels for Literacy Mathematics Primary Middle Level Primary Middle Level Advanced 250 and above 250 and above 250 and above 250 and above Proficient 200-249 200-249 200-249 200-249 Basic 155-199 149-199 179-199 164-199 Below Basic 154 and below 148 and below 178 and below 163 and below c Performance is subject to adjustment on a periodic basis due to .statistical scaling and variability in the test.) 8    Public Reporting Each public school in Arkansas will have a School Performance Report that will be created through the combined efforts of the local school, school district, and the ADE. The School Performance Report will provide parents and the public with data upon which to evaluate their schools and provide benchmarks for measuring school improvement. Although results from the school's performance on the three-tiered system will be the primary focus of the School Performance Report, other indicators may be included as determined by law or State Board of Education rules and regulations. Although the same standards of student performance will be expected from all students, assessment data will be analyzed and reported separately for three student classifications: special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility. The purposes for tracking performance of these student groups are to focus on narrowing any achievement gap between them and their peers and to ensure that the progress of all student populations is annually and systematically monitored. For purposes of this reporting, the following definitions apply: Disaggregated Reporting General population students are those participating in the mandatory criterionreferenced and norm-referenced assessments that are not classified as special education, limited English proficient, or highly mobile. Combined population students include all those participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments regardless of classification . Special education students are those determined to be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have an individualized education program (IEP). The student's IEP must stipulate that the student may participate in the mandatory criterionreferenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. Beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000-2001, the scores of all students classified as special education students participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments with or without accommodations shall be aggregated ( combined) with those of the general population students according to the following calendar: 2004 - 05 Primary Benchmark 2005 - 06 Fifth Grade orm-Referenced 2006 - 07 Intermediate Benchmark 2007 - 08 Seventh Grade Norm-Referenced 2008 - 09 Middle Level Benchmark 2008 - 09 End of Course (where applicable) 2010- 11 Tenth Grade Norm-Referenced 2011 - 12 End of Course Literacy 9    Limited,. English proficient students are those having a language background other than English and whose proficiency in English is such that the probability of  academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of native English language students. The district's Language Assessment Committee must have determined that the students may participate in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. High mobility students are those who, at the time of spring testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the current school year or who, at the time of fall testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October I of the previous school year. Beginning with the 1999-2000 mandatory assessments, results will be reported separately for the following categories of students: General Population Special Education Students Limited English Proficient Students High Mobility Students Combined Population Beginning with the 2000-01 mandatory assessments, the number of students not tested through either the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments or Alternate Assessment program will be reported by school. Schools should make every effort to assure that all students are tested. Annual School Report to the Public: Each year, each school will prepare a report to the parents and community. This report will include a narrative description (such as prepared under Tier III indicators) that will highlight the school's improvement plan and indicate progress made in implementing the performance indicators within that plan. Arkansas School Information Site (AS-IS): The ADE plans to make school accountability data available statewide through the Department's World Wide Web - as-is.org. This Web site will display school data based on student performance and other selected indicators. Annual ADE Report to the Legislature: The ADE shall report to the members of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education on the progress of ACTAAP. The report shall be due on September!, 1999 and annually thereafter. 10    School Improvement Planning As part of the state's accreditation process, each school is required to engage in the development and implementation of a school improvement plan based on priorities indicated by student assessment and other pertinent data. This plan is designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on all portions of the state-mandated criterionreferenced exams. The initial step in the planning model is a structured process that leads to disaggregation of student achievement and other student data. The study of this data helps schools identify areas within the curriculum where student performance does not meet expectation. Schools prioritize the needs areas, then develop performance-based benchmarks that can be tracked during the implementation phase of the plan. Schools then identify intervention and remediation strategies that, if effectively implemented, will move students toward meeting the established benchmarks. Finally, schools develop an action plan that assigns tasks, identifies resources (including the source of funds), and projects evaluation strategies that will signal movement toward meeting the performance standards. The process requires that the intervention and remediation be research-based and linked to proven practices. Rewards Rewards will be based on a system structured to recognize schools that demonstrate and maintain high performance over time and to recognize schools that demonstrate growth on both the state-mandated and school-selected indicators. Rewards also can be used to highlight individual schools so that their practices can be adapted in other schools and districts across the state. Each year the ADE will recognize individual schools that demonstrate exceptional performance in two categories: Performance Awards - Absolute levels of student achievement and other indicators. Growth Trend and Improvement A wards - Recognized growth trends and improvement in student achievement and other indicators. All award categories, which could include cash payments to individual schools, will be phased in over time and will be implemented as the indicator performance levels are established through the standard setting process. The focus of any cash awards must be to enhance the capability of the school to better serve its students. Awarded funds shall be used to expand programs, provide additional materials and supplies, support technology, provide bonuses to staff, or make possible other enhancements that serve the needs of the school or children. 11    Sanctions Sanctions are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. Intervention from the state is not meant to be a permanent solution to unacceptable student achievement, but a way to help local schools improve student performance. It is expected that individual schools and districts will monitor their own progress and take corrective steps to improve student achievement prior to intervention from the state. To avoid sanctions, each school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points given for the accountability indicators described within the threetiered system. Failure to do so will result in the following designations:  High Priority Status - first year.  Alert Status - second year.  Low Performing Status - third year.  Academic Distress Phase I Status - fourth year. To be considered for removal from any sanctioned designation leading up to, but not including, Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the school's designation as Academic Distress Phase II and/or Academic Distress Phase III . The ADE reserves the right, for any school in any of the designations above, to mandate a specified intensive intervention plan which could include, but not be lin1ited to, specific one-year goals in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. This plan could also include a mandated summer school program for students perfoffiling below grade level. Current rules and regulations governing schools in Academic Distress will remain in effect until the ACTAAP system described here is fully operational. 12    Accountabilitv Indicators Definitions of the non-academic (learning environment) indicators are provided later in this document. Tier I Indicators, all state-mandated, are based on performance goals and apply to every school in the state, where appropriate, by grade level configuration. They are as follows: Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance 100% of a school's students shall perform at or 41 \", 61 \", and 81 \" on State- above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing Mandated literacy. Criterion- Referenced 100% of a school's students shall perform at or Tests above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics. Performance 100% of a school's secondary students shall on State- perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Mandated Algebra I. Criterion- Secondary Referenced 100% of a school's secondary students shall Tests perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry. 100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy. School Drop At least 99% of secondary students will remain in 7'\" through 121 \" Out school to complete the 12th grade. Average Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. Kindergarten Daily through 12th Attendance Classes 100% ofa school's classes will be taught by an Kindergarten Taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. through 12th Appropriate! y Licensed Teacher Professional 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at Kindergarten Development least 30 hours of approved professional through 12th development annually. School Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and Kindergarten Safety violent acts. through 12th Note: For purposes of assigning points for criterion-referenced tests under the Tier I accountability component, only the performance of general population students shall be measured. 13    Tier II Indicators are based on trend and improvement goals on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests and on school-selected indicators. Any \"Other School Selected .. Indicators\" must have prior approval of the ADE. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students using cross-sectional data from the same indicator (e.g. Primary Benchmark Exam). Statistical techniques will be developed, by averaging multiple years of data, to minimize the inherent volatility associated with the natural variation in performance of these different groups. This means that if a school is continuing to improve, the trend will be a consistent indicator that fewer students are below proficient, with the effect of \"off-year\" or \"good-year\" performance minimized. Improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students using a longitudinal database. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. Tier II - State-Mandated Indicators Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance on The percent of students performing at or above 4th , 6t\\ and 8th State-Mandated the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing Criterion- literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will Referenced meet or exceed the trend and improvement Tests goals each year. -- - -- ---- -- - -- ---- -- --- -- --- - -- The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on The percent of secondary students performing Secondary State-Mandated at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I Criterion- will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: For purposes of assigning points for state-mandated criterion-referenced tests under the Tier II accountability component, the performance of each of the student categories - general population, special education students, limited English proficient students, and high mobility students - shall be measured. 14    Tier II - School-Selected Indicators (Schools select any 5) Indicator Goal Grade Level(s) School Drop Secondary schools will improve the percentage Secondary Out of students who stay in school to complete the 12th grade. Average Daily Schools will improve their average daily All Levels Attendance attendance rate. Classes Taught Schools will improve the percent of classes All Levels byan taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Schools will increase the percent of certified All Levels Development staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. School Safety Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and All Levels violent acts. Other School Schools will select trend or improvement goals All Levels Selected directed to student achievement in specific Indicators sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Trend and Improvement Goals on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests On average, each school's trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. To help establish improvement goals, each cohort of students will be monitored, beginning with the 1999 Primary Benchmark Exam, and a longitudinal database developed. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. This information will allow for the assessment of performance changes relative to initial performance and will assist in the development of expected improvement models. Test analysis and methodical planning to reach these goals will be facilitated and guided by the state school evaluation process. Trend and Improvement Goals on School-Sclcctcd Indicators The school, with approval of the ADE, selects five additional indicators to complete Tier II. These additional indicators can be selected from among school drop out, average daily attendance, teacher licensure, school safety, or professional development as defined in Tier I\nOR, a school may identify trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas related to the criterion- 15    referenced or norm-referenced tests. Guidelines will be developed for use in selecting minimum numbers of students for sub-population study in order to preclude identification of individual students. In order to protect the integrity of the accountability system, the ADE must also approve the trend and improvement goals selected by the school. If a school elects to include results of its norm-referenced tests within its Tier II indicators, points will be assigned even though no points are given for these exams in Tier I. Note: The Professional Development indicator is set at a minimum level of 60 hours in order to encourage schools to offer more than the state-required minimum of 30 hours. Thus, schools will be rewarded for encouraging additional professional development opportunities for its teachers and administrators. Once selected, Tier II indicators will remain until they have been substantially attained or alternate indicators approved by the ADE. The following are examples of indicators based on sub-populations:  The gap between the scale score in mathematics on the Primary Benchmark Exam for African-American students and white students will be decreased by 10% each year.  Title I eligible students will improve 5 percentile points in reading comprehension each year on the fifth grade norm-referenced test. Voluntary Reporting of Off-Grade Data The ADE strongly encourages, and will provide assistance toward, voluntary implementation by local schools of an expansion of the process of measuring improvement goals by utilizing data for a longitudinal study of students' performance on off-grade tests. Participating schools may include results from off-grade testing as Tier II indicators, if so desired. Tier III Indicators Tier III is a narrative developed by the staff of each school. This annual narrative of approximately 500 words generally describes data sources ( e.g., criterion-referenced tests, norm-referenced tests, etc.) used to address state and local performance indicators. The narrative also describes progress that the school has made in formulating the plan and in successfully implementing the trend and performance indicators within the school improvement process. This narrative, which shall be sent to the ADE during the spring of each year, will be incorporated in the School Performance Report that will be disseminated to the public. No points will be assigned for the narrative. 16    Sample School Narrative For the last three years, scores on the Primary Benchmark Exam's reading test have exceeded the district's average. Each child from kindergarten through fifth grade receives an hour and a half of developmental reading instruction per day. Emphasis is also placed on the implementation of activities as outlined in the School Improvement Plan. Independent reading of books by primary and intermediate grade level students has been a priority - a goal was set for each student. This year 85% of the fourth grade students met or exceeded their goal compared to 70% last year. Students are being taught writing skills using many different approaches including computer word processing. The writing and scoring process is designed to help students improve writing scores on the Benchmark Exams. The computer-student ratio is 1:4. Children have access to the Internet and the school has a homepage on the Web. In mathematics over the past five years, fifth grade students scored below the district goal of 50% above the national average on the SAT-9. This year, a staff focus group supported by a Title I supplemental grant, recommended a teacher accountability math pacing chart. It included chapter test scores, a consistent five-day math homework policy, in-service for staff and parents, a student test awareness program, homework room and a Math Intervention Assistance program. All recommendations were implemented with the approval of the school council. In May, an in-service continued to provide staff with training on computer software and accessing the Internet for mathematical teaching materials and techniques. Parent involvement (via parent-teacher conferences) increased by 40% this year. Parents participated in developing instructional materials for use at home to reinforce skills, learning instructional uses of the computer, donated time to serve as individual tutors for students during the school day and assisted with holiday events for the students. Definitions of Non-Academic (Learning Environment) Indicators School Dropout means the percentage of students who leave school for any of the following reasons as defined in the Statewide Information System (SIS) database: incarcerated, failing grades, suspended or expelled, lack of interest, conflict with school, economic hardship, pregnancy/marriage, peer conflict, Jack of attendance, alcohol/drugs, other. A code will be used for GED participation but will not count as a dropout for ACT AAP purposes. A student will be considered a dropout for the previous year if he/she has a Dropout/Withdrawal date between October 1 of the previous school year and October 1 of the current school year and has not re-entered. The percentage completing will be calculated by dividing the number not dropping out by the previous year's October 1 enrollment. Average Daily Attendance means the total number of days attended by students divided by the number of days actually taught by the school. The number includes those students who attend school outside of the resident district on a tuition agreement between the two respective districts. 17    Appropriately Licensed Teacher means that a teacher has the appropriate license and/or approval to teach., the respective class. The teacher is teaching a class that would not .cause the school to have a citation in the accreditation process. For the purpose of this calculation, the teacher would fill one of the job assignments as defined in the SIS database. (These are instructional positions, not administrative or supervisory job classifications.) The percentage of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher will be determined by dividing the number of classes taught by appropriately licensed teachers by the total number of classes taught. Professional Development is as defined in the component definition earlier. School Safety means a percentage safety index determined by dividing the number of violent incidences involving students by the current year three-quarter average daily membership of the school and subtracting from 100%. A safety infraction committed by a student includes any of the following as defined in the SIS database: drugs, alcohol, student assault, staff assault, knife, handgun, rifle, shotgun, explosive, club, and gang. Schools reporting user-defined infractions should request confirmation from the ADE as to their inclusion in this indicator. Each reported incident will be factored into the calculation\ntherefore, there is no difference between one student being reported four times and four students being reported once . 18    Calendar for Data Collection and Point Assignment Svstem -~ .,\n-~ _..,.~ Since the determination of rewards and sanctions will be based on points assigned to the Tier I and Tier II indicators, it is extremely important that such a system be fair and statistically and legally defensible. It is also necessary to allow appropriate tin1e for sufficient data to be gathered that will permit an accurate measurement of trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators. Once the assignment of points is initiated, the ADE, through a contract with the University of Arkansas' Office of Research, Measurement and Evaluation (ORME), will be responsible for all calculations and rankings. The local school should not need additional personnel or resources to respond to the requirements of ACTAAP. The following calendar outlines the Baseline Year, or the first year in which official data for each Tier I indicator will be collected. 1998- 99 1999 - 00 2000- 01 2001 - 02 Primary Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark School Dropout Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety None Intermediate Benchmark End-of-Course Algebra I End-of-Course Geometry End-of-Course Literacy The Baseline Year for trend goals with each Tier II indicator will be two years following that indicator's introduction in Tier I. The Baseline Year for improvement goals will vary, depending on when the same cohort of students reaches the next appropriate, measurable indicator. Even though baseline data accumulation was begun with the 1998-99 year, actual points for rewards and sanctions will not be assigned until 2001-02, and then only for those indicators for which sufficient data has been gathered. The complete accountability point system will become fully operational, with all indicators, in 2003-04. Note: In order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000-2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. 19 Observation Survey    DRA Kindergarten Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness--LRSD Average: 72% Basel 51 King .64 Bale 59 Brady Gibbs 89 Chicot 56 Badgett 22 Bal Chicot 56 Mitch 91 Brady 77 Dodd 87 Willia 89 Dodd 87 F.Park 68 Frank Clover 56 Right 92 Fair P. 56 McDer 95 Booker 81 Mabelv 61 Jeff 90 Geye~ 85 Wakef 47 Steph 41 F.Park 68 Romie 67 Carver 81 Meado 77 King 64 Mead6 77 Watson 56 -Wash 81 Frank 64 Terry 92 Otter 90 PH 83 Stepb 41 Woodr 69 Fulb 95 W.Hills 15 Rocke 76 Wakef 47 McDer 95 Wilson 67 Wash 81 W.Hilis 75 Steph 41 Woodr 69 Wilson 67 DRA Grade 1 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness-LRSD Average: 54 % CMS DMMS FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Basel 30 King 57 Bale 67 Brady 35 Gibbs 66 Chicot 27 Badgett 06 Bale 67 Chicot 27 Mitch 25 Brady 35 Dodd 58 Willia 84 Dodd 58 F.Park 70 Frank 58 Clover 28 Right 36 Fair P. 63 McDer 80 Booker 69 Mabelv 51 Jeff 69 Geyer 47 Wakef 22 Steph 24 F.Park 70 Romine 60 Carver 76 Meado 70 King 57 Meado 70 Watson 25 Wash 36 Frank 58 Terry 47 ' Otter 68 PH 50 Steph 24 Woodr 84 Fulb 61 W.Hills 81 Rocke 76 Wakef 22 ~ McDer 80 Wilson 83 Wash 36 W.Hills 81 - - Steph 24 Woodr 84 Wilson 83  CMS DMMS Basel 47 King 81 - Chicot 39 Mitch 49 Clover 58 Right 95 Wakef 40 Steph 31 ., Watson 54 Wash 63 Woodr 78 ,-  DRA Grade 2 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness-LRSD Average: 68% FHMS HMS Mann MMS Bale 72 Brady  71 Gibbs 81 Chicot 39 Brady 71 Dodd 52 Willia 90 Dodd 52 Fair P. 63 Mci\u0026gt;er 67 . Booker 80 M\nabelv 43 F.Park 90 Romine 69 . Carver 82 Meado 58 Frank 81 Terry 81 Ofter 87 Fulb 79 W.Hills 90 McDer 67 Wilson 60 - Steph 31  PHMS SMS Badgett 12 Bale 72 F.Park 90 Frank( \u0026lt; 81 Jeff 71 Geyer 73 King 81 Meado 58 PH 45 St~ph '. 3'1 Rocke 71 Wakef. -40 Wash 63 W.llills 90 Woodr 78 Wilson 60  6/15/00 Districtwide Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.06 N 246 White Male Mean 2.53 N 227 Total Mean 2.81 N 473 Female Mean 1.16 N 593 Black Male Mean 0.89 N 613 Total Mean 1.02 N 1206 Female Mean 1.90 N 68 other Male Mean 2.00 N 52 Total Mean 1.94 N 120 Female Mean 1.73 N 907 Total Male Mean 1.37 N 892 Total Mean 1.55 N 1799  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - Districtwide by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 8,20 +5.14 7.52 26.36 +18.84 245 240 246 6.35 +3.82 6.35 24.48 +18.13 227 222 225 7.31 6.96 25.46 +18.50 472 +4.51 462 471 3.76 +2.60 4.81 18.30 +13.48 605 613 634 2.61 +1.72 3.65 14.43 +10.79 625 573 584 3.18 +2.16 4.25 16.44 +12.20 1230 1186 1218 5.93 +4.03 5.94 16.67 +10.73 70 49 57 5.77 +3.77 6.12 22.78 +16.66 52 50 51 5.86 +3.92 6.03 19.56 +13.53 122 99 108 5.11 +3.38 5.59 20.31 +14.72 920 902 937 3.73 +2.36 4.50 17.56 +13.05 904 845 860 4.43 +2.88 5.07 18.99 +13.93 1824 1747 1797  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ,, Chanae 25.79 36.77 +10.98 231 226 24.57 36.29 +11.72 231 233 25.18 36.53 I +11.35 462 459 19.68 29.48 +9.80 601 605 16.05 26.44 +10.39 604 604 17.86 27.96 +10.10 1205 1209 19.59 29.49 +9.89 37 45 22.38 29.68 +7.30 55 62 21 .26 29.60 +8.34 92 107 21 .30 31.36 +10.06 869 876 18.66 29.22 +10.56 890 899 19.96 30.27 ,, +10.31 1759 1775 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient In first grade. Sagments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. \"** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. OS2000-Camlna K_/hn,_2  6119100 Districtwide Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.06 N 246 White Male Mean 2.53 N 227 Total Mean 2.81 N 473 Female Mean 1.16 N 593 Black Male Mean 0.89 N 613 Total Mean 1.02 N 1206 Female Mean 1.90 N 68 Other Male Mean 2.00 N 52 Total Mean 1.94 N 120 Female Mean 1.73 N 907 Total Male Mean 1.37 N 892 Total Mean 1.55 N 1799  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chancie Assessment Assessment Chancie 8.20 +5.14 7.52 26.36 +18.84 245 240 246 6.35 +3.82 6.35 24.48 +18.13 227 222 225 7.31 +4.51 6.96 25.46 +18.50 472 462 471 3.76 +2.60 4.81 18.30 +13.48 605 613 634 2.61 +1.72 3.65 14.43 +10.79 625 573 584 3.18 +2.16 4.25 16.45 +12.20 1230 1186 1218 5.93 +4.03 5.94 16.67 +10.73 70 49 57 5.77 +3.77 6.12 22.78 +16.66 52 50 51 5.86 +3.92 6.03 19.56 +13.53 122 99 108 5.11 +3.38 5.59 20.31 +14.72 920 902 937 3.73 +2.36 4.50 17.56 +13.05 904 845 860 4.43 +2.88 5.07 19.00 +13.93 1824 1747 1797  Second Grade Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chancie 25.79 36.77 +10.98 231 226 24.57 36.29 +11.72 231 233 25.18 36.53 +11.35 462 459 19.68 29.48 +9.80 601 605 16.05 26.44 +10.39 604 604 17.86 27.96 +10.10 1205 1209 19.59 29.49 +9.89 37 45 22.38 29.68 +7.30 55 62 21.26 29.60 +8.34 92 107 21.30 31.36 +10.06 869 876 18.66 29.22 +10.56 890 899 19.96 30.27 +10.31 1759 1775  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high!!ghted in bold. ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2oootables  6/19100 Badgett Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.00 N 3 White Male Mean N Total Mean 3.00 N 3 Female Mean 0.38 N 16 Black Male Mean 0.43 N 14 Total Mean 0.40 N 30 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.79 N 19 Total Male Mean 0.43 N 14 Total Mean 0.64 N 33  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.33 +0.33 2.00 3 1 3.33 +0.33 2.00 3 1 1.13 +0.75 1.56 6.93 +5.38 16 18 15 0.92 +0.49 1.00 5.22 +4.22 12 9 9 1.04 +0.64 1.37 6.29 +4.92 28 27 24 ' I :, 1.47 +0.68 1.58 6.93 +5.35 19 19 15 0.92 +0.49 1.00 5.22 +4.22 12 9 9 1.26 +0.62 1.39 6.29 +4.90 31 28 24  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 8.00 40.00 +32.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 0 1 1 , 4.50 20.50 +16.00 2 2 1.44 3.00 +1.56 9 8 1.95 10.55 +8.60 19 20 1.79 8.39 +6.61 28 28 2.10 7.11 +5.01 10 9 1.90 10.10 +8.20 20 21 1.97 9.20 +7.23 30 30  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of /he population no/ testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.   An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ZOOOlables  6/19/00 Bale Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.25 N 4 Female Mean 2.19 N 21 Black Male Mean 0.13 N 15 Total Mean 1.33 N 36 Female Mean 0.80 N 5 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.67 N 6 Female Mean 1.82 N 28 Total Male Mean 0.11 N 18 Total Mean 1.15 N 46  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.50 +3.00 8.40 25.57 +17.17 2 5 7 1.00 +1.00 4.00 14.00 +10.00 2 2 2 2.25 +2.00 7.14 23.00 +15.86 4 7 9 5.77 +3.58 9.13 22.53 +13.40 22 15 15 0.60 +0.47 9.25 21.33 +12.08 15 12 12 3.68 +2.34 9.19 22.00 +12.81 37 27 27 4.20 +3.40 1.50 8.00 +6.50 5 2 2 2.00 +2.00 6.75 20.00 +13.25 1 4 5 3.83 5.00 16.57 I +3.17 +11.57 6 6 7 5.34 +3.52 8.27 22.21 +13.94 29 22 24 0.72 +0.61 8.11 20.21 +12.10 18 18 19 3.57 +2.42 8.20 21.33 +13.13 47 40 43 \"'  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.50 33.50 +15.00 4 4 20.00 44.00 +24.00 2 2 19.00 37.00 +18.00 6 6 15.69 25.53 +9.84 16 17 14.93 28.00 +13.07 15 17 15.32 26.76 +11.44 31 34 C .... 16.25 27.05 +10.80 20 21 ~ 15.53 29.68 +14.15 17 19 15.92 28.30 +12.38 37 40  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Baseline Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 2 White Male Mean 0.50 N 2 Total Mean 0.75 N 4 Female Mean 0.37 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.13 N 16 Total Mean 0.26 N 35 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.43 N 21 Total Male Mean 0.17 N 18 Total Mean 0.31 N 39 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanc:ie Assessment Assessment Chanc:ie 3.00 +2.00 2 3.00 +2.50 3.00 27.00 +24.00 2 4 2 3.00 +2.25 3.00 27.00 +24.00 4 4 2 1.89 +1.53 4.90 18.33 +13.43 19 20 18 1.43 +1 .30 2.91 9.10 +6.18 14 23 21 1.70 +1.44 3.84 13.36 +9.52 33 43 39 4.00 .. 1 4.00 ' 1 2.00 +1.57 4.90 18.33 +13.43 21 ' 20 18 1.63 +1.46 2.96 10.65 +7.69 16 28 23 1.84 +1.53 3.77 14.02 +10.25 37 48 41  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring ~rnount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 20.67 31.33 +10,67 3 3 16.00 20.00 +4.00 2 2 18.80 26.80 +8.00 5 5 16.83 24.69 +7.86 12 13 15.77 23.00 +7.23 13 13 16.28 23.85 +7.57 25 26 38.00 44.00 +6.00 1 1 38.00 44.00 +6.00 1 1 18.88 27.00 +8.13 16 17 15.80 22.60 +6.80 15 15 17.39 24.94 +7.55 31 32  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high!:ghted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ha by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Booker Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.12 N 17 White Male Mean 1.42 N 12 Total Mean 1.83 N 29 Female Mean 1.58 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.76 N 21 Total Mean 1.68 N 40 Female Mean 4.00 N 3 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 2.40 N 5 Female Mean 2.00 N 39 Total Male Mean 1.54 N 35 Total Mean 1.78 N 74  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Charn:1e 6.06 +3.94 6.61 24.83 +18.22 17 23 23 2.83 +1.42 4.92 23.25 +18.33 12 12 12 4.72 ' +2.90 6.03 24.29 +18.26 29 35 35 3.95 +2.37 3.71 19.05 +15.33 19 21 21 4.10 +2.33 2.43 16.38 +13.95 21 23 21 4.03 +2.35 3.05 17.71 +14.67 40 44 42 11.67 +7.67 2.75 21.00 +18.25 3 4 4 1.00 +1.00 2 7.40 +5.00 2.75 21.00 +18.25 5 4 4 5.46 +3.46 502 21.98 +16.96 39 - 48 48 3.49 +1.94 3.29 18.88 +15.59 35 35 33 4.53 +2.74 4.29 20.72 +16.43 74 83 81  Second Grade\n. Fall ***Spring A)'nount of Assessment Assessment Change 29.33 37.42 +8.08 24 24 25.12 31.88 +6.76 17 16 27.59 35.20 +7.61 41 40 22.36 32.64 +10.28 25 25 16.78 27.67 +10.89 18 18 20.02 30.56 +10.53 43 43 24.00 30.00 +6.00 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 30.67 34.67 +4.00 3 3 25.71 34.78 +9.08 51 51 21.47 30.06 +8.58 36 35 23.95 32.86 +8.91 87 86  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Brady Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 5 White Male Mean 0.67 N 3 Total Mean 0.88 N 8 Female Mean 0.89 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.53 N 17 Total Mean 0.65 N 26 Female Mean 0.67 N 3 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.67 N 3 Female Mean 0.88 N 17 Total Male Mean 0.55 N 20 Total Mean 0.70 N 37  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanC1e Assessment Assessment - Chanae 5.40 +4.40 8.00 14.29 +6.29 5 7 7 4.00 +3.33 8.00 20.00 +12.00 2 3 3 5.00 +4.13 8.00 16.00 +8.00 7 10 10 3.86 +2.97 5.47 12.44 +6.97 7 17 16 3.50 +2.97 5.24 13.00 +7.76 16 21 19 3.61 +2.95 5.34 12.74 +7.40 23 38 35 2.50 +1.83 5.50 13.50 +8.00 2 4 4 6.00 14.33 +8.33 3 3 2.50 +1.83 5.71 13.86 +8.14 2 7 7 4.21 +3.33 6.11 13.07 +6.97 14 28 27 3.56 +3.01 5.63 14.00 +8.37 18 27 25 3.84 +3.14 5.87 13.52 +7.65 32 55 52  Second Grade .,. Fall *\"**Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanC1e 18.00 29.33 +11.33 3 3 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 29.50 +11.50 4 4 19.13 29.29 +10.16 16 14 17.74 26.00 +8.26 23 21 18.31 27.31 +9.01 39 35 16.00 28.00 +12.00 1 1 16.00 28.00 +12.00 1 1 18.95 29.29 +10.35 19 17 17.68 26.26 +8.58 25 23 18.23 27.55 +9.32 44 40  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are high(ighled in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Carver Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 8.38 N 13 White Male Mean 8.00 N 18 Total Mean 8.16 N 31 Female Mean 4.05 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.50 N 20 Total Mean 2.74 N 39 Female Mean 2.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 9.25 N 4 Total Mean 7.80 N 5 Female Mean 5.70 N 33 Total Male Mean 5.02 N 42 Total Mean 5.32 N 75  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanQe Assessment Assessment ChanQe 11.46 +3.08 8.57 28.00 +19.43 13 7 7 11.83 +3.83 6.35 26.10 +19.75 18 20 20 11.68 +3.52 6.93 26.59 +19.67 31 27 27 5.95 +1.89 4.87 20.87 +16.00 19 15 15 3.20 +1.70 2.79 16.95 +14.16 20 19 19 4.54 +1.79 3.71 18.68 +14.97 39 34 34 4.00 +2.00 8.00 30.00 +22.00 1 1 1 12.50 +3.25 4.67 31.33 +26.67 4 3 3 10.80 +3.00 5.50 31.00 +25.50 5 4 4 8.06 ' +2.36 6.13 23.43 +17.30 33 23 23 7.79 +2.76 4.62 22.33 +17.71 42 -- 42 42 7.91 +2.59 5.15 22.72 +17.57 75 65 65  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring A(Tlount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 24.83 40.50 +15.67 12 12 26.10 38.63 +12.53 20 19 25.63 39.35 +13.73 32 31 19.29 31 .85 +12.57 28 27 17.44 31.00 +13.56 18 18 18.57 31.51 +12.95 46 45 16.00 32.00 +16.00 2 2 25.50 36.00 +10.50 4 4 22.33 34.67 +12,33 6 6 20.71 34.39 +13.68 42 41 22.33 35.02 +12.69 42 41 21.52 34.71 +13.18 84 82  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   6119100 Little Rock School District Chicot Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 4 White Male Mean 4.29 N 7 Total Mean 2.73 N 11 Female Mean 0.64 N 25 Black Male Mean 0.41 N 22 Total Mean 0.53 N 47 Female Mean 0.57 N 7 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 7 Total Mean 0.29 N 14 Female Mean 0.56 N 36 Total Male Mean 1.08 N 36 Total Mean 0.82 N 72 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 1.75 +1.75 1.75 16.75 +15.00 4 4 4 4.29 0 1.00 10.17 +9.17 7 5 6 3.36 +0.64 1.33 12.80 +11.47 11 9 10 2.35 +1.71 1.88 14.52 +12.65 26 24 23 1.39 +0.98 1.75 7.91 +6.16 23 20 22 1.90 +1.37 1.82 11 .29 +9.47 49 44 45 1.57 +1.00 2.00 13.11 +11.11 7 3 9 0.86 +0.86 1.00 2.60 +1.60 7 4 5 1.21 +0.93 1.43 9.36 +7.93 14 7 14 2.14 +1.58 1.87 14.42 +12.55 37 31 36 1.84 +0.75 1.52 7.52 +6.00 37 29 33 1.99 +1.17 1.70 11.12 +9.42 74 60 69  Second Grade ,. Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 19.00 37.00 +18.00 2 2 17.00 31.00 +14.00 2 2 18.00 34.00 +16.00 4 4 16.05 26.35 +10.30 21 20 11.57 25.26 +13.70 23 19 13.70 25.82 +12.12 44 39 6.40 5 16.00 17.33 +1.33 2 9 16.00 13.43 -2.57 2 14 16.30 23.44 +7.14 23 27 12.30 23.27 +10.97 27 30 14.14 23.35 +9.21 50 57  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient m kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient m second grade. EJfa by school 2000tables  6119/00 Cloverdale Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 1 White Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.52 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.17 N 23 Total Mean 0.35 N 46 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Mean 0.00 Total N 3 Female Mean 0.52 N 25 Total Male Mean 0.15 N 27 Total Mean 0.33 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 4.00 +3.00 1 6.00 +6.00 4.00 8.00 +4.00 2 1 1 5.33 +5.00 4.00 8.00 +4.00 3 1 1 2.05 +1.53 7.00 13.68 +6.68 21 29 28 1.48 +1.30 4.83 10.10 +5.27 23 29 30 1.75 +1.40 5.91 11.83 +5.91 44 58 58 2.00 +2.00 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 1 1.00 +1.00 6.50 20.25 +13.75 2 4 4 1.33 5.80 17.40 . +1.33 +11.60 3 5 5 2.13 +1.61 6.87 13.41 +6.55 23 30 29 1.78 +1.63 5.00 11.20 +6.20 27 34 35 1.94 +1.61 5.88 12.20 +6.33 50 64 64  Second Grade ' ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 29.00 20.00 -9.00 2 1 3.00 4.00 +1.00 1 1 20.33 12.00 -8.33 3 2 27.52 31 .30 +3.79 27 23 26.75 25.68 -1.07 24 19 27.16 28.76 +1.61 51 42 - 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 27.62 30.83 +3.21 29 24 26.50 25.52 -0.98 26 21 27.09 28.36 +1.26 55 45  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tab/es   5119100 Little Rock School District Dodd Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.64 N 11 White Male Mean 0.50 N 8 Total Mean 0.58 N 19 Female Mean 1.00 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.25 N 8 Total Mean 0.65 N 17 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.80 N 20 Total Male Mean 0.38 N 16 Total Mean 0.61 N 36 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.80 +6.16 1.33 16.67 +15.33 10 3 3 4.89 +4.39 11.00 23.00 +12.00 9 4 4 5.89 +5.32 6.86 20.29 +13.43 19 7 7 10.67 +9.67 2.14 19.29 +17.14 9 7 7 2.75 +2.50 3.00 19.43 +16.43 8 7 7 6.94 +6.29 2.57 19.36 +16.79 17 14 14 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 8.63 +7.83 3.36 19.55 +16.18 19 11 11 3.88 +3.51 5.91 20.73 +14.82 17 11 11 6.39 +5.78 4.64 20.14 +15.50 36 22 22  Second Grade Fall ***Spring AfllOUnt of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 10.00 25.20 +15.20 5 5 10.00 25.20 +15.20 5 5 25.00 16.25 -8.75 6 8 15.25 28.50 +13.25 4 4 21 .10 20.33 -0.77 10 12 14.00 1 14.00 1 25.00 16.25 -8.75 6 8 12.50 26.67 +14.17 10 .9 17.19 21 .76 +4.58 . 16 17 An average level of 2 or more 1s considered proficient m kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ighted in bold. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Etta by school 2000tables   6119/00 Little Rock School District Fair Park Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.12 N 17 White Male Mean 1.42 N 12 Total Mean 1.83 N 29 Female Mean 1.58 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.76 N 21 Total Mean 1.68 N 40 Female Mean 4.00 N 3 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 2.40 N 5 Female Mean 2.00 N 39 Total Male Mean 1.54 N 35 Total Mean 1.78 N 74 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.06 +3.94 6.61 24.83 +18.22 17 23 23 2.83 +1.42 4.92 23.25 +18.33 12 12 12 4.72 +2.90 6.03 24.29 +18.26 29 35 35 3.95 +2.37 3.71 19.05 +15.33 19 21 21 4.10 +2.33 2.43 16.38 +13.95 21 23 21 4.03 +2.35 3.05 17.71 +14.67 40 44 42 11.67 +7.67 2.75 21.00 +18.25 3 4 4 1.00 +1.00 2 7.40 +5.00 2.75 21.00 +18.25 5 4 4 5.46 +3.46 5.02 21.98 +16.96 39 48 48 3.49 +1.94 3.29 18.88 +15.59 35 35 33 4.53 +2.74 4.29 20.72 +16.43 74 83 81  Second Grade ,. Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Change 29.33 37.42 +8.08 24 24 25.12 31.88 +6.76 17 16 27.59 35.20 +7.61 41 40 22.36 32.64 +10.28 25 25 16.78 27.67 +10.89 18 18 20.02 30.56 +10.53 43 43 24.00 30.00 +6.00 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 30.67 34.67 +4.00 3 3 25.71 34.78 +9.08 51 51 21.47 30.06 +8.58 36 35 23.95 32.86 +8.91 87 86  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high~ighted in bold . .. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   6119100 Little Rock School District Forest Park Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 4.55 N 11 White Male Mean 3.08 N 12 Total Mean 3.78 N 23 Female Mean 1.89 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 13 Total Mean 0.77 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 3.35 N 20 Total Male Mean 1.48 N 25 Total Mean 2.31 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham:ie Assessment Assessment ChanQe 8.82 +4.27 8.75 27.70 +18.95 11 20 20 7.25 +4.17 13.80 31.13 +17.33 12 15 15 8.00 +4.22 10.91 29.17 +18.26 23 35 35 3.22 +1.33 6.00 21.60 +15.60 9 5 5 0.50 +0.50 4.20 15.60 +11.40 12 10 10 1.67 +0.89 4.80 17.60 +12.80 21 15 15 6.30 +2.95 8.20 26.48 +18.28 20 25 25 3.88 +2.40 9.96 24.92 +14.96 24 25 25 4.98 +2.67 9.08 25.70 +16.62 44 50 50  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring ~mount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 18.55 39.09 +20.55 11 11 18.29 36.29 +18.00 14 14 18.40 37.52 +19.12 25 25 18.40 34.80 +16.40 5 5 11.83 25.33 +13.50 12 12 13.76 28.12 +14.35 17 17 20.00 42.00 +22.00 2 2 20.00 42.00 +22.00 2 2 18.67 38.22 +19.56 18 18 15.31 31.23 +15.92 26 26 16.68 34.09 +17.41 44 44  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000fables  6119/00 Franklin Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 2 White Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.43 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.15 N 41 Total Mean 0.25 N 64 Female Mean 1.50 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 1.50 N 2 Female Mean 0.48 N 27 Total Male Mean 0.17 N 42 Total Mean 0.29 N 69  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 2.00 +2.00 14.00 44.00 +30.00 2 1 1 3.00 +2.00 1 2.33 +2.00 14.00 44.00 +30.00 3 1 1 2.65 +2.22 6.23 24.38 +18.14 23 30 32 2.05 +1.90 5.96 18.82 +12.86 41 26 28 2.27 +2.02 6.11 21.78 +15.68 64 56 60 3.50 +2.00 3.00 26.00 +23.00 2 1 1 3.50 +2.00 3.00 26.00 +23.00 2 1 1 2.67 +2.19 6.38 25.00 +18.63 27 32 34 2.07 +1 .90 5.96 18.82 +12.86 42 26 28 2.30 +2.01 6.19 22.21 +16.02 69 58 62  Second Grade . Fall ... Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Change 19.15 35.35 +16.21 34 34 12.93 32.73 +19.80 30 30 16.23 34.13 +17.89 64 64 19.15 35.35 +16.21 34 34 12.93 32.73 +19.80 30 30 16.23 34.13 +17.89 64 64  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high~ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Fulbright Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.33 N 12 White Male Mean 2.70 N 23 Total Mean 3.60 N 35 Female Mean 2.25 N 4 Black Male Mean 5.31 N 13 Total Mean 4.59 N 17 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 3.00 N 1 Total Mean 3.00 N 1 Female Mean 4.56 N 16 Total Male Mean 3.62 N 37 Total Mean 3.91 N 53 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.67 +13.33 9.86 25.43 +15.57 12 14 14 6.91 +4.21 2.12 25.27 +23.15 22 17 15 11 .06 +7.46 5.61 25.34 +19.73 34 31 29 5.40 +3.15 2.27 15.40 +13.13 5 11 10 7.62 ' +2.31 3.18 17.64 +14.45 13 11 11 7.00 +2.41 2.73 16.57 +13.84 18 22 21 12.00 +9.00 5.00 38.00 +33.00 1 1 1 12.00 +9.00 5.00 38.00 +33.00 1 1 1 14.76 +10.20 6.52 21.25 +14.73 17 25 24 7.31 +3.68 2.62 22.63 +20.01 36 29 27 9.70 +5.79 4.43 21.98 +17.55 53 54 51  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of ,\u0026lt; Assessment Assessment Change 34.93 40.40 +5.47 15 15 36.00 43.33 +7.33 12 12 35.41 41.70 +6.30 27 27 25.91 33.60 +7.69 11 10 34.00 36.83 +2.83 11 12 29.95 35.36 +5.41 22 22 44.00 44.00 0 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 44.00 44.00 0 3 3 32.04 38.15 +6.11 28 27 35.42 40.24 +4.82 24 25 33.60 39.15 +5.56 52 52  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. - An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Bia by school 2000ta\"'8s  6119/00 Garland Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean N White Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.69 N 16 Black Male Mean 2.29 N 28 Total Mean 1.70 N 44 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 0.69 N 16 Total Male Mean 2.24 N 29 Total Mean 1.69 N 45  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae ~ 1.47 +0.78 2.53 11.47 +8.94 17 17 17 1.41 -0.87 2.27 9.92 +7.64 29 11 12 1.43 -0.27 2.43 10.83 +8.40. 46 28 29 3.00 12.00 +9.00 1 1 0.00 -1.00 2.33 10.00 +7.67 1 3 3 0.00 .. 2.50 10.50 1 -1.00 4 4 +8.00 1.47 +0.78 2.56 11.50 +8.94 17 18 18 1.37 -0.87 2.29 9.93 +7.65 30 14 15 1.40 -0.28 2.44 10.79 +8.35 47 32 33  Second Grade . Fall ***Spring .Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 2.00 1 2.00 1 13.18 17.64 +4.45 22 22 12.70 20.37 +7.67 20 19 12.95 18.90 +5.95 42 41 ,, 13.18 17.64 +4.45 22 22 12.70 19.45 +6.75 20 20 12.95 18.50 +5.55 42 42  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school zoootables   6/19100 Little Rock School District Geyer Springs Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.00 N 1 White Male Mean 5.00 N 2 Total Mean 4.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.90 N 20 Black Male Mean 0.80 N 20 Total Mean 0.85 N 40 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.95 N 22 Total Male Mean 1.13 N 23 Total Mean 1.04 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 6.00 +3.00 5.80 30.40 +24.60 1 5 5 15.00 +10.00 0.75 17.00 -f-16.25 2 4 4 12.00 +7.67 3.56 24.44 +20.89 3 9 9 2.35 +1.45 2.60 20.15 +17.55 20 20 20 2.70 +1.90 2.36 14.08 +11.72 20 14 13 2.53 +1.68 2.50 17.76 +15.26 40 34 33 2.00 +2.00 1 1.00 +1.00 1.25 11.75 +10.50 1 4 4 1.50 +1.50 1.25 11 .75 +10.50 2 4 4 2.50 +1.55 3.24 22.20 +18.96 22 25 25 3.70 +2.57 1.86 14.19 +12.33 23 22 21 3.11 +2.07 2.60 18.54 +15.95 45 47 46  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Chan!'.le 20.00 37.33 +17.33 3 3 19.33 30.67 +11.33 3 3 19.67 34.00 +14.33 6 6 19.17 33.50 +14.33 12 12 14.50 25.80 +11.30 20 20 16.25 28.69 +12.44 32 32 20.00 40.00 +20.00 1 1 20.00 40.00 +20.00 1 1 19.33 34.27 +14.93 15 15 15.33 2T.00 +11.67 24 24 16.87 29.79 +12.92 39 39  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000lables  6/19100 Gibbs Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 4 White Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.00 N 7 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 6 Total Mean 0.00 N 10 Female Mean 0.00 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.00 N 10 Total Male Mean 0.00 N 9 Total Mean 0.00 N 19  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chance Assessment Assessment Chance 6.33 +6.33 11.25 27.57 +16.32 6 4 7 10.00 +10.00 6.89 28.10 +21.21 6 9 10 8.17 +8.17 8.23 27.88 +19.65 12 13 17 5.88 +5.88 3.50 17.56 +14.06 8 6 9 4.58 +4.58 2.75 14.43 +11.68 12 8 14 5.10 +5.10 3.07 15.65 +12.58 20 14 23 8.67 +8.67 4.00 18.00 +14.00 3 1 2 24.00 1 8.67 +8.67 4.00 20.00 +16.00 3 1 3 6.53 +6.53 6.36 21.50 +15.14 17 11 18 6.39 +6.39 4.94 20.28 +15.34 18 17 25 6.46 +6.46 5.50 20.79 +15.29 35 28 43  Second Grade\nFall ***Spring\nynount of Assessment Assessment Chance 22.60 32.89 +10.29 10 9 20.89 37.56 +16.67 9 9 21.79 35.22 +13.43 19 18 13.40 28.40 +15.00 10 10 13.45 25.45 +12.00 11 11 13.43 26.86 +13.43 21 21 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.53 +12.53 20 19 16.86 30.86 +14.00 21 21 17.41 30.70 +13.29 41 40  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Jefferson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.45 N 20 White Male Mean 4.07 N 14 Total Mean 4.88 N 34 Female Mean 2.00 N 12 Black Male Mean 1.88 N 8 Total Mean 1.95 N 20 Female Mean 8.00 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 8.00 N 2 Female Mean 4.38 N 34 Total Male Mean 3.27 N 22 Total Mean 3.95 N 56  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chanae 12.70 +7.25 6.82 36.36 +29.55 20 11 11 11.93 +7.86 5.81 28.00 +22.19 14 21 21 12.38 +7.50 6.16 30.88 +24.72 34 32 32 4.92 +2.92 5.62 21.38 +15.77 12 13 13 3.25 +1.38 1.57 11.57 +10.00 8 7 7 4.25 +2.30 4.20 17.95 +13.75 20 20 20 24.00 +16.00 2 24.00 +16.00 2 10.62 +6.24 6.17 28.25 +22.08 34 24 24 8.77 +5.50 4.75 23.89 +19.14 22 28 28 9.89 +5.95 5.40 25.90 +20.50 56 52 52  Second Grade\n.. Fall ***Spring A)nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 32.67 38.32 +5.65 24 19 30.38 35.90 +5.52 21 20 31.60 37.08 +5.48 45 39 22.57 25.64 +3.07 14 14 22.50 29.64 +7.14 12 11 22.54 27.40 +4.86 26 25 27.00 20.00 -7.00 2 1 27.00 20.00 -7.00 2 1 28.95 32.94 +3.99 38 33 27.49 33.25 +5.76 35 32 28.25 33.09 +4.85 73 65  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the populalion not testing at a proficienl level are high.li ghted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more ,s considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119/00 King Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.71 N 17 White Male Mean 0.36 N 14 Total Mean 1.10 N 31 Female Mean 0.76 N 25 Black Male Mean 0.55 N 20 Total Mean 0.67 N 45 Female Mean 1.50 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.86 N 7 Female Mean 1.17 N 46 Total Male Mean 0.43 N 37 Total Mean 0.84 N 83  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall -spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 5.71 +4.00 7.24 23.28 +16.04 17 25 25 3.38 +3.03 6.67 25.31 +18.64 13 12 13 4.70 +3.60 7.05 23.97 +16.92 30 37 38 4.19 +3.43 5.00 23.21 +18.21 26 24 24 2.29 +1.74 3.09 13.14 +10.06 21 35 35 3.34 +2.67 3.86 17.24 +13.37 47 59 59 3.67 +2.17 10.67 17.00 +6.33 6 3 4 5.00 +5.00 9.33 42.67 +33.33 3 3 3 4.11 +3.25 10.00 28.00 +18.00 9 6 7 4.65 +3.48 6.40 22.77 +16.37 49 52 53 2.89 +2.46 4.32 17.98 +13.66 37 50 51 3.90 +3.05 5.38 20.42 +15.04 86 102 104  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment chanae 21.18 40.09 +18.91 22 22 20.50 39.53 +19.03 16 17 20.89 39.85 +18.95 38 39 16.85 33.04 +16.19 26 27 13.46 33.69 +20.23 28 26 15.09 33.36 +18.27 54 53 20.00 49.50 +29.50 1 2 20.00 49.50 +29.50 1 2 18.86 36.73 +17.87 49 51 16.02 36.00 +19.98 44 43 17.52 36.39 +18.88 93 94  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Mabelvale Elem Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.50 N 8 White Male Mean 2.29 N 7 Total Mean 1.87 N 15 Female Mean 0.82 N 17 Black Male Mean 0.50 N 20 Total Mean 0.65 N 37 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 1 Female Mean 1.00 N 26 Total Male Mean 0.96 N 27 Total Mean 0.98 N 53  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 6.13 +4.63 3.00 41 .00 +38.00 8 2 2 4.14 +1.86 1.17 16.17 +15.00 7 6 6 5.20 +3.33 1.63 22.38 +20.75 15 8 8 2.47 +1.65 3.45 21 .04 +17.59 17 22 24 2.05 +1.55 1.77 18.65 +16.88 20 22 23 2.24 +1 .59 2.61 19.87 +17.26 37 44 47 3.00 +3.00 1 3.00 +3.00 1 3.62 +2.62 3.42 22.58 +19.16 26 24 26 2.59 +1 .63 1.64 18.14 +16.50 27 28 29 3.09 +2.11 2.46 20.24 +17.77 53 52 55  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring AJ11ount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 11 .14 24.86 +13.71 7 7 11.00 39.00 +28.00 5 7 11 .08 31 .93 +20.85 12 14 8.23 22.15 +13.92 13 13 8.30 19.60 +11 .30 20 20 8.27 20.61 +12.33 33 33 15.00 41 .00 +26.00 2 2 15.00 41 .00 +26.00 2 2 9.77 24.73 +14.95 22 22 8.84 24.63 +15.79 25 27 9.28 24.67 +15.40 47 49  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. .. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high.l.ig hted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 McDermott Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.07 N 14 White Male Mean 0.62 N 13 Total Mean 0.85 N 27 Female Mean 0.00 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 9 Total Mean 0.00 N 18 Female Mean 0.50 N 6 Other Male Mean 1.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.70 N 10 Female Mean 0.62 N 29 Total Male Mean 0.46 N 26 Total Mean 0.55 N 55  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chance 9.29 +8.21 3.45 21.36 +17.91 14 11 11 4.15 +3.54 8.67 31.78 +23.11 13 9 9 6.81 +5.96 5.80 26.05 +20.25 27 20 20 4.67 +4.67 2.53 23.65 +21.12 9 17 17 2.56 +2.56 2.55 21 .20 +18.65 9 11 10 3.61 +3.61 2.54 22.74 +20.21 18 28 27 5.17 +4.67 4.75 18.75 +14.00 6 4 4 10.50 +9.50 3.00 26.00 +23.00 4 2 2 7.30 ' +6.60 4.17 21.17 +17.00 10 I 6 6 7.00 +6.38 3.13 22.25 +19.13 29 32 32 4.58 +4.12 5.09 26.19 +21 .10 26 22 21 5.85 +5.31 3.93 23.81 +19.89 55 54 53  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring PiiJlount of Assessment Assessment Chance 27.00 37.20 +10.20 10 10 26.00 40.94 +14.94 17 17 26.37 39.56 +13.19 27 27 18.94 30.87 +11.93 32 31 16.06 25.62 +9.56 17 21 17.94 28.75 +10.81 49 52 12.00 30.00 +18.00 2 2 3.33 18.00 +14.67 3 3 6.80 22.80 +16.00 5 5 20.45 32.30 +11.85 44 43 19.59 31.41 +11 .82 37 41 20.06 31.87 +11.81 81 84  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highl..i ghted in bold .  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ZOOOtables   6119100 Little Rock School District Meadowcliff Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 3 White Male Mean 0.00 N 5 Total Mean 0.38 N 8 Female Mean 2.23 N 13 Black Male Mean 0.11 N 9 Totnl Mean 1.36 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 2.00 N 16 Total Male Mean 0.07 N 14 Total Mean 1.10 N 30 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chanae 4.00 +3.00 3.50 31.60 +28.10 3 4 5 1.75 +1.75 1.33 14.33 +13.00 4 3 3 2.71 +2.34 2.57 25.13 +22.55 7 7 8 6.57 +4.34 2.31 20.50 +18.19 14 16 16 2.22 +2.11 2.25 16.93 +14.68 9 12 14 4.87 +3.51 2.29 18.83 +16.55 23 28 30 2.00 16.00 +14.00 1 1 2.00 16.00 +14.00 1 1 6.12 +4.12 2.52 22.82 +20.29 17 21 22 2.08 +2.01 2.07 16.47 +14.40 13 15 17 4.37 +3.27 2.33 20.05 +17.72 30 36 39  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 16.67 24.67 +8.00 3 3 15.33 22.00 +6.67 3 3 16.00 23.33 +7.33 6 6 17.54 25.93 +8.39 13 14 13.77 22.33 +8.56 13 15 15.65 24.07 +8.42 26 29 2.00 10.00 +8.00 1 1 2.00 10.00 +8.00 1 1 17.38 25.71 +8.33 16 17 13.35 21.63 +8.28 17 19 15.30 23.56 +8.25 33 36  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hightghted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tabJes  6119/00 Mitchell Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 1.37 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.90 N 10 Total Mean 1.21 N 29 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 1.35 N 20 Total Male Mean 0.90 N 10 Total Mean 1.20 N 30  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall spring Amount of Assessment Cham:1e Assessment Assessment ChanQe 3.00 +2.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 1 1 1 3.00 +2.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 1 1 1 3.53 +2.16 3.67 12.36 +8.69 19 15 14 3.00 +2.10 6.71 13.19 +6.48 10 17 16 3.34 +2.14 5.28 12.80 +7.52 29 I 32 30 ' 3.50 +2.15 3.44 11.60 +8.16 20 16 15 3.00 +2.10 6.71 13.19 +6.48 10 17 16 3.33 +2.13 5.12 12.42 +7.30 30 33 31  Second Grade , Fall spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 19.60 23.14 +3.54 15 14 19.82 24.82 +5.00 17 17 19.72 24.06 +4.35 32 31 40.00 44.00 +4.00 1 1 22.00 25.00 +3.00 2 2 28.00 31.33 +3.33 3 3 20.88 24.53 +3.66 16 15 20.05 24.84 +4.79 19 19 20.43 24.71 +4.28 35 34  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high/ighted in bold. 0  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables  6119100 Otter Creek Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.52 N 21 White Male Mean 2.27 N 11 Total Mean 1.78 N 32 Female Mean 1.53 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.00 N 15 Total Mean 1.29 N 34 Female Mean 1.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 1.25 N 4 Total Mean 1.20 N 5 Female Mean 1.51 N 41 Total Male Mean 1.50 N 30 Total Mean 1.51 N 71  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.00 +4.48 5.12 28.56 +23.44 21 17 18 5.18 +2.91 4.54 21.50 +16.96 11 13 14 5.72 +3.94 4.87 25.47 +20.60 32 30 32 5.16 +3.63 3.21 17.80 +14.59 19 14 15 3.13 +2.13 1.55 15.18 +13.64 15 11 11 4.26 +2.97 2.48 16.69 +14.21 34 25 26 4.00 +3.00 1 1.75 +0.50 6.50 44.00 +37.50 4 2 2 2.20 +1.00 6.50 44.00 +37.50 5 2 2 5.56 +4.05 4.26 23.67 +19.41 41 31 33 3.70 +2.20 3.42 20.59 +17.17 30 26 27 4.77 +3.27 3.88 22.28 +18.41 71 57 60  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring AJllount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 26.36 31.82 +5.45 11 11 32.00 42.00 +10.00 5 7 28.13 35.78 +7.65 16 18 26.00 35.43 +9.43 6 7 11.88 25.56 +13.68 8 9 17.93 29.88 +11.95 14 16 3.00 28.00 +25.00 1 1 3.00 28.00 +25.00 1 1 26.24 33.22 +6.99 17 18 18.43 32.47 +14.04 14 17 22.71 32.86 +10.15 31 35  An average level of 2 or more ,s considered proficient in kindergarten.  An everage level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by schOol 2000tables  6/19/00 Pulaski Hgts Elem Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.00 N 12 White Male Mean 3.60 N 5 Total Mean 4.59 N 17 Female Mean 0.67 N 15 Black Male Mean 2.71 N 7 Total Mean 1.32 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 2.59 N 27 Total Male Mean 2.92 N 13 Total Mean 2.70 N 40  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham:ie Assessment Assessment ChanQe 11.75 +6.75 15.13 26.00 +10.88 12 8 8 6.20 +2.60 8.56 19.50 +10.94 5 16 16 10.12 +5.53 10.75 21.67 +10.92 17 24 24 2.29 +1.62 3.00 14.70 +11.70 14 10 10 6.14 +3.43 1.58 9.67 +8.08 7 12 12 3.57 +2.25 2.23 11.95 +9.73 21 22 22 6.00 20.00 +14.00 1 1 3.00 +2.00 1 3.00 +2.00 6.00 20.00 +14.00 1 1 1 6.65 +4.06 8.26 19.74 +11.47 26 19 19 5.92 +3.00 5.57 15.29 +9.71 13 28 28 6.41 +3.71 6.66 17.09 +10.43 39 47 47  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Afnount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 18.73 27.40 +8.67 11 10 26.86 36.00 +9.14 7 7 21.89 30.94 +9.05 18 17 14.25 24.29 +10.04 8 7 14.00 19.00 +5.00 7 8 14.13 21.47 +7.33 15 15 18.00 40.00 +22.00 1 1 18.00 40.00 +22.00 1 1 16.84 26.12 +9.28 19 17 20.27 27.75 +7.48 15 16 18.35 26.91 +8.56 34 33  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ' ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Rightsell Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 2.00 N 1 Female Mean 2.62 N 21 Black Male Mean 2.40 N 15 Total Mean 2.53 N 36 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Mean Total N Female Mean 2.59 N 22 Total Male Mean 2.40 N 15 Total Mean 2.51 N 37 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanQe Assessment Assessment Change 10.00 +8.00 1 10.00 +8.00 1 5.05 +2.43 7.35 14.70 +7.35 21 23 23 4.40 +2.00 5.81 12.93 +7.12 15 16 15 4.78 +2.25 6.72 14.00 +7.28 36 39 38 6.00 2 6.00 2 5.27 +2.68 7.24 14.70 +7.46 22 25 23 4.40 +2.00 5.81 12.93 +7.12 15 16 15 4.92 +2.41 6.68 14.00 +7.32 37 41 38  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chance 28.96 36.88 +7.92 25 25 32.36 40.83 +8.47 11 12 30.00 38.16 +8.16 36 37 . .. 28.96 36.88 +7.92 25 25 32.36 40.83 +8.47 11 12 30.00 38.16 +8.16 36 37  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average /eve/ of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119/00 Rockefeller Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.50 N 8 White Male Mean 1.83 N 6 Total Mean 2.79 N 14 Female Mean 1.00 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.40 N 20 Total Mean 0.72 N 43 Female Mean 4.75 N 4 Other Male Mean 3.33 N 3 Total Mean 4.14 N 7 Female Mean 2.00 N 35 Total Male Mean 1.00 N 29 Total Mean 1.55 N 64  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 10.50 +7.00 5.63 26.50 +20.88 8 16 16 3.67 +1.83 4.83 27.14 +22.31 6 6 7 7.57 +4.79 5.41 26.70 +21.29 14 22 23 3.30 +2.30 6.05 20.30 +14.25 23 21 20 1.90 +1.50 3.50 17.29 +13.79 20 14 14 2.65 +1.93 5.03 19.06 +14.03 43 35 34 7.25 +2.50 4.00 18.00 +14.00 4 1 1 8.67 +5.33 3 7.86 +3.71 4.00 18.00 +14.00 7 1 1 5.40 +3.40 5.82 22.92 +17.10 35 38 37 2.97 +1.97 3.90 20.57 +16.67 29 20 21 4.30 +2.75 5.16 22.07 +16.91 64 58 58  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Alnountof Assessment Assessment Chanae 44.00 44.00 0 6 6 26.75 31.75 +5.00 8 8 34.14 37.00 +2.86 14 14 18.55 24.15 +5.60 20 20 18.06 26.56 +8.50 18 18 18.32 25.29 +6.97 38 38 39.00 44.00 +5.00 2 2 39.00 44.00 +5.00 2 2 24.42 28.73 +4.31 26 26 22.04 29.29 +7.25 28 28 23.19 29.02 +5.83 54 54  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high._ lighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ioootabJes   5119100 Little Rock School District Romine Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.17 N 6 Female Mean 1.00 N 13 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 18 Total Mean 0.42 N 31 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.00 N 8 Female Mean 0.74 N 19 Total Male Mean 0.00 N 26 Total Mean 0.31 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 5.50 +5.00 2 1.40 +1.40 11.25 21.00 +9.75 5 4 4 2.57 +2.40 11.25 21.00 +9.75 7 4 4 3.44 +2.44 11.43 19.74 +8.30 16 23 23 3.09 +3.09 7.36 14.09 +6.73 22 11 11 3.24 +2.82 10.12 17.91 +7.79 38 34 34 1.50 +1.50 5.25 9.50 +4.25 4 4 4 1.75 +1.75 6.67 27.00 +20.33 4 3 2 1.63 +1.63 5.86 15.33 +9.48 8 7 6 3.27 +2.54 10.52 18.22 +7.70 22 27 27 2.65 +2.65 8.11 17.24 +9.12 31 18 17 2.91 +2.59 9.56 17.84 +8.29 53 ' 45 44  Second Grade a Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 44.00 44.00 0 2 2 37.33 44.00 +6.67 3 2 40.00 44.00 +4.00 5 4 31.20 37.88 +6.68 15 16 23.75 30.78 +7.03 24 23 26.62 33.69 +7.08 39 39 23.71 31.71 +8.00 7 7 27.09 36.00 +8.91 11 10 25.78 34.24 +8.46 18 17 30.08 36.64 +6.56 24 25 25.79 33.03 +7.24 38 35 27.45 34.53 +7.08 62 60  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000fables   6119/00 Little Rock School District Terry Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.88 N 25 White Male Mean 4.50 N 18 Total Mean 4.14 N 43 Female Mean 2.24 N 17 Black Male Mean 1.39 N 23 Total Mean 1.75 N 40 Female Mean 1.80 N 5 Other Male Mean 6.50 N 4 Total Mean 3.89 N 9 Female Mean 3.06 N 47 Total Male Mean 3.09 N 45 Total Mean 3.08 N 92 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham1e Assessment Assessment Chanqe 7,80 +3.92 5.07 26,86 +21.79 25 14 14 10.67 +6.17 3.92 22.94 +19.01 18 13 16 9.00 +4.86 4.52 24.77 +20.25 43 27 30 6.35 +4.12 3.10 15.30 +12.20 17 20 20 4.91 +3.52 0.95 7.76 +6,81 23 20 21 5.53 +3.78 2.03 11.44 +9.41 40 40 41 5.00 +3.20 0.00 4.00 +4.00 5 1 1 19.00 +12.50 11.33 36,00 +24.67 4 3 3 11.22 +7,33 8.50 28.00 +19.50 9 4 4 6.98 +3.91 3.80 19.60 +15.80 47 35 35 8.47 +5.38 2.89 15.95 +13.06 45 36 40 7.71 +4,63 3.34 17,65 +14.32 92 71 75  Second Grade - Fall ***Spring A,mountof Assessment Assessment Chanqe 20.63 37,64 +17.01 8 11 20.81 30.82 +10.01 16 17 20,75 33,50 +12.75 24 28 24.15 37.20 +13.05 13 20 16.12 28.45 +12.34 17 22 19.60 32,62 +13.02 30 42 15.50 38.40 +22.90 4 5 22.50 29.43 +6,93 4 7 19.00 33,17 +14.17 8 12 21.64 37.50 +15.86 25 36 18.84 29.48 +10.64 37 46 19.97 33.00 +13,03 62 82  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by Schoof 2000tables  6119/00 Wakefield Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Mean Female N White Mean 0.00 Male N 2 Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.33 N 21 Black Male Mean 0.09 N 22 Total Mean 0.21 N 43 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.00 N 7 Female Mean 0.28 N 25 Total Male Mean 0.07 N 27 Total Mean 0.17 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae . 0.00 10.00 1 1 +10.00 0.00 . 1.00 2.00 0 +1.00 2 1 1 0.00 0 0.50 6.00 +5.50 2 2 2 1.86 +1 .52 1.59 12.91 +11 .32 21 17 34 0.95 +0.86 1.29 9.74 +8.45 22 17 23 1.40 +1.19 1.44 11.63 +10.19 43 34 57 1.00 +1 .00 0.75 10.83 +10.08 4 4 6 1.00 +1 .00 3 1.00 +1.00 0.75 10.83 +10.08 7 4 6 1.72 +1.44 1.36 12.54 +11 .17 25 22 41 0.89 +0.81 1.28 9.42 +8.14 27 18 24 1.29 +1.12 1.33 11 .38 +10.06 52 40 65  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 10.27 20.52 +10.25 22 21 9.95 19.68 +9.73 20 19 10.12 20.13 +10.01 42 40 1.00 7.00 +6.00 2 2 7.00 28.00 +21 .00 4 4 5.00 21 .00 +16.00 6 6 9.50 19.35 +9.85 24 23 9.46 21 .13 +11 .67 24 23 9.48 20.24 +10.76 48 46  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. , ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school zoootables  6119/00 Washington Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.14 N 7 White Male Mean 1.88 N 8 Total Mean 2.47 N 15 Female Mean 1.11 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.92 N 25 Total Mean 1.00 N 44 Female Mean 2.25 N 4 Other Male Mean 3.00 N 5 Total Mean 2.67 N 9 Female Mean 1.73 N 30 Total Male Mean 1.39 N 38 Total Mean 1.54 N 68  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment '\" Chanae 11.75 +8.61 6.67 21.33 +14.67 4 3 3 7.38 +5.50 5.33 26.00 +20.67 8 6 6 8.83 +6.37 5.78 24.44 +18.67 12 9 9 5.05 +3.95 5.11 14.89 +9.78 19 18 18 3.64 +2.72 2.21 10.61 +8.40 25 19 18 4.25 +3.25 3.62 12.75 +9.13 44 37 36 8.25 +6.00 8.38 23.75 +15.38 4 8 8 8.00 +5.00 4.14 22.29 +18.14 5 7 7 8.11 +5.44 6.40 23.07 +16.67 9 15 15 6.52 +4.79 6.17 18.00 +11.83 27 29 29 5.00 +3.61 3.22 16.23 +13.01 38 32 31 5.63 +4.09 4.62 17.08 +12.46 65 T 61 60  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 30.33 40.67 +10.33 6 6 21.17 38.00 +16.83 6 6 25.75 39.33 +13.58 12 12 20.85 28.55 +7.70 20 20 13.70 22.11 +8.41 27 27 16.74 24.85 +8.11 47 47 12.40 21.60 +9.20 5 5 23.11 29.33 +6.22 9 9 19.29 26.57 +7.29 14 14 21 .32 29.77 +8.45 31 31 16.79 25.93 +9.14 42 42 18.71 27.56 +8.85 73 73  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. , ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Watson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 1 Female Mean 0.41 N 37 Black Male Mean 1.09 N 35 Total Mean 0.74 N 72 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.39 N 38 Total Male Mean 1.09 N 35 Total Mean 0.73 N 73  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 0.00 0 1 5.00 1 0.00 0 5.00 1 1 2.37 +1 .96 5.88 17.03 +11.16 38 24 29 2.29 +1.20 3.20 8.67 +5.47 38 35 36 2.33 +1.59 4.29 12.40 +8.11 76 59 65 2.31 +1.91 5.88 17.03 +11 .16 39 24 29 2.29 +1.20 3.25 8.67 +5.42 38 36 36 2.30 +1 .57 4.30 12.40 +8.10 77 60 65  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.50 34.00 +15.50 4 4 18.50 34.00 +15.50 4 4 18.47 27.76 +9.29 32 33 14.12 22.60 +8.48 26 25 16.52 25.53 +9.02 58 58 30.00 40.00 +10.00 1 1 30.00 40.00 +10.00 1 1 18.82 28.12 +9.30 33 34 14.70 24.17 +9.47 30 29 16.86 26.30 +9.44 63 63  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not tesung al a proficient level are highlighted in bold.   An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Bia by school 2000tabJes  6119/00 Western Hills Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.40 N 5 Total Mean 0.43 N 7 Female Mean 0.67 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.62 N 13 Total Mean 0.64 N 22 Female Mean 4.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 2.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.92 N 12 Total Male Mean 0.53 N 19 Total Mean 0.68 N 31  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.00 +2.50 6.50 28.86 +22.36 2 6 7 2.40 +2.00 2.67 16.67 +14.00 5 3 3 2.57 +2.14 5.22 25.20 +19.98 7 9 10 4.11 +3.44 4.29 22.24 +17.94 9 17 17 2.15 +1.54 3.60 20.47 +16.87 13 15 15 2.95 +2.32 3.97 21.41 +17.44 22 32 32 28.00 +24.00 1 3.00 +3.00 14.00 28.00 +14.00 1 1 1 15.50 +13.50 14.00 28.00 +14.00 2 1 1 5.92 +5.00 4.87 24.17 +19.30 12 23 24 2.26 +1.74 4.00 20.26 +16.26 19 19 19 3.68 +3.00 4.48 22.44 +17.97 31 42 43  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 23.00 44.00 +21.00 4 4 20.00 42.50 +22.50 4 4 21.50 43.25 +21.75 8 8 20.55 39.40 +18.85 11 10 18.13 36.25 +18.13 16 16 19.11 37.46 +18.35 27 26 20.00 44.00 +24.00 1 1 20.00 44.00 +24.00 1 1 21.13 40.93 +19.81 16 15 18.50 37.50 +19.00 20 20 19.67 38.97 +19.30 36 35  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Efla by school 2000tables  6119100 Williams Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.88 N 8 White Male Mean 1.50 N 12 Total Mean 2.45 N 20 Female Mean 1.56 N 18 Black Male Mean 0.50 N 8 Total Mean 1.23 N 26 Female Mean 5.83 N 6 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 5.83 N 6 Female Mean 2.94 N 32 Total Male Mean 1.10 N 20 Total Mean 2.23 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 8.13 +4.25 14.53 29.88 +15.35 8 17 17 5.00 +3.50 14.30 34.80 +20.50 12 10 10 6.25 +3.80 14.44 31.70 +17.26 20 27 27 5.11 +3.56 7.00 28.83 +21.83 18 12 12 3.00 +2.50 9.65 27.21 +17.56 8 20 19 4.46 +3.23 8.66 27.84 +19.18 26 32 31 11.50 +5.67 44.00 44.00 0 6 1 1 34.00 44.00 +10.00 1 1 11.50 +5.67 39.00 44.00 +5.00 6 2 2 7.06 +4.13 12.50 29.93 +17.43 32 30 30 4.20 +3.10 11.94 30.30 +18.36 20 31 30 5.96 +3.73 12.21 30.12 +17.90 52 61 60  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Cham1e 28.40 37.33 +8.93 15 15 31.80 40.42 +8.62 20 19 30.34 39.06 +8.72 35 34 27.82 37.41 +9.59 17 17 23.29 36.62 +13.33 14 13 25.77 37.07 +11.29 31 30 28.09 37.38 +9.28 32 32 28.29 38.88 +10.58 34 32 28.20 38.13 +9.93 66 64  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Wilson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 2 White Male Mean 1.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.50 N 4 Female Mean 0.75 N 16 Black Male Mean 1.07 N 29 Total Mean 0.96 N 45 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 2.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.63 N 19 Total Male Mean 1.09 N 32 Total Mean 0.92 N 51  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 1.00 +1.00 2.00 23.33 +21.33 2 3 3 0.00 -1.00 1 0.67 +0.17 2.00 23.33 +21.33 3 3 3 4.35 +3.60 2.21 20.00 +17.79 17 14 14 2.67 +1.60 2.78 23.11 +20.33 30 18 18 3.28 +2.32 2.53 21.75 +19.22 47 32 32 0.00 0 1 3.00 +1.00 1 1.50 .. 2 +0.50 3.80 +3.17 2.18 20.59 +18.41 20 17 17 2.59 I 2.78 23.11 +1.50 +20.33 32 ' 18 18 3.06 ' 2.49 21.89 +2.14 +19.40 52 35 35  Second Grade ., Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 25.00 42.00 +17.00 2 2 25.00 42.00 +17.00 2 2 17.13 26.56 +9.42 15 18 15.17 25.21 +10.04 24 24 15.92 25.79 +9.86 39 42 4.00 1 32.00 39.00 +7.00 2 2 32.00 27.33 2 3 -4.67 18.06 26.95 +8.89 17 21 16.46 26.27 +9.81 26 26 17.09 26.57 +9.48 43 47  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 20001ab/es   6119/00 Little Rock School District Woodruff Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 1 White Male Mean 1.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.75 N 4 Female Mean 0.90 N 20 Black Male Mean 1.07 N 15 Total Mean 0.97 N 35 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.86 N 21 Total Male Mean 1.06 N 18 Total Mean 0.95 N 39 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 1.00 +1.00 19.00 34.00 +15.00 1 4 3 3.00 +2.00 4.00 18.00 +14.00 3 1 1 2.50 +1 .75 16.00 30.00 +14.00 4 5 4 2.05 +1 .15 8.14 22.86 +14.73 20 22 22 2.07 +1 .00 7.10 23.40 +16.30 15 10 10 2.06 +1 .09 7.81 23.03 +15.22 35 32 32 18.00 34.00 +16.00 1 1 18.00 34.00 +16.00 1 1 2.00 +1.14 9.81 24.20 +14.39 21 26 25 2.22 +1 .17 7.75 23.83 +16.08 18 12 12 2. 10 +1 .15 9. 16 24.08 +14.92 39 38 37  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 29.00 31.50 +2.50 4 4 27.00 36.00 +9.00 4 4 28.00 33.75 +5.75 8 8 28.48 37.10 +8.62 21 20 20.50 27.43 +6.93 14 14 25.29 33.12 +7.83 35 34 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 27.58 34.96 +7.38 26 25 21.94 29.33 +7.39 18 18 25.27 32.60 +7.33 44 43  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ena by school 2000tables SAT-9    BADGETT Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Precentile Percentile 1996- 1991- 1998- 1~~~- 1996- 1991- 1998- 1999- 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 ' 3 Total Reading 14 30 16 17 -13 27 86 59 15 -71 Total Math 9 20 11 16 -4 32 45 13 1 -44 Total Language 15 20 5 18 -2 31 61 30 6 -55 Complete Battery 14 26 12 18 -8 29 64 35 12 -52 5 Total Reading 7 13 6 18 11 7 64 29 -35 41 5 71 21 14 17 14 Total Math 6 13 7 13 7 6 51 40 ,11 40 5 35 23 14 18 15 Total Language 12 14 2 20 11 9 41 53 12 32 3 29 23 16 17 , 13 Complete Battery 10 18 8 21 13 8 47 44 -3 37 6 31 21 20 16  12 BALE Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1~~6- 1~~,- 1~~0- 1~~~- 19~6- 1~~,- ~~o- 1999- 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Piff, 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 35 27 -8 28 1 57 16 -41 46 30 Total Math 27 17 -10 20 3 43 29 -14 40 11 Total Language 27 21 -6 26 5 43 23 -20 36 13 Complete Battery 33 24 -9 26 2 53 25 -28 43 18 5 Total Reading 21 29 8 22 19 3 25 47 22 29 76 47 37 35 35 23 Total Math 15 27 12 42 14 28 23 43 20 45 24 21 37 31 35 16 Total Language 23 34 11 31 19 12 39 53 14 30 76 46 37 41 35 24 Complete Battery 27 33 6 32 18 14 41 53 12 39 53 14 37 40 35 21 BASELINE Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 18 24 6 26 2 32 45 13 59 14 Total Math 19 15 -4 29 14 28 20 -8 35 15 Total Language 13 20 7 31 11 28 41 13 61 20 Complete Battery 20 22 2 29 7 32 43 11 46 3 5 Total Reading 27 14 -13 22 16 6 95 31 -64 31 35 -4 25 15 16 31 Total Math 20 16 -4 14 13 1 83 16 -67 22 23 -1 25 16 19 31 Total Language 37 18 -19 26 21 5 76 14 -62 28 57 -29 25 18 19 31 Complete Battery 27 16 -11 26 18 8 84 26 -58 34 39 -5 25 18 16 31    BOOKER Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 3 Total Reading 26 26 0 35 50 58 8 43 Total Math 23 19 -4 28 41 44 3 44 Total Language 34 24 -10 32 52 57 5 36 Complete Battery 30 27 -3 34 49 57 8 43 5 Total Reading 33 21 -12 39 28 1t 65 60 -5 55 63 -8 91 40 87 78 Total Math 32 17 -15 25 21 4 53 35 -18 33 45 -12 91 26 90 78 Total language 44 31 -13 44 41 3 67 60 -7 55 70 -15 91 45 90 t 77 Complete Battery 38 26 -12 38 32 6 62 53 -9 51 60 -9 91 39 87 \\ 77 BRADY Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- .Diff. 1997-1998 1998-1999 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996-1997 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 27 26 -1 30 60 35 -25 56 Total Math 34 25 -9 20 65 51 -14 47 Total Language 32 28 -4 26 65 41 -24 48 Complete Battery 32 27 -5 30 63 45 -18 55 5 Total Reading 27 20 -7 23 19 -4 76 33 -43 41 42 1 24 25 41 37 Total Math 18 13 -5 17 14 -3 50 24 -26 15 14 -1 24 16 40 39 Total Language 43 19 -24 21 21 0 64 31 -33 41 37 -4 24 24 40 39 Complete Battery 31 20 -11 23 20 -3 63 36 -27 39 28 -11 24 25 40 37 CARVER Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 1996- 1\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_358","title":"Critical performance priorities for 2000-2001","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-07-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Critical performance priorities for 2000-2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/358"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nreceiveD From the desk of. . ,  Leslie V. Carnine AUG 1 4 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: July 13. 2000 To: Re: Members of the School Board Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 The following information is the first draft of the recommendations for the Critical Performance Priorities for 2000-2001. We have shared this with principals and other staff. The cabinet has discussed this several times over the last six weeks, and we will in all probability have edits over the next couple of weeks. You may also want to refine as you review the draft document. Please review the attachment for specific outline. We mentioned the fact that the cabinet had spent considerable time discussing the work plan for the next school year. We all have a concern that, based on past experience, considerable hours will need to be expended on the compliance document and federal court hearing preparation. As best as we could estimate, it would mean a minimum of 10% to 20 % of the Associates time after the first of the year. The estimate is extra time, not necessarily replacement time, for the normal operationally activities. We definitely think we can be more efficient, but a couple of wild cards cannot be totally predicted. The first is the replacement of Vic Anderson and the effect that will have on the effectiveness of operations. We are now receiving inquiries. What we cannot estimate is how quickly we can be up to speed once a recommendation is made to the Board. The second issue is the state accountability system. We have mentioned to you in the past that several of the district schools will have accountability issues. We have been told that among the 100 lowest performing schools in the state, there are 34 in Pulaski County. Based on previous analysis, we suspect that 26-28 will achieve that infamous distinction here in Little /Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 July 2000 Page 2 Rock School District. We have made a concerted effort to improve instruction this past year, and we are doing so. But, it will be my contention that we must double our efforts in that arena. The amount of time diverted to this issue is just now being considered. And finally, I know when things appear to be fairly normal it is a temptation to start new things or add substantial initiatives. I think we must be very guarded on how much we can ask of the staff next year. We are finishing one of the most successful years in the history of this school district and I hope that next year can be equally as brilliant. However, I am convinced that to have a repeat of such a year we must hold back our enthusiasm for adding new things. I say this regardless of how good things may sound...and the inducements they may offer. We need to finish what we started. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the District to submit an evaluation of the Plan and the Districts compliance in March 2001. Based on past experience, this will consume a number of hours from a host of people. We do have a great start and without an Associate being plagued by sickness or accident we should be in great shape. We will need to pick up the loose ends. II. Technology The preliminary plan is for the consultant to work with the work group to update the master plan. We hope the master plan can be completed fairly quickly and then to assist the schools in rewriting and updating their campus technology plans. We see the District starting slowly and then moving very quickly by mid year to have an outstanding plan and program being implemented. III. Campus Leadership We see academic achievement becoming an increasing issue with the publication of the Campus Report Card. Based on what we previously mentioned about the low performing campuses, we see the plan as in place. Now we must execute! We have made very impressive progress AFTCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 July 2000 Page 3 and we should be able to enjoy positive support within the community based on the plan and noted improvements. The strategy for moving the campuses to continuous improvement and maintaining the focus will be a primary mission for the school year. Participatory decision making is the way we must learn to work, but what we cant fall prey to is failure to achieve the academic focus needed to be successful. IV. Instruction We are achieving academic focus that has and will continue to achieve results. We must continue to fine-tune the organization through staff development. We already have on the drawing board enough basic implementation issues to keep the staff busy for several years. Instruction has some loose ends that must dealt with, but everything appears to be in good order for the district to achieve a continuous improvement mind set. We also must become serious about program evaluation...and Im not sure where we will find the time or people power, but we must pull together that aspect of building the program. V. Operations The approximately $150 million bond issue is a big job, regardless of the many other areas which must be considered. We mention the $150 million because when you consider the dedicated millage and the interest, you will be responsible for the expenditure of that amount in capital funds over a five-year period. There are two or three other very important issues for which we must develop plans. First, is to have the state accounting conversion accomplished without too many difficulties. The second is the need to have the district on a three to five year budgeting cycle along with easy to understand reports for your review. And finally, we need to maximize the federal dollars wherever possible. We presently estimate we are significantly short on numbers, which is costing us dollars. Respectfully submitted, Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent of Schools T LII. III. Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: A. B. C. D. Prepare and submit compliance documentation to the Federal Court Prepare final revisions of School Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Review school zones in preparation for new western elementary school Review ALC / alternative programs Technology: Update District Technology Plan A. B. C. D. E. Review process and software for data collection (Data Warehouse) Develop District Help Desk and plan for additional network support Refine training component Plan for AS400 \u0026amp; District Software Internet Connectivity Campus Leadership \u0026amp; Accountability A. Coordinate Arkansas and LRSD Accountability B. Develop customer survey instruments C. Refine Quality program and training for acquiring third level status D. Assist in the development of the Carnegie Grant Plan E. Assist in the development of the DeWitt Wallace Leadership training GrantCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Page 2 IV. Instruction A. Continue the development of Core Academic Standards B. Continue the development of targeted grants and review of continuing grants c. Implementation of new parent / community component D. Continuation of ESL development E. Program Evaluation  F. Continuation of Staff Development Initiatives G. Implementation of Assessment program V. Operations A. Dedicated Millage Plan B. Review process for Work Orders C. Develop master plan for Grounds maintenance D. Review Building Security Plansalarms and surveillance E. Develop master plan for energy utilization F. Develop a plan for capital projects review VI. Finance A. 2000 Bond Issue 1. Sales 2. Project Coordination 3. Project Reporting B. ADE Accounting Conversion C. MGT RecommendationsCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Page 3 D. Budgeting and Reporting Procedures E. Revenue enhancement 1. Free and reduced lunch numbers 2. Medicaid reimbursement F. Staff Travel Procedures\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1401","title":"Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2000-07-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the North Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1401"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["30 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_85","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2000-06/2000-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/85"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["310 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL .. 5 2000 Off!CEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for June, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto ey neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Based on the information available at May 31, 2000, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 99/00,..ubject to periQc\n!Lc adjustrn~nts. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On May 31, 2000, distri6uti.2_ns of State Equalization Funafng for FY 99/00 were as follows: 5,493,936 $25,008,711 i 51,467,422 Tlie allotmen  ding calculafeo for FY 99/00 at MaY. 31, 2000, sunjec ere as follows~ LRSD - $50,043,330 NLRSD - $27,509,~ PCSSD - $56,614,165 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 gasea on the inforrnauoi'f~milaJi!~ lfie~AD (\n''calcufatecrarMf.J~.1:1, 2g9q~forlF'(i )9/ff0~ jecngJ:ierioaic aajtlstrnent5! 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, 2000 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, 2000 Based on tfie information available tfie7\\DE calculated at May 3-1, 2000 for FY. 99100, subject to periodic adJustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Distributions for FY 99/00 at May 31, 2000, totaled $8,93T,472. Allotment calculated for FY 99/00 was $9,867,065 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Calculated for FY 99700, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 LRSD - $3 503 345 NLRSD ] PCSSD , 49 LRSD - $3,901,58~ NLRSD - $2,07f, 144 PCSSD - $7,167,474 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In July 1999, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 99/00 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, 2000 In January 2000, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 99/00 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In January 2000, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 99/00 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At May 2000, the following had been paid for FY 99700: LRSD -$2,278,305.3.if NLRSD - $385,333.34 PCSSD - $1,296,914.66 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, 2000 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98-99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 1998- 99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99-00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99-00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 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, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 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, 2000 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, 2000 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCS SD 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, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 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, 2000 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 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. 8 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were vis ited , and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team , the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with ( 1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Gfoveana Cawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 200 arfcf'May 9, 2000 respectively. 13 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, 2000 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, 2000 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 14 e 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, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 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, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 15 e 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, 2000 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. 18 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, 2000 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, 2000 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, 2000 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 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementT ool, 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, 2000 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: ( 1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (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 Arl\u0026lt;ansas State Boara of Education reviewed and approved tne PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 26 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTMP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" 36 VII. TESTVALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 37 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 38 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 39 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31, 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 40 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 41 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 42 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program , and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 43 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 44 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 45 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 46 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 47 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 48 VIII . IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 49 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. :rne Tri-District Staff CJevelopment Committ Coordinators at tneir annual summer confe 2000. Among the discussi , r -==== al lopment Council, the P =---- ft] 'an ma  step. 50 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97 /98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 51 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at UA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them . They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith, April 13, 1999 and Grambling University, April 15, 1999. The Professional Licensure Unit has scheduled a representative to attend college job fairs at the following locations: Harding, February 22\nUCA, February 25\nPhilander Smith, March 1\nASU, March 7. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 52 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) 8. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCS SD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. In May 1999, requests were made to the Pulaski County Schools for a list of teacher openings and grade levels. In June 1999, the Professional Licensure Unit received a list of teacher shortage areas and openings for Pulaski County Schools. In December 1999, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. In May 2000, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 53 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. In May 1999, requests were made to all colleges and universities for their spring minority graduates for 1999. In June 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure received minority graduate reports from colleges and universities. In December 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. In May 2000, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 54 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. In July 1999, the minority graduate reports from the colleges and universities were mailed to all Pulaski County Schools. Job openings for Pulaski County Schools were mailed to all colleges and universities. On January 23, 2000, a list of minority teacher graduates was mailed to all the Pulaski County school districts. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 55 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. In December 1999, The ADE requested a letter from each of the three Pulaski County schools documenting the effectiveness of help given the districts. In February 2000, The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted reports concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. 56 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 57 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and fore ign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 58 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 59 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESE LP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. 60 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. 61 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21, 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21, 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31 , \" an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 62 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_305","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Pulaski County Special School District","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/305"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["68 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nif Hz- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS I) KIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SE^P 6 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. Office Of OeseSREGATIOSJ MOJifTOR/iMS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIEFS MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr., filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice The crux of the LRSDs motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, thats true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the Districts belief that Attorney Walker violated the courts orders... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23. 12001T There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from appearing at the office of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker appeared at the buildin\nig- It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether Mr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Pendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief. Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honors opinion: I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments to desegregation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both 1 to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller \u0026amp; Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end. Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end. They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. .espectfully submitted. J^htW. Walker, P.A. 4723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 J501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4* day of September, 2001 via United States mail post^e prepaid. Joj W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 4 I 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CTT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. )\u0026lt; '^ECEiWD DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP S 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFHCEQF desesrkaiionwww^ INTERVENORS STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF koMke. AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ) )ss. ) Comes the affiant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P. A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the Ish Instructional Resource Center (IRC) at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD ofBcials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. J. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1W. Walker, P.A., including Mr. Walker himself. We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23, 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesleys vitae which we had requested on August 20' and August 22\"\" 5. Mr. Walker and 1 rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it. Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 28. After a quick review of the document, Mr. Walker then asked, Is this all of it. And he further stated I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this. Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesleys office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Mr. Walker take copies available to the public of the standards and benchmarks for grades one through eight. 9. Ms. Gilliam came out of Dr. Lesleys office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As Mr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, Mr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional divisions agenda items that were on the school boards agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesleys office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesleys office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices and joined Mr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13. While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not Jask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said no, and that if he needed help he would ask for it. He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the districts display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesleys offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was coming into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said no. We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elstons offices on August 16, 2001, there was no secretary 4in her reception area. In early June, 2001, when I visited Ms. Elstons offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elstons office and as I did so, I said hello in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21. Asi entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted Mr. Walker and \u0026gt;! Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elstons office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elstons attention with my hello. 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23. Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recruitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that all African American students in AP courses were flunking. 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5participation in AP courses. 2^ On Saturday, June 30, 2001, while on my way to lunch with Mr. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to rhe Districts motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite liim over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told \u0026gt;) him that we could not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say hello to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. li / 'Y C. SPRINGER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before mele day of August, PUBLIC lOl. MY CO^MMlSSION EXPIRES: ! jsaoooiii),. 6 i %1 4 1 \\ I FILED  /--! r'r-A i SEP 0't 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASIES W. McCORMACK, CJ WESTERN DIVISION H\n:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. NO. 4\n82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. J!' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. g^ECEIVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF SEP - 6 2C01 INTERVENORS OBI 13 INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER ) )ss. ) Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23, 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as if there is an Order entered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1-J. 4. 5. affidavits, one from Ms. Anita GilEam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: On August 20, 2001,1 wrote Mr. Clay Pendley , Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with ' Mr. Pendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. The first letter. Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also note that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that if we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [without depositions] or ... by interrogatories. I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesleys vitae noting that I was addressing this request to her as well. See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school board meeting on August 23, 2001, and I noted if you determine that I am not entitled to this information. would you kindly inform me . .  Mr. Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked would you please provide me a -2-copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Mr. Pendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either Mr. Pendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8\n00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center IRC located 9 at 30* and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleavers office and obtaining a copy of the vitae of Dr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see (lay eyes on) nor talk (exchange words with), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesleys resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesleys vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other -j-) 7. 8. 9. 10. professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume of Dr. Lesley and any documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next days board meeting. On the agenda there were several pohcy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IVA with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R\nproposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3\nCredit by Examination with five additional pages\nprogram evaluation agenda for 2001 -2002, three pages\nweighted credit for university studies courses at Hall High School, two pages\nproposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages\nand, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilham if there was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. Before I left Ms. Gilliams office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of standards benchmarks for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliams office and walked down the hallways of the IRC. There were pubhc pass outs on the tables -4-11. 12. 13. 14. which involved the districts schedule, the LRSDs Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. Dr. Lesley has given an afhdavit in support of the districts motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this determination because she speaks in terms of a they said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her afSdavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesleys office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed\nthat upon being provided the copy. I asked if it was a complete copy\nand I asked if there any other writings that supported the departments agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the districts response and asking her help: 1 am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the districts general inclination. Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23,2001, it appears that Dr. -5-Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: You came to the ISH IRC on August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit F in original form from Dr. Lesley. She now indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages J n long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23\"'*, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11.00\nfor the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through Mr. Heller and Mr. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. 15. 16. In Dr. Lesleys letter of August 23as well as in her affidavit. Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSDs motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be prudent to, and in fact, ordered me to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing. This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Courts Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23\"* is -6-) 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court  s Order which was intended to. clarify her previous Order . . . directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform counsel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Pendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to obtain a budget document which was on the August 23, 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from Mr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001,1 simply stopped by the LRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -1-J, 22. 23. Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. The districts counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the districts counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the evening on August 23\"*. See Exhibit H. I wrote Mr. Heller that day, August 23, 2001, asking if he perceived the Courts Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiaiy support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking, I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11:30 a.m.. August 16,2001. I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley. See Exhibit 1. I was unable to meet with him -8-during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elstons office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth, I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job if he told the truth. MT. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9-) 24. 25. full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated .shortcoming.^ with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewarts office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either of us being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain infonnation^ verbal or written, from a school district ofiBcial. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation of Dr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewarts high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10-attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. jo: W. WALKER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ^ay of , 2001. MY co: :SSION EXPIRES: NotaSypublic -11- cout\u0026lt;^ i i i ) ) 0 I J 1 John W. Walker, P.a. ArroENBYAr Law 1723 Broadway Little Eock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAI,KF,B. SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OF COUNSEL EGBERT McHENRY, PjL DONNA J. McHenry . 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLiiet ) Dear Clay: In that you have taken ten days, and in that the information that I am seeking is readily accessible, you may have 20 additional days to respond to the FOIA involving the principals. I will agree to a protective order regarding personal student information provided by FREPA. In that the LRSDs motion to be declared unitary is not a trial on the merits of the case, and in that no discovery schedule has been approved by the court, I can not agree to the procedure you suggest. There are several reasons for this. The most compelling reason, however, is that the information 1 request has routinely been provided upon request in the past\nand that we have not requested to use the FOIA in the past for these purposes. We now use the FOIA to make sure that the district is clear about what we need and to give the district officials time to obtain it without interference with their jobs. You lawyers interrupted the process when you decided you wanted to scrutinize each request that came from us. To us, that means that you not only want to review the matter but to structure the response as well. Clay, the documents we requested to review need not be examined first by you if they are public documents. We dont even need to copy many of them. We are entitled to see them even if the purpose is unrelated to your motion. You make things more difScuit and then try to blame us for having done so. ( With respect to the federal rules, we will request that you make available witnesses without depositions. If we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form or either by interrogatories. !ry truly yours, i ihn Walker JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRE PA. DONNA J. MoHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LrrrtE Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchem7d@swbell.11et August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Fendley: I intend to request a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae and am informing you of same. If you have it, would you be kind enough to forward it to me. In that I dont imagine that you do, and it should not be a controversial matter at all, I am forwarding this request to her as well. Sincerely, I W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Ms. Ann Marshall John W, Walker. P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 BEOADWAy Little Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL EOBERT McHENEY, PA. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenrydl^wbelLiiet August 20, 2001 Kir. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Clay: It is now 2:25 p.m.. August 20, 2001. I intend to appear or having someone appear on my behalf at the school district to request a copy of the 2001 budget document which the district has prepared. We have been provided these copies in the past but have not been provided one this time. Perhaps it is an oversight. I have tried to call you by telephone in the last few minutes after having spoken to you for about 20 minutes on another matter and I am informed that you are unavailable for my call. If you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me whether this information is otherwise available to the public. Siaeerely, D^ri Walker A JWW:lp John w. Wiker, P.A. ATTOENBYArLAW 1723 Broadway Lotle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAZ (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 22, 2001 OF COUNSEL EOBEST McHENEY, EA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HEioiBssoN Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmohenryd^wbelLnet Dr. Bonnie Lesley Little Rock School District 81^0 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Lesley\nWill you please provide me a copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Walker nVW:lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall f \u0026gt; Resume Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address: 232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Office Address: 3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone: 501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail: baleslev@aol.com Office E-mail: balesIe@irc.lrsdLkl2.ar.tis Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 to- Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. mEngEsh, Aug. 1968 West Texas A\u0026amp;M University, Canyon, Texas B.A: in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rode, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curiiculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Curriculum/Instruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, Texas iAug. 19S1June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta independent School District El Paso, Texas ). Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Fall 1965Spring 1979 J Fall 1964Spring 1965 Fall 1962Spring 1964. Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Teacher of Enghsh and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District S Everton, TexasJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 23 , 2001 OF COUNSEL aOBEET McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Liitle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fas (501) 372-3428 Ematt: mchenryd^-wbelLjiei: Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall\nAs you know, I have been seeking information from the Little Rock School District. You also know it is my behef that the District does not provide full or accurate information, at least to us, upon request. We have some substantial evidence of that already. Yesterday, I requested a copy of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys resume or vitae. You received a copy of my request. She provided a resume, a copy of which is attached. The resume is three pages. The resume is an example of an attitude: give them something, anything will do\nbut dont give them all of what we-have. Dr. Lesley surely provided to the Little Rock School District a far more extensive resume that she provided in response to our request. Perhaps, you have seen it. Surely, the Board of Directors had more than what she provided to us. I am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the Little Rock School District is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the District will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the Districts general inclination. Sincerely, /^nn W. Walkdf JWW\njs Attachment cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mr. Chris Heller An Individual Approach to a World of IPdiowledge August 23, 2001 MB 27 an Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 h Dear Mr. Walker: I You came to the Ish IRC on Thursday morning. August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. She provided that to you. Then you and Ms. Springer requested copies of the grant proposals that were referenced in the Board agenda book for the August 23 meeting. I told Ms, Springer that we can provide those but that I dont have copies in my office and would have to get them from others. Then you told Ms. Gilliam that the resume I had provided was not adequate, that you wanted a more complete one, with lists of my writings. I asked her to tell you that I would have to update what I had, but that I would be happy to provide that, although it will be very long. I stopped what I was doing this morning and spent the necessary time to update the full curriculum vitae that you apparently want. I also secured from the other offices copies of the United States History grant proposal and the Technology Challenge grant proposal. The curriculum vitae is 27 pages long, so the cost for that document is $6.75. The United States History grant proposal is 44 pages, so the cost for that document is $11.00. The Technology Challenge grant proposal is 18 pages, so that cost will be $4.50. That is a total of $22.25. If you will bring a check made payable to the LRSD for that amount to Ms. Gilliam, she will provide you with the copies of the documents that you have requested. YojleFs Connie A. Lesley, cd. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Chris Heller Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.Irsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fes\n501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltttle Book, Arkansas 72206 Tkt,EPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PjL DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendbsson Road Little Rock, xArkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fas (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd^wbelLnet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Heller\nDo you perceive the Judges Order as requiring me to inform you that I intend to have a discussion with the board members today during the board meeting. Please let me hear from you by return fax. ySi^cerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc\nMs. Arm Marshall 1 /OHN WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Litde Rod:, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSXnSSION COVER^ SHEET Tax: Re: Sender: To: YOU SHOULD RECEIVT [ (induding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), EXCLUDING _ THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT FECETVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEAEE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501)S74-3758\u0026gt; The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for tire use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Tarsnee J. Roberts, PhD. P.O. Bos 96- Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Mr. John Cia^' Fendley Friday, SIdredgs \u0026amp; Clark ) 2000 Regions Center ''i :\u0026lt;aP.-cirif .AA\"R 72201 Mr. John W, Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendiej' and Mr. Walker: It was brought to my itlentioh this momiug by John Walker that a mos: tica to eke Mr. Jolin WaOsef ip contempT of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. ?y^_ w^ijrwr p?i\u0026gt;Vtdcd ulC With thfi iiiOuOu, J apl addrSSSing thS facts in paragraph 2 of the motion i i I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. W'sikw -asri twtj ijf iliil iSSGClixLcS wcr 1X1 VilCU into her ofSces. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms. islstons oiSoe. Mr. Waik-er cognizsnt of .-4 Lerexcre, he addressed his ststeiiiniits to ixi ord^A to Ci^'xfy heipg discussed between Ms. ilston and mysi t:? j i Please coxitact me if addxtii Sincerely, LiXLVXXXXCXtXV.^^ i I I Terrence J. Roberts, PlhD 'J I Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S- URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR-. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P-A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B HURST. JR.. P-A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P-A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P-A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON I. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E- KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P- MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B S CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndlyfc.nt September 21, 2001 received ( ria Facsimile \u0026amp; Mail) Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court SEP 24 2G01 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325  QffICEOr ^^SESHEGATIONnOfilHQ RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Request for Expedited Hearing. This motion concerns discovery propounded by Plaintiff to the Joshua Intervenors. Joshua has advised that they will not respond absent a Motion to Compel. We respectfully request that this matter be set for an expedited hearing at the courts earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones W. 'JWs. Richard Roachell s. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Sammye Taylor F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\wright lt.wpd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: 1. received SEP 24 20C1 Q55ICE\u0026gt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with written discovery by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua has failed and refused to respond. 2. Plaintiff contacted Joshua concerning responses and was advised to file a motion to compel. 3. A copy of the written discovery served on Joshua is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001\nthat an expedited hearing be held on this Motion at the Court's earliest convenience\nthat Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: yCnnstopher Heller (#81083^1 ZJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Or Cnristopher Heller I' tj' Uohn C. Jr. Fendley, F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-coiiipel wpd 38'9-0! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS tr (A) \"you\" or \"your' Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf\n(B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm. association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities. II (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise\nII (D) \"document' EXHIBITShall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was. but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why\n(E) \"identify tt (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address(es), occupation, job title\nand, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business\n(ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such 2The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial disparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\n(c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the incident\n''Yhen you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD\nWhether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 6INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n(c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. 7INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you determined that they did not comply\nand, (c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\n8(d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. rNTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please oroduce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37$=2^H------------. BT Cfiristopher Heller 1083\nJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on August 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F HOMF FES'DLEY LRSD OOr.des-unilan ini-rfp-Joshua-OOI wpd 10 iristopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Joshua has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiffs diseovery requests served by mail on August 9, 2001. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5) authorizes the party submitting interrogatories to move for an order compelling responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) where the party to whom interrogatories were submitted fails to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) prohibits the party to whom interrogatories were submitted from responding to a motion to compel by raising objections to the interrogatories. It provides, \"Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.\" (emphasis supplied). Similarly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) authorizes a party submitting requests for production to move for an order compelling production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\n/ Christopher Heller (#8108 w (./John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92IK) Fendley, (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher ihn C. Fendley, Jr. Heller  '/j dlev, F\n\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\des-inol-compel-bn wpd 3RECESVED SEP 2 4 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO.4\n82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUAS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS 6/^'  /.' bra.r~, r fNTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who pailicipated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is aware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you dming the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons performed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1-Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of yom monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors counsel, in response to and at the request of Superintendent Les Caimne and District counsel Chris Heller, in an effort to be cooperative with them did not publish any monitoring reports of the concenis which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written commimications from Heller, Camine and Walker - Court Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4\nPlease see Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar' loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carmine, District cormsei Chris Heller, Jrmious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2-Superintendent Canijne and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure\ndouble funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools\nthe proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school\nthe closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish bistmctional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate tieatment of African American students and staff, disparate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial sluis and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and discriminatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminatory learning environment, dispai ate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment. dispar ate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminatory practices involving the removal of the principal at J. A. Fair High School\nthe promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatory conduct toward African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment, disparate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbar Middle School involving disparate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and detennination of discipline decisions. assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic -3- achievement\nForest Heights Middle School involving dispaiate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementary involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminatoiy learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminatory learning environment, discriminatoiy practices regarding the participation in field tiip activities, racial comments by members of the PTA\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving dispaiate discipline\nWestern Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatory treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of lEPs and education of African American students\nRockefeller Elementary involving disparate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Maim involving discriminatory grading practices. discriminatory discipline rules established at the school level, disparate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentr'al High School involving discriminatory practices in student participation in extr acunicular- activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock court, student council, disparate discipline practices. one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favoring white students irr awards and activities\nParkview involving discriminatory practices in counseling services, disparate discipline, discriminatory practices in student participation in extracunicular activities (band and choir). discriminatory teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leanring evironment, resources, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assigrrment practices\nnumerous incidents of the Districts failme to properly implement lEPs of African American students\nand Safety -4-and Secmity Director Bobby Jones staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncoinpllance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2\nRefer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 4. Documents are located in files entitled John W. Walker m the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Camine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Waslungton. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Camine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to cormsei for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Coml Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbss letter of August 31, 2001, Coml Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fomrat or content of LRSDs -5-Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the parties regarding the foimat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. District officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPONSE NO. 3: Refer to response given in InteiTOgatoiy Answer No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. ANSWER NO. 7: There were no communications between the parties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed Maich 15, 2000. RESPONSE NO. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- disparities revealed by your monitoring during the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pmsuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 8: Please refer to the Joshuas Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see InteiTOgatoiy Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quarterly reports which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These reports were indicative of the racial dispaiities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Camine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshuas counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine and Heller regarding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the Distiict did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD -7-Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Supeiintendent Cainine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshuas right to contest in a vigorous manner the Districts release from court jurisdiction after the Districts report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number of times Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents periaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5\nRefer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 8. Also see Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8-ANSWER NO. 9\nJoshua received notice of nrunerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory No. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Superintendent Caimne with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Coml Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents dming this period including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fan High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Caiver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementary schools. Many of these cases were referred to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to InteiTogatoiy Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6\nSee the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9-ANSWER NO. 10\nLRSD did not adopt specific compliance standaids for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSDs failme hr this regard diminishes Joshuas ability to segregate instances of racial disparity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline reports. Fmtheimore, it is our opinion that when Aftican American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quarterly reports which confirm the continued disparity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding urterTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in InteiTogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe all incidents involving student discipline which you referxed to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n(c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegr'egation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10-ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline dm'ing this period for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman, James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based misti'eatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refen'ed to the Districts Ombudsman: 1) Millai'd Russey at Forest Heights Middle School\n2) Alex ONeal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Soutliwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodriquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Maicus Walker at Horace Maim Middle School\n9) Maim Middle Schools rules regarding participation in extracurricular activities which-are driven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Mmray at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Ewin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary\n-11-14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann\n15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle\n16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School\n17) Cedi'ic Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementaiy\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhail at Western Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann\n23) April Hayes at Paikview\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementaiy\n25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle\n26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School\n27) Peel at Forest Heights\n28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School\n29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann\n30) ClC program implementation (suspensions expunged for white students but not for black students who participated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom- communicahons with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Referrals were made during these communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support yom objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 12\nThe program, policies and procedm'es identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 reports ai^in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regaid to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshuas Response m Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 9: See InteiTogatoiy No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- suppoil your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding mtenngatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Inteirogatoiy No. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yom- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Com! to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 11: Please produce all documents m the preceding interTogatory. RESPQNSENQ. 11: Same as Interrogatory No. 14. -14-INTERRQGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yoiu- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resomces and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents hr the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inteirogatoiy No, 15, INTERROGATORY NO, 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2,5,4 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan, ANSWER NO, 16: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Court to assess compliance. The LRSDs March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that these cases are referred to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents, (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15-preceding inteiTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in InteiTogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the Program Evaluation Agenda and/or the Assessment Plan set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSDs obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegi'egation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting yorrr contention\n(b) state when you determined that they did not comply\n(c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand. (d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Sectiorr 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2.7.1 was to reach all academic programs implemented pru-suant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshuas ability to respond to this interrogatory is hindered by the Districts failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2.7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cmriculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, -16-Bonnie Lesley and Superintendent Camine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transcript of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe m detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: DisPict officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve cormsei for Joshua hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedmes proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsels complaints regarding non involvement hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertairring to your pmticipation on LRSD committees or hr LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17-District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Bhacial Committee meetings. Notices regar'ding Charter School Committee and agenda. Joshua cormsei and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a part of our ongoing monitoring activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pru'suant to 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see Comt Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the right to supplement tire answers provided herein. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 fF-ax) / By: 7 alker, AR Bar No. 64046 -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailedpostage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this Xl day o-f- It\n2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 in Walker -19-FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTEUR.SN. DDIISSTTRRIICCTT CAORUKRATN SAS SEP 25 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * ** ** ** ** * JAMEI By:_ DEP CLERK No. 4\n82CV00866 SWW received SEP 2 6 2001 CGHGEOf OE9E68EBSOMOIVITOHiNS ORDER On September 21, 2001, the Little Rock School District filed a motion to compel and request for expedited hearing concerning written discovery served on the Joshua Intervenors. By fax dated September 24, 2001, attached to this Order, counsel for the Little Rock School District has informed the Court that the motion and request for hearing are now moot. THEREFORE, the motion to compel and request for expedited hearing are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001 CHIEF JU UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITPHH RRUIALEE 58 AAND/OR 79(a) FRCa ON BY. 4505 I (l eastern FI^ED S.DISTRICTCnii IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 26 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:___M SMnfWnl ERI DEPCLERI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDTYNTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 2 8 2001 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Before the Court IS Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker. A hearing on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 9:00 a..m. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than October 5, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than noon on October 12, 2001. The Court advises counsel that it will not be available to conduct this hearing beyond October 16, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED this i^2/^^^*^^day of September, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON Chief United States District Judge DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' Wl onJ ,ND/OR 79(^)FR BY__ FRCP  n 3 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOB D. BELL. P.A JAMBS BUTTRY, P.. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM lU. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKLIPF NISBET. JR. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P., CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAPER P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN lU. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL ITT, P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL waUAM WADDELL. JR.. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT 3. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAJHES C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A DAVID D. WILSON. P.A TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. GRAP. P.A CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C FENDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGUO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A TONY L. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A BETTY J. DBMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIPFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDER8 R COLEMAN WBSTBROOR JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IPRAH JAYT. TAYLOR Martin KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS aOBBRT T. SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN $. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OP COUNSU. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A AO. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 970-762-2918 September 27, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendly^f\u0026gt;c.n*t Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows: Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4: Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2: Please identify the correspondence with. Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and \"other central office administrators\" to which you refer. Your assertion that \"[cjopies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District\" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. b/t SMr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 InterrogatorvNo. 5: Neither Dr. Camine nor Mr. Babbs acknowledged that the Comphance Plan was not provided to you until Mr. Babbs letter of August 25,2001. In fact, Mr. Babbs' letter states, \"Y ou will find no revision in it comparable to the copy of the draft that was mailed to your attention prior to board submission and adoption.\" Do you deny receiving a draft of the Comphance Plan prior to submission to the Board? Do you deny receiving a copy of the June 10, 1999, version of the Comphance Plan on July 1, 1999? Interrogatory No. 6: As we read your response, your answer ro rhis interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our imderstanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not Limited to preparation of the Comphance Plan. InterrogatorvNo. 7: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not limited to preparation of the Interim Compliance Report. Interrogatory No. 8: You reference your objections to LRSD being granted unitary status. From what we can decipher from your objections, you refer to disparities in the areas of discipline, achievement and special education. For these three areas and any others revealed by monitoring, please state (a) when you became aware of the disparity\n(b) when you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\nand (c) whether's LRSD's response to the racial disparity comphed with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. As to the \"notes and files\" of LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested tn Request for Production No. 5. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe in detail the alleged incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of disciphne. To the extent you reference correspondence with LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 6. Interrogatory No. 10: As LRSD understands your response, you answer to this interrogatory is that you do not know. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Interrogatory No. 11: Please state whether's LRSD's response to each incident referred to the Ombudsman complied with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. Request for Production No. 8: You indicate we should refer to the files of the Ombudsman. We would hke to be sure that his file is complete by comparing it to your file. Accordingly, please identify and/or provide copies of all correspondence between you and the Ombudsman.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 3 Interrogatory No. 12: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5 was to implement programs, pohcies and/or procedures to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The District's discipline pohcies and procedures are outlined very clearly in the Students' Rights and Responsibihties Handbooks for each grade level. Do you contend that these were inadequate\nand if so, please identify ah facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 9. Interrogatory No. 13: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.1 was to strictly adhere to the pohcies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facrs and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5.2 was to purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades. Do you contend that the District failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 11. Interrogatory No. 16: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.4 requires LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 13. Interrogatory No. 17: You state your position but fail to identify and describe in detail the facts and documents supporting your position\nplease do so and provide copies of any documents as requested in Request for Production No. 14. Please also identify the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Leshe Carnine which you believe supports your position. Interrogatory No. 18: As we understand your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"none.\" Please let us know if our understanding is not correct. Request for Production No. 16: Please provide copies of all documents responsive to this request.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 4 Due to the Court's deadline of November 1, 2001, we respectfully request that the above information and documents be provided on or before October 5,2001. If we have not reached some agreement by that date, we will file a motion to compel on October 8,2001. We agree to reimburse you for the cost of copying the documents requested. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Fendley, cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 COPY JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL SOBEST McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. .McHENRY 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchemyd^wbeil-nec September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the timePage Two September 20, 2001 of your motion to support your motion. Accordingly, you should soon be prepared to inform me of any additional information which you have developed since March 15, 2001, when your time at bat comes. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall Sincerely, J91^n W. Wl \u0026lt;77 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OPY Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, EA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Lhtle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.aX (501) 372-3428 Email: niciieiir7di:^wbeil.4iet September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, .Xrkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the time izich'ibi't \u0026amp;LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTR-ATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 continued Process for Obtaining Infornnation through the FOIA  Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the Arkansas FOIA from the LRSDs custodian of the record.  The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian.  To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort.  The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies.  In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1. The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours 3. 4. 5. associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges-for expenses incurred.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective\nJuly 16, 2001 continued If the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance.  Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start of the next business day.  If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage.  In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian of the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person about whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address of the subject of the request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.ua/21/ui tKi 14:52 FAA DRAFT  UUJ little rock school district administrative DIRECTIVE\nEGAD Effective: October 1,2001 the use and deletion of electronic mail pi ol'telecommunications throughout istrict recognizes that employees will shift inrormation. and contact others. As staff members\ncommunity, their use of new tools electronic mail and telecommunicatii to the performance of tasks the electronic work place, the the ways they share ideas, transmit are connected to the global employees will learn to _jons tools and apply them m appropriate wavs associated with their positions and assignments. The District encourages staff to make i and contact others in the e'dricational world oectronic communication svstems exnariila tha use of telecommunications to explore systems expedite the sharing of effective practices and lessons across the District and help staff of practice by forming partnerships with others world. stay on the leading edge across the nation and around the Purpose The specific purposes of this directive are: To ensure that the District's electronic mail system, is used appropriately 0 ensure that the District's electronic mail syste.m works efficiently\nand 0 ensure an orderly and efficient process for the ree^nn^hio and purging of extraneous mail. process for the reasonable timely Inappropriate Use Xorte\" '^haviors are inappropriate and are not pemitted on the District A. B. C, Sharing confidential information on students or employees because messages are not entirely secure\nSending or displaying offensive u, uispiaying onensive messages or pictures\nssisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to D. E. elections and business\nany ballot proposition including union Using obscene, harassing, or insulting language\nEngaging in practices that threaten the r. may introduce a virus)\nViolating copyright laws\nnetwork (e.g., loading files thatOTTSTTUT PKi i4:s3 rAl DRAFT Iffl UU4 G. H. I. J. Using others' passwords\nTrespassing in others'folders, documents, or files- Employing the network for commercial purposes\nor Promoting, supporting or celebrating religion or religious institutions. Hev.i.ew of Files and Communication-:\nThe Distnct's computer network is the property and responsibilitv of the I non As such network edministratom may review files and cSXniXtons Network administrators will report inappropriate behaviors to the emblovee's supervisor who will take appropriate disciplinary action Any other inannrnnri3+o ..:_i_x\n__ . . /-ktiy uiiier I Idle uiin.,ipiinary action Anv other renort-\nnf e-mail system and/or disciplinary action. may result in a loss of access to the Storing and Deletion of Electronic Messages and Files receive an extremely large volume of e-mail every day. Storage of e-maii in the Microsoft Outlook software has impact on the efficiency of the system. If a great negative or me system. If users want to save files kept in 1 1 Items,\" they must be approoriateiv personal folders or folders in , they must be appropriately stored in one of the other computer programs or drives. n will sX^ri 4 * rfft? administrators from the Microsoft Outlook software fifteen (15) days after it was sent or received^ Any mail or files sS-I h\"eX4^X\"= 5) 9ays or longer will be lost to the user ano will oe irretrievable. '\"'\"9 -ntil October 1, 2001 to allow all users ample time to clean and file any e-mail that they wish to save to folders. the^'richeroT^'^^^'^-^ folders to save e-iiidii. they snouio rererti f ft Jh/r. ? ^^site for steo-by-step directions DeoartmenV'^^^''^ needed, please contact the LRSD Information Services ucpdi Li ileni. e-mail, they should refer toFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEl  *lUAV\u0026lt;(vx2.|\u0026lt;*4i wtuuAM H. SUTTON. P A nviOH M. EISCMAN. JR. P A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A FREOeRiCX S. URSERY. P.A. ^SCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. VMBS C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS F. LEGGETT. PA. JOHN OeWEY WATSON. P.A. TAUL a, RENHAM III. P.A. Larry w.auftKS. r.A. A. WYCKJ.JFFNISaET.JIL. P.A. Jambs Eowaro harius. .^.x J. rruuLtP maLCOKL P.a, JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES XL SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPKERO RUSSELL Hl. P.A. DONALD H. SACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS UAXTER. P.a. HARRY E. COFUN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAY1.0a. h.*. jOSnrii u. HURST. JR.. P.A. eulZABSTH ROBKN MURKav. P.a. CKRJSTQPKEK HELUS*. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBCHr S. SHAPER. P.A. WILUAM M. CaiFFtN JU. P.A .M1CHa81,S. MOORE. P.A QIANS $. MACKEY, P.A. Walter jh, sbel iil p.a. JUiVlH A. CXASS. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW A UIMITEO LIAeiUlTY PARTNERSHir www.rrldaynrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WESTCAP1TOL wiLUAM WAOQSLU. /X., f.. LITTLE ROCX. ARKANSAS 72201-3433 JEFFREY M. MOORE. P A. OAVIO H CRAP. P.A.  CAIU.A GUNNELS SCAINHOUR. f.A. JOHN C PCNOLdr. JR . .*.A. JONANN EUZABETH CUNlCLlO. P.A. R. CHRXSTOPHER LAWSON. P a. GREGORY O. TAYLOR. P.A lOSS^H r MCKAV AiF.YANOlU A. UV r. TAYUJt IFRAH TONY WILCOX. r.A. SCOTT J. LaHCasteil f.a. .M. CaTLS CORLEY. P.A. ROEERT V, OBACH. JR.. P.A. J. use uhOWN. P.A. JAMBS C aAKCR. JR.. P.A. Marry a. ljoht, SCQTT H. TUCKER. P.A. OUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRIGS C. GAXONCX r.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A OAVtO o. WILSON. r.A, telephone 501-378-2011 PAX 501-376-2147 3125 NORTH FUTRALL ONIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 727a3-|11 TCLSFMONE 501-405-2011 FAX 501.405-2147 nUN C HICKMAN. r.A. EETTYJ. OCMOKY. r.A, LYNOA M. JOHNSON. f.A. JAMES W. SMITH. r.A. CUFTOXO W. FLUNXUTT. T A. OANtEL L. liEXMNCTON. F.a. .MARVIN L. CHILOQU X. COLZMAN weSTAROOIL JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLZN M. OWENS JASON . HENOREH ftftucz a. noweLL MICHaSL S. KARNEY XRU.V MURPHY MCQUEEN MaXTIN a. kUkSTEN aXYAN W. OUKE losvrnc Kicwoi.s MOAEAT T, SMITH *rAH A. qowmak TIMOTHY c. EZELL T MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halsext Sarah m. cotton fHlLlF a. -MONTCOMEXY taiJTEN J. UCGINS alan g. aavAN 20B NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAa 72316 TELEPHONE aro.7B2\u0026gt;zaa PAX a70.Ta2.2S18 I'lF in'iUNdCL 8.S. CUXRX WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JK H.T. LARZaUlXC. P.A JOHNC. ECHOLS. P A, A IX. .wCalIJSTSR September 12, 2001 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL iai-37Q.332S FAX tonUlayOlwc.nat ( Via Facsimile/l^'Iail) Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker\nWe are in receipt of your letter dated September 12,20(Jk We agree that our communication on this issue should be in wnting. Accordingly, please provide us a written proposal for a Protective Order. We will not make any e-mails responsive to your FOIA requests to principals available for your review until we reach an agreement on a Protective Order, Sincerely, JOO JCF/bgb P:\\HOM8\\0 BrDwntFenOlcjMJLSC^wwker Itwpd John C. Fendley, Jr. iwriurxcLr:. l_MU) r irxi'l bll SEP 'Ml 11:56 DI THE UNITED 5IAES DISTRICT com EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL, INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REVISED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SEPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Gamine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1 You did not establish a committee of staff members to regularly meet with the Joshua Intervenors in order to discuss compliance issues. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public, Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan had been met. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: You did not ask the Arkansas Department of Education to assist the Little Rock School District in meeting its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan between March, 1998 and March, 2001. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects i II ^*4X0 I wrii_i\\crc. UMU) f IKri fell HMJ/U4 SEP 28 01 11:56 at you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School Districts indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the Districts efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented during the negotiations with Arkansas Department of Education on loan forgiveness that you and counsel Heller were authorized to represent the interest of the Joshua Intervenors. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: The subject of loan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the Districts requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation of achievement disparities as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures wilh respect to the Revised Desegregationwriurxcr. UHW riKI'l bll Ha4ZU4 btH iib 'W1 ll:b7 and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501)374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax' By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a^py of the foregoing has been counsel of record, on this of September, 2001. MUtd acuveiTed to the following Mr. M. Samuel Jones, HI Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Joi . Walker i_HW r iKfl fall Hk)l/W4 bhH 28 'UI 11:56 J^OHN W. WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Lok 1723 Broadwe^ Little RjocE-Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET ''Date-. To: 'Pax: 2,'JI-OIOD Pz: Sender: YO U SHO ULD RECEIVE ] (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\"^- The infotmaiion contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity name\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_302","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Pulaski County Special School District","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/302"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIncludes vitae for Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D., clinical psychology\nLittle Rock Nine\nAttachment 1 VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA - Southern Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026amp; Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Office of Desegregation Monitoring RLE COPYCreated training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATIONXPSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals, families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS: \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1987. ir 'Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration. Vol.9. No.l. 1978. \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox, et al, eds. Introduction to Black America: A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingam Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock. Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request.Consultation services provided .to\nCalifornia Attorneys for Crimmal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital  Children's Bureau of Southern California Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026amp; McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services o Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College _ . Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present ing curriculum, coordinating student --  , of the Chah include ^(Ste governance of the University, proiatns. creating and managing yearly budgets, Heecrioti and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty i--------- Responsibilities Indstaff' Included in the job description a.s well are oactivities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985 - 1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and student workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975 - 1985 General administrative responsibility for seventeen bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation\nsmoking cessation\nweight management\nand eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 P^.esponsible for development of social work curriculum and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972 - 1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. 2. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970Attachment 2 BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Institution Pennsylvania State University Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major\nPsychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ, of Memphis, 1995-Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate)Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971, Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals\nBooks Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 115 6 16 170 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 45-71. Ross, S.M.,Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk, 2, 29-54.Attachment 2'  Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). A reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8. 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psychology in the Schools, 3 4. 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 4 5, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society. 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (in press). Bridging the Gap: The effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992,1 was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI).Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAPT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Total Score\n1998 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1998 1.000 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1998 Sig. (2-tailed) N .285 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1998 Pearson Correlation Sig. {2-tailed) .158 .285 48 1.000 48 100 T CO o CD 90 c o a  to C .y E \u0026lt; c s 80 70 60 N Q  Q Q c Q  o  Q   a  B s     Q    0 a c Q  \u0026lt; o 50.   s  s   Q  0) o s G_ 40 30 40 50 60 70 0  Total Score: 1998Attachment A- 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Total Score: isyy Percent of African-American Students: 1999 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Total Score: 1999 TOGO 48 -.046 .758 48 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1999 -.046~ .75Q 48 TSoo 48 N I 100 a  a   S o CD CD 90 oa in c CD o D 00 C CO c p \u0026lt; c ra o 80 70' 60 50 \u0026lt; *0  o o s 0- 40. 30 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 s        a   a    Q   a Q  Q   c      a  c    Total Score: 1999FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-19941 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSEHY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, PA. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 6. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 15, 2000 DECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Office OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P-A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. OEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH Of COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A, JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501 \u0026gt; 370-3323 Mr. James W. McCormack United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court. Eastern District. Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiff s Notice of Filing LRSDs Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:\\HOME\\JEANNE\\Barbara\\jef - Irsd v. pcssd clcrk-ll.wpd Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY\nyohn C. Fendiey,Jr! (#92182)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District /)ai J RESERVED MAR i 5 2GQfl CfflCEGF DESEGRGAilC\ni^lCi^uORI?iS March 15, 2000 (^PR 19 2M IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2 . Since that time, it has come to LRSD's attention that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3 . A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 . Fendley, Jr. 3HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 April 18, i^CEIVED APR 19 Joaa OTCEGF DKESRBTION MONITORINS SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete Copy of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1-4 of LRSDs interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pc5sd-brown ct al h.wpd Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILF COPYMs. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page 2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown et al h.wpdRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 r FILED f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS APR 25 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. ERK DEPCLERk- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECBVED APR 2 6  orflGtOl- OESEGREGAPOfiMONnORIHS ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the districts interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000. The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS\u0026lt;^\" DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RULE 58 ANi 3 BY_ rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCf WITH RULE 58 ANQ^R 79(a) FRCP ON__ ' Docket no. 3344. 3 3 5 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECESVSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL MAR 15 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGRESWIOM MONITORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD or District) for its Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order states: 1. LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan. A brief summary of each section of the Compliance Report is set forth below. 2. Good Faith. During the term of the Revised Plan, LRSD attempted to demonstrate its good faith by complying with its plan obligations. To manifest its good faith commitment for the future, the LRSD Board of Directors (Board) on January 11, 2001, adopted a Covenant for the Future, in which the Board promised to continue fighting discrimination, providing equity and improving the academic achievement of all students. A key component of the Districts success under the Revised Plan was the establishment of Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs) at each school. The CLTs provide the horsepower driving the Districts efforts to improve student achievement. The District invested heavily in providing training to the CLTs and school principals in Total Quality Management (TQM). All principals received intensive TQM training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The Office of Desegregation Mcxtftoring filecopyDistricts focus on quality leadership has not gone without recognition. In the fall of 2000, the District received the Quality Commitment Award from the non-profit group Arkansas Quality Award. This award recognized the District as an organization that has a plan and commitment to quality management. The Districts development of leadership talent should pay substantial dividends in the future. 3. Faculty and Staff. LRSD had a strong record in the area of faculty and staff even before adopting the Revised Plan. Even so, the District worked hard to recruit, develop and promote increased numbers of qualified Afncan-Americans. Under the Revised Plan, the District increased the percentage of Afncan-American administrators and teachers, and it increased the number of Afncan-American media specialists, counselors, secondary core subject teachers, early childhood teachers and primary grade teachers. The District also began tracking the distribution of the most experienced and educated teachers in an effort to better ensure an equitable distribution of these teachers. 4. Student Assigiunent. In accordance with the Revised Plan, the District revised student attendance zones to allow students to go to their neighborhood schools to the extent possible. While this resulted in an increase in the number of racially identifiable schools and schools more than 20 percentage points from the district-wide percentage of Afncan-American students, the increases were not dramatic. Moreover, the large number of alternative assignment choices available to students helped minimize any adverse effect resulting from the neighborhood school zone plan. This year twenty-percent of the Districts students chose to attend a school other than their zone school. 5. Special Education. While African-American students remain disproportionately represented among special education students, a review of the Districts programs, policies, and procedures revealed no vestiges of racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or other special needs programs. Furthermore, since 1998-99 the increase in the number of Afncan-American students identified with disabilities has been in proportion to 2their increase in the total student population. There has been only two percent growth in the number of identified students with disabilities since 1998-99, with the percentage of African- American students remaining just about the same. The two percent growth correlates with the increase in total student enrollment over the same period, as well as an increase in the percentage of students qualifying for ffee/reduced lunch eligibility. 6. Discipline. The number of Afncan-American students suspended decreased 20 percent from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. This was consistent with a 21 percent decrease in the total number of disciplinary sanctions. For the same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer student are committing offenses, and those that do commit offenses are less likely to commit a second offense. The behavior modification plans being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan may account for this decrease. The decrease in discipline sanctions positively impacted parents and teachers perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999-2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninety-one percent of both African-American and white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child has a feeling of belonging at school. Ninety-seven percent of Afncan-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. 7. Extracurricular Activities. Extracurricular activities increased dramatically under the Revised Plan. The number of Afncan-American students participating in extracurricular activities jumped from 2,335 to 5,203 from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. A large part of the increase in participation resulted from a no-cut policy in athletics for middle school six graders and the use of Supplemental Instructional Plans (SIPs). SIPs allow students who otherwise would be academically ineligible for athletics to continue participating in athletics while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. The District also organized an Activities Advisory Board to promote, support and enhance the activities available in the District. 3The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers also reflected the Districts success in the area of extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. 8. Advanced Placement Courses. New policies and procedures for placement of students in advanced courses greatly improved access and participation for all students, and especially African-American students. New programs have the potential of producing exponential growths in both participation and success in advanced courses in the next few years. The increasing number of African-American students participating and succeeding in advanced courses perhaps provides the best reason to be optimistic about the Districts future. With regard to Advanced Placement (AP) courses, the total enrollment of African- American students increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-01an increase of 326 students or 69 percent. The total enrollment of white/other students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01an increase of 531 students or 55 percent. The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. The number of AP courses taught increased from 16 in 1997-98 to 20 in 2000-01\nwhereas, the average high school in the United States teaches only six AP courses. With regard to high school Pre-AP courses, the total number of high school students enrolled improved from 5065 in 1999-2000 to 5953 in 2000-01an increase of 888 students or 15 percent. African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher ratefrom 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. White/other student enrollment also improvedfrom 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01an increase of 514 or 15 percent. With regard to middle school Pre-AP courses, Afiican-American student enrollment grew 937 from 1999-2000 to 2000-01an increase of 19 percent. White/other student enrollment in 4middle school Pre-AP courses grew 1076 in one yeara 24 percent improvement. The total middle school Pre-AP enrollment grew by 2013 studentsa 22 percent improvement. In contrast to the enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total. In sixth grade Pre-AP/GT English courses there were 908 students enrolled in 2000-01. At the high school level there were 261 students enrolled in English III AP in 2000-01. If the current grade six students stay in the pipeline for advanced course enrollment. the English III AP enrollment could improve 250 percent in a few years. The number of AP examinations taken increased from 422 in 1997-98 to 524 in 1999- 2000an increase of 24 percent. Although the percentage of students earning a 3 or higher on the AP examinations went down from 60 percent in 1997-98 to 52 percent in 1999-2000, the number of students earning a 3 or higher improved from 252 in 1997-98 to 268 in 1999-2000. With regard to the ACT, the most common college entrance exam taken by LRSD students, the number of test-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or 31 percent. The number of African-American test takers improved from 410 to 570an increase of 160 students or 39 percent. The number of white test takers also increasedfrom 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000an improvement of 77 students or 29 percent. African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000, their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 to 17.4, and their average composite scores from 17.2 to 17.3. While small increases, they represent a substantial accomplishment given that test scores usually decrease when the number of test-takers increases. African-American students willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. 59. Academic Achievement. The District completely revised its policies, procedures, and programs to facilitate and enhance academic achievement of all students, especially African- American students. The District implemented new standards-based curricula, effective teaching strategies, aligned materials, and a re-designed and a comprehensive professional development program in fall 1999 and expanded in fall 2000 in English language arts, mathematics, and science, K-9. School year 2001-02 will see expansions into grades 10-12, as well as K-12 social studies and the beginning of fine arts program planning. Efforts included the addition of several new student support programs, many of which were funded through federal, state, and foundation grants. This District set high expectations for its students by raising graduation standards. Beginning in 2002, seniors must have a minimum of 24 units to graduate, and beginning in 2004, they must have 26 units. In addition, the District published a Recommended Curriculum for high school students that includes eight advanced courses in the 28 units that students are encouraged to complete. The District secured several major grants as a part of its efforts to improve academic achievement. They are as follows: A $3.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support improvements in mathematics and science\nA $7.8 million Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant from the United States Department of Education to support implementation of new programs aligned with the Districts transition of the junior highs to middle schools\nTwo multi-million dollar 21* Century Learning Community grants from the United States Department of Education to develop and support after-school and summer programs to support student achievement\nA $250,000 planning grant from the Carnegie Foundation to support a year of planning for high school reform and improvements in student achievement. 6An $11 million grant proposal was submitted to the Department of Education in December 2000 to develop magnet curricula at four southwestern Little Rock schools. One challenge the District faces in its effort to improve academic achievement is students arriving for kindergarten without the necessary social or learning skills. To meet this challenge, the District went beyond the requirements of Revised Plan in funding (with no assistance from the State) an early childhood program. The District implemented new four-year-old classes in 1999- 2000 and again in 2000-01. In 2000-01 there were 954 four-year-olds enrolled234 more than the 720 required by the Revised Plan. In addition, early childhood enrollment included 254 children served in the HIPPY program\n23 infants, toddlers, and three-year olds at Metropolitan\n63 infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds at Rockefeller\nand 18 three-year-olds at Washingtonfor a total of 1058. The District implemented new procedures and programs for early childhood education designed to improve childrens kindergarten readiness level. Specifically with regard to reading and language arts, the District developed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan to guide implementation of new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across all schools. The District invested heavily in professional development for all teachers and in the purchase of classroom sets of materials for students. Consistent with the Revised Plan, the District established a two and one-half hour block of time for the teaching of reading and language arts in grades K-3. To measure success of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, the District administers the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in kindergarten through grade two. Both are informal reading inventories that are administered one-on-one. They are administered both in the fall and spring so growth can be measured. The results from the 1999 fall pre-test showed that white kindergarten students began with a score of more than two (a score of two indicates readiness for the next grade level), as compared to African-American students whose fall pre-test score was less than one. Thus, white students began kindergarten with a higher level of readiness. On the spring post-test, the kindergarten class had the highest percentage of students scoring at or 7above readiness (72.2 percent) of any of the three grades tested, perhaps as a result of the new Animated Literacy program in phonemic awareness that was introduced in fall 1999, along with the new ELLA strategies and materials. Both African-American and white students improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. On average, African-American kindergarten students post-test scores were 43 percent of that of their white counterparts. First graders performed the poorest of the three grades tested in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above readiness at the end of the school year (53.6 percent), perhaps indicating the need for the Animated Literacy program for these students. All first graders improved, but white students improved the most, probably because the reading skills that they began the year with enabled them to progress faster. However, the average score for African- American first graders was 65 percent of that of their white peers, suggesting a narrowing of the achievement gap that existed when the students entered the District. All second graders scores improved significantly over the course of the year, just as they did in kindergarten and first grade, with 67.5 percent at or above the readiness level on the spring post-test. On average, African-American students scores were 77 percent of that of their white peers, an increase from 43 percent in kindergarten and 65 percent in first grade. This again suggests that the District may be having success in narrowing the achievement gap which exists when students enter the District. With regard to reading and language arts in the intermediate grades, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across the District in fall 1999, just as with the primary grades. The District emphasized Effective Literacy in professional development for intermediate grade teachers. While the District is still not where it would like to be, the results from the State Benchmark Exam taken by fourth graders showed substantial improvement. Scores improved from 32 percent at the proficient/advanced levels in 1998-99 to 42 percent in 1999-2000an improvement of 31 percent. Afncan-American students improved almost 10 points on the exam. 8a 50 percent improvement, and white students improved four points, a seven percent improvement. The gap between the scores of African-American and white students narrowed six points in 1999-2000, from 42 points to 36 points. The rate of improvement of African-American students was 43 points higher than for white students. The District had many fewer grade four students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99a reduction of 13 percentage points or a 32 percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the Below Basic levela reduction of 16 percentage points or a 31 percent decrease. White students in the lowest level were reduced by seven percentage points for a 41 percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level was 35 points in 1998-99 and was reduced to 26 points in 1999-2000. Reading scores also improved for fifth graders on the Stanford Achievement Test (9* Edition) (SAT9) from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved five points, for Afncan-American students improved five points, and for white students improved one point. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved seven points, and for white students improved four points. The achievement gap in reading narrowed from 46 percentile points in 1997-98 to 43 percentile points in 2000-01. Fifth graders' language scores on the SAT9 also improved from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved four points and for Afiican-American students improved six points. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved four points, for Afncan-American student improved seven points. and for white students improved one point. The achievement gap in language narrowed from 36 percentile points in fall 1997 to 30 percentile points in fall 2000. With regard to math and science, the District implemented new standards-based curricula. instructional strategies, and materials in K-9. The District funded these efforts in large part with 9the grant from the National Science Foundation. Major investments occurred in professional development and in the purchase of new materials. The scores of fourth graders on the State Benchmark Exam provide a reason for optimism. The State administered the grade four State Benchmark Exam in mathematics for the second time in spring 2000. The Districts scores showed significant improvements for all students (eight points), for African-American students (seven points), and white students (eight points). Although the gap widened one point between African-American and white students in 1999-2000 (from 45 to 46 points), the percentage improvement for African-American students was much greater than that of white students, 88 percent compared to 15 percent. The Districts grade four as a whole saw fewer students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99a reduction of four percentage points or a seven percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the lowest levela reduction of five percentage points or a seven percent decrease. The gap between white and Afncan-American students in the Below Basic level shrank from 50 points in 1998-99 to 45 points in 1999-2000. Fifth graders' mathematics scores improved slightly on the fall 2000 SAT9, with all students scores up one percentile point and African-American students scores up two percentile points. Compared to fall 1997 SAT9, the average percentile scores for all students improved one point and for Afncan-American students improved four points. The achievement gap narrowed slightly from 1997-98 to 2000-01, from 36 to 32 percentile points. Tenth graders SAT9 mathematics scores also improved. Their teachers had had initial training in a standards-based curriculum, and the students were the first required to take physics in the ninth grade. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the average percentile scores for all students improved four points, for African American students improved one point, and for white students improved six points. 10. Parental Involvement. The District already had a plethora of parent and community involvement policies, procedures, and programs when the Revised Plan was approved 10in 1998. Accordingly, the District directed it efforts to widening the outreach, focusing on the school level, and creating a more coherent leadership structure at the district level. The District began including parents and community representatives on CLTs, and the Board approved a Parent Program Restructuring Plan which consolidated all parent programs under the direction of one Collaborative Action Team. 11. Equitable Allocation of Resources. The District developed a unique method of reviewing equity in the allocation of resources. Each year the resource allocation review revealed no correlation between resources allocated to a school and the schools racial composition. Moreover, the District used the results of the review in making resource allocation decisions, such as allocating grant and Title I funding. 12. Guidance and Counseling. The 1999-2000 survey of parents revealed that 94 percent of all parents, both Afncan-American and white/other, who expressed an opinion agreed that help and guidance was available to their child. This perception has proven a reality at least with regard to scholarship money received by African-Americans. Of the 301 scholarships awarded in the 1998-99 school year, 147 or 49 percent went to African-American students totaling $3,256,207 or 47 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. For 1999- 2000 school year, African-American students received a total of 185 scholarships valued at $3,716,358. Afncan-American students represented 56 percent of the scholarship recipients and received 58 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. Afncan-American females outpaced all other groups in the number received (105) and the dollar value of scholarships awarded ($1,967,654). 13. Cultural Sensitivity. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the District has been providing cultural sensitivity training through Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the Little Rock Nine and a desegregation consultant for the District approved by the Joshua Intervenors. His workshop, entitled Learning to Cope with Differences, provides strategies for dealing with differences in race, ethnicity, gender, economics, disabilities, religion and other characteristics that 11can divide people and create unhealthy tension. The 1999-2000 survey of teachers suggests that the District has done well in this regard. Ninety-four percent of African-American teachers and 93 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that District administrators value diversity. Eighty-eight percent of African-American teachers and 92 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that personnel respond to cultural differences. 14. Compliance. Section 8 of the Revised Plan included a procedure for parties to raise issues related to the Districts compliance. This procedure was invoked on only five occasions, with the last being in December of 1999. All of those issues were resolved without the necessity of court intervention. 15. The Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to achieve certain outcomes, and it has done so. Although the Revised Plan did not obligate LRSD to achieve any particular outcomes, the Compliance Report includes information on outcomes which was used by LRSD to evaluate the programs, policies and procedures being implemented. 16. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001, indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in the Revised Plan. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, an order should be entered finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. 17. LRSD respectfully requests that the Court issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges to LRSD's compliance pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan. This should be sufficient time given that the parties have known when this report would be filed since April 10, 1998, and that Section 8 of the Revised Plan 12required parties to raise compliance issues as soon as reasonably practicable. See Revised Plan, Section 8.2.1. If any party files a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, LRSD respectfully requests that a hearing on the challenge be held before June 30, 2001, the end of the 2000-2001 school year. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court immediately issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan\nthat should a challenge be filed by a party, a hearing be held on the challenge before June 30, 2001\nand that should no party file a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, that on June 30, 2001, this Court enter an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376\n:2Dii Y: Chri^opher Heller.(^108 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by handdelivery on March 15, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodward 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller 14 f. MAR 1 \nZOOi omCSOf DESE^feG^noriMO'tWRiHS Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001RECEIVED FILED U.S, DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR? 2001 OFBCEOF OSESREGAPON MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 04 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * *  * *   * * * * * *  * * JAME: By- E^W. McCQRMACK, CLERK AZ DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.' The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A. ^See docket entry 3410. M 141 4Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepare any challenges. After having consulted the Courts own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates. Any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6,2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [docket entry 3411] is granted.^ The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. A SO ORDERED this day of April 2001. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79{a) FRCP ON TH OR 79(. RY Vl ^On February 21,2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 \u0026amp; 3406. 2 ) John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright. Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19*, I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger With due respect to the court I e.'. hECEIVEO APR 12 2001 u. QfflCEGF APR O4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS WESTERN DIVISION :OURT A^MES VY MeeSRMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONSE TO LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsels trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSDs Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSDs Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted.record. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of .John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderso.s Road Little Rock. Abflassas 72210 Phone\n(.501) .372-342.5  F.ax (501) 372-.3423 Email: mchenryd^i^swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19\", I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and 1 have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who 1 intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, 1 remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr Timothy Gauger Sincerely vours. RECEIVEO may 1 8 2001 district OmCEOF desegregation mowtorimq may 1 s 2001 JAMES W IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CffttRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McCormack, clerk  dep cleric LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSDS COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases\nName of Case Bennett v. First National Bank Date of Trial May 21, 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. V. Joe Bryant III Beverly Burkett v. USDA Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. Jamie Tims v. DHS May 29, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judge G. Thomas Eisele Judge George Howard Jr.Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD June 4, 2001 D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. June 6, 2001 J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 13, 2001 Judge William Bill Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the Districts compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 18, 2001. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-z 8 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via Jjnited States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi. th day of May, i^Ol. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS rECEH^O MAY 2 9 2001 OFFICE OF desegregation MONlTORiMS CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT t  Cl-uFJsED may 1 8 2001 K, CLERK dep clerk DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all. Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. Jurisdiction is proper as Franklih A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. 3. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. 4. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Camine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. Office ol Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPY 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights imder the 5*'' and 14* Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedmal due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 215. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3,2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today. May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School Districts scandalous, whitewashing, and dirty linen covered behavior covers the front page of the states largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. 18. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Gamine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DAVIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 3The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis Due Process rights under the 14*** Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teachers character or reputation. The Supreme Court holds that a teacher, even a non- probationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employees opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Ulett, 466 F.2d 113,116 (8*** Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teachers character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to \u0026amp; prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilder man v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972)\nScheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973)\nBuhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident. Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism. She also wrote, His leadership style and relationship is respected 4by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community. She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel 99 (6 displays that Mr. Davis is a team player. Administrative policies are followed while working well with others. She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Camine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School Districts exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 - Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2,1998 - Dr. Camine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Camines intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 54.) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendents recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12,1998 - Dr. Gamine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Gamines termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Gamines recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. After the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 63.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Gamine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recommendation.(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School Districts attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principals job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Throughout the three and a half 7years Ive fought this claim against the Little Rock School District, not once have I been given an opportunity to tell my side of the story. When I file a claim, motion, suit or any type action for redress, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette immediately calls Chris Heller and allow him to bash, slander, defame, and torture my name, character, reputation and integrity. Always without giving me an opportunity to rebut. Within a day or so of my filing this motion, Chris Heller will be given newspaper space to lie and smear me in every way he chooses. Wherefore, Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se, now submits this Motion of Objection with his Prayer that the Little Rock School District is denied release from this Court. Respectfully Submitted, Franklin A. Davis 625 Northwind Circle Conway, AR 72032-3477 501 329-8722 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The imdersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Chris Heller, attorney for Little Rock School Distri^this day of May, 2001, via certified U.S. Mail. Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se Cc: Judge James M. Moody Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell, LRSD Board President 8REC0VED Iu I I FILED MAY29 2OO1 OfflCEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 22 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:: McCORWIACK, clerk\nrk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. The Court finds that the motion should be, and is hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including June 18, 2001, to file any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report. DATED this ~^day of May 2001. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. 3 4 34 [ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL,, Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * filed JUN 0 5 2001 3 w. McCormack, clerk 11 a No. 4:82CV00866 SWW received JUN 13 200' OFFICE Of DEP CLERK ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSDs Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report.* Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this day of June 2001. CfilEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTH ^ULE 58 AND/O^9(a) FRCP 3 4 4 1 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 1 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ---------------------------____2 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 BroadwayLittle Rock, AR 72206 501-374 By:_ J- W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel of record on this 15 th day of June, 2001. Jonn . Walker received JUN 2 5 2001 filed U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 20 2001 JAMES By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 \\jv. McfiORMACK, CLERK M * nDcEDP r *Ci LcEaJR'K' No. 4:82CV(X)866 SWW omcEtt_ _ _ ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ay of June 2001. CH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket sheet in compliance WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N-\u0026gt;^O^/^0/ RY 4 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC^OURTr-   - q EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  rX^iIrMRT kJ.O. L/IO 1 iaIL. I ULJUia I SAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, l,et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW DECEIVED / y m \u0026lt;3 - / JUN 2 7 2001 OfflCEOF 0nm0^M0NITQfilN6 JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. The Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the Court must have before it a written response to the districts plan or other written analysis 1- regarding that plan from the Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The school districts compliance report of March 15,2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of the status of the districts efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan... The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being unitary at this time. and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations. -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUAS SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICTS REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant\nthe involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district'\nand the receipt of the district of a quality interest award from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater. attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black ^Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i. e., the Little Rock Nine he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. -3- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the districts past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The districts evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CLT was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Camine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and ^The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4-has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentally sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case\nthe actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives\nand the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments\nand that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the Districts efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained\nnor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? The CLT program was at the heart of the Districts efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan. P. 1, Compliance Report. A quality school district meets the needs of all a students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each schools unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that objective. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this autonomy, some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLTs actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo than a system wide approach would. Moreover, the district does not appear to define success of each student. The districts three (3) page presentation under Section 2.1 is vague, uncertain, without measurement standards and therefore offers no promise of providing equal educational opportunity for all students in the school district. To this point, there is no way for determining the extent to which it has worked. -6-Section 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African- American students. The district committed to hire an expert approved by Joshua. It did so, but it did not properly explain to the Joshua expert, Dr. Terrence Roberts or to Dr. Steven Ross of the University of Memphis how they may help in assisting the district to devise remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affected African American students. Indeed, Joshua has requested, but the district has been unable to provide, a simple listing of problems which adversely affect African American students. Joshua submits that without such a listing there can be no remedies devised to those problems. It appears that Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts have been used in a consultative role regarding general school educational problems, rather than addressing specific needs of African American students. Joshua concedes that a better faculty which is more sensitive to equitable considerations is more likely to provide better quality instruction. But a better faculty as measured by professional assistance given them should produce changes in the outcomes for Black students. Despite its use of Roberts and Ross and submits that the District has not devised any remedies to any problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affects African American students. Furthermore, a review of the expenditures for both Ross and reflects limited use of their professional resources and services Roberts until Joshua complained about their relative non-use in 1999 and until the district began to compile the present report. Dr. Roberts will acknowledge that his role was enlarged due to his own initiative than that -7- of the districts. This absence of leadership reflects not only upon the planning aspect of the district but upon the results which have been achieved as well. Section 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. The district has not indicated what it has done to meet the provisions of this section. The interim report suggests that four policies were adopted to address the issue. That occurred more than a year after the Court approved the plan, did not involve Joshua and still provides no assurance that the promise will be fulfilled. Furthermore, there is no monitoring component of the provision. Joshua further notes that the office personnel of the various principals offices tend to reflect the race of the principal. The exception is that the office staffs of Black principal are more likely to be mixed. In terms of assignment, Joshua urges that principal assignments or reassignments in many cases are neither fair nor equitable. Several principals who have a record of mistreatment of Black students or staff appear to have been promoted. Several Black principals seem to have been transferred without cause against their will for no apparent legitimate reason. It can not therefore be said that the staff is being treated, assigned or utilized in a fair and equitable manner. Section 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The district commits to faculty balance in the schools. According to Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs, African American teachers should be within a range of 10% above -8- or not more than 15% below the overall percentage of African American staff at a particular grade level. The compliance report is in error. Joshua notes next that staff recruitment is not addressed to grade level needs and that there has been no presentation of the number or percentage of African American teachers at each grade level or in each school. These data are necessary in making a utilization analysis of staff. This is important because African American teachers are still appear to be concentrated in non-core areas such as special education, vocational education, remedial education, physical education, etc. Section 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. With respect to this provision, it appears that there has been no material change in the percentage or number of Black media specialists, counselors, core secondary, early childhood and primary grade teachers. The recruitment plan indicates that it provides incentives to attract African American teachers. It is uncertain what those incentives are\nand the extent to which they will be continued. It is also uncertain what the problems are with being able to move beyond the numbers that existed in 1997, especially now that it is evident that the white teacher applicant pool is also deficient. Section 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize -9-complaints of favoritism. The salary schedule freezes in arbitrary and racially discriminatory pay practices which refer back to the Williams administration between 1992 to 1996. Section 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. Joshua does not believe that this policy has been effective in practice. Policy GCF RI allows for the principal to interview and make recommendations for teaching positions. There is no process to prevent nepotism and preselection and the policy does not prohibit it. Section 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. The district has no standard for determining when it will fill a vacancy by promotion from within. A promotion from within policy ensures that a higher percentage of African American teachers and staff will be available for consideration for promotion than an open application process. The applicant pool in the former would be between 35%-40% and in the latter, it will be closer to 8%-l 0%. Therefore, when the district opens staff positions to the public at large it is knowingly inviting a significantly whites applicant pool than were it to implement a policy of promotion from within. It is also saying that a white person is preferred for the job. Under this section this is no explanation of how assignments were made in the filling of vacancies for administrative positions which were not filled via promotion. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to -10-promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. With respect to this Section, the district has merely reported the composition of each school and has fit the teachers into select categories. It has taken no affirmative steps to ensure that the more minority or low achieving schools where the remediation needs are greatest, have equally strong, experienced teachers. Joshua acknowledges that degrees and years of experience by themselves do not confirm superior status of a teacher. But these criteria tend to reflect the ability of school to be perceived as capable of maintaining its staff. That perception enables educational programs to have a better chance of being successfully implemented. Low turnover is a reflection of a schools stability, while high turnover is a reflection of a schools instability. This comment is consistent with earlier district testimony which lamented the fact that Mitchell school had almost every year for 5 or 6 years in succession principal turnover. Joshua observes that Badgett and the Charter School, Baseline, Dodd, Mitchell, Rightsell, Washington, Watson and Woodruff appear to have staff with considerably less than 10 years average experience. These are disproportionately minority schools with concentrations of free and reduced priced lunch eligible students. Cloverdale and Mabelvale fit into that category at the middle school level as do McClellan and Fair at the high school level. The assignment practices of the district are consistent with the relative status as schools of academic excellence or despair. Without doubt, the perceived quality pecking order of schools is as follow: a) high schools: Parkview, Central, Hall, Fair, McClellan -11-b) middle schools: Mann, Pulaski Heights, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, and either Southwest, Cloverdale or Mabelvale We further note that the schools appear to be more evenly balanced except for Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle and McClellan in 1998-99 with respect to average years of experience than they came to be in 2001. Inasmuch as these schools are mostly minority the plan does not appear to be delivering experienced teachers to these schools or an even basis. In assessing teachers with advanced degrees, the district median or average percentage is not presented. But the schools that have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees seem to be: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Mabelvale 23% Alternative 25% Metropolitan 23% Rightsell 32% Cloverdale 32% McClellan 49% Geyer Springs 33% Washington 37% Mitchell Baseline 38% 38% The high end schools include: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 74% Mann 59% Parkview 71% Wakefield 71% Central 63% Wilson 68% Hall 56% With respect to teachers with a masters degree plus 9 years or more experience: -12-Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Rightsell 18% Cloverdale 27% McClellan 35% Mabelvale 19% Forest Heights 27% Fair 36% Mitchell 29% Geyer Springs 29% Franklin 32% The high ends of this category reflect as follows: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 63% Mann 52% Parkview 55% Wakefield 67% Pulaski Heights 40% Central 51% Wilson 60% Hall 43% Joshua has some concerns about these categories because of its general impression that there is less stability in the schools that are more heavily minority. Note the following drops between 1998 and 2000 with respect to: a) average years of experience: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Badgett 11.63 to 8.29 Mabelvale 7.9 to 6.15 Fair 12.17 to 8.84 Rightsell 10.5 to 6.65 Cloverdale 9.84 to 8.36 McClellan 9.67 to 7.90 Washington 10.74 to 9.31 Woodruff 9.18 to 7.38 b) masters degree plus 9 or more years: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Geyer Springs 38% to 29% Cloverdale 30% to 27% McClellan 38% to 35% -13-Mitchell 32% to 29% Fair 40% to 36% Mabelvale 19% to 19% Hall 51% to 43% Rightsell 43% to 18% Washington 53% to 33% It is noted that Parkview remains relatively consistent in all of these categories and that Central is not far behind, while McClellan and Fair are relatively consistent but on the other end of the scale. The same is true at the high end with Carver, Brady, Booker, Fair Park, Gibbs, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Romine, Wakefield, Terry, Williams and Wilson. Al of these schools have higher than average concentration of white students. Joshua, therefore, submits that the schools in the LRSD are not equal with respect to the promises of Section 2.2.6 and that the high schools especially reflect gross concerns of racial inequity. Joshua, in making this point, refers to Section 2.11.1. This section addresses equity in academic honors, awards, scholarships and honor graduate comparisons. At the outset we note that the district has segregated the white grouping of students into white and other. There is no reason for the distinction other than to diminish the degree of favor which white students receive in comparison to Black students. Moreover, the district has lumped nonacademic scholarships which were more likely awarded to minority students and then set forth the total dollar value of scholarships awarded. With these things in mind, we note that the pecking order for scholarships relates to the size of the school but mostly to the reputation of the school and the race of the students in those schools. In 1997-98,of71 honor graduates at Central, 11 were Black\nand at Parkview, there were 50 honor graduates of whom 14 were Black. In this respect, we note that neither school has had an -14-African American valedictorian in the past 5 or 6 years (and Central never has). We further note that there are discriminatory nuances in the honor designation categories in those schools as well as at Hall which tend to drive white students into the top positions notwithstanding lower academic achievement and which cause them to obtain honors or awards due Black students. In 1997, approximately 25% of the honor graduates at Parkview were Black\n21% were Black in 1999-00. In 1998-99, Joshua brought to the attention of the school district, manipulative practices of the school principal and some of the white staff at Hall High School with respect to altering grade weights of white students. Those practices were reflected in an ombudsman report which established that grades of white students were manipulated in order to accord them honor status. The district now commits that it will work with students to provide equity in academic awards, honors and scholarships. This relates back to the perception of schools. Central and Parkview, and to a lesser extent Hall, appear to extend promises to white students that if they attend those schools that they will meet with academic favor and have that academic favor reflected in awards and scholarships. and to disproportiately white students in their classes. At Hall, where Black upper end achievement has been exceedingly high in the past three years, the district has diminished the relative showing of Black achievement. The chart on page 161 reflects that there were but 13 honor graduates in 1998-99 when there were actually twenty-three of whom, 16 were Black. But the public recognition went to the few white honor students. The district does not intend for a showing to be made that Black students achieve as well, if not better, than white students in certain circumstances where they have the necessary support and resources. The message is thus reinforced that Parkview, Central and Hall are the best schools for white students in that order and that Fair and McClellan dont count for white students. That image drives white students geographically assigned to Fair and McClellan -15-to private schools or to white flight public schools. The charts presented by the district are incongruent with respect to scholarships awarded for honors or academic work. If 70% of the honor graduates in 1998 were white in all the schools, then the scholarship values should reflect that. Instead, they are about equal during that year and in 1999- 2000. African American students received approximately 60% of the scholarships. We believe that the district is not fairly presenting its evidence and that the facts it presents are inaccurate, but they do not detract from the basic point being made in Section 2.2.6. The teachers are largely responsible for the quality of education delivered. In that the teachers of the southwest schools and the schools with high minority populations do not seem to be equal with respect to the criteria delineated in the plan, it becomes easier to understand how the outcomes which may be measured by honor graduate. and scholarships by achievement show them to be in such low standing. The district is aware of the fact that the state scholarships administered by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education have racially discriminatory impact upon Black Little Rock graduates. It has not taken steps to bring this matter to the attention of the ADE as set forth in the state agreement herein. Section 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. There have not been established procedures for the mandatory reassignments of teachers. Whatever negotiations occurred between Knight and the district did not result in a procedure for that result where required by the necessity of equity. Joshua submits that not one teacher has been assigned by the district from a perceived strong school to a perceived weaker school for the purpose of remediation of achievement disparities. -16-Section 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. The district does not indicate which policies, programs or procedures that it has revised with the but not limited language of Section 2.3. Furthermore, policies JC and JCA have been in effect for only one year. Joshua notes that these policies were approved May 25, 2000 and that there has been no realistic time to assess their effectiveness assuming that they met their purpose in the first place. As noted elsewhere in this set of concerns, it appears that the schools in the southwest are becoming one race and grossly inferior while the schools in Pulaski Heights area and west Little Rock are becoming disproportionately white and superior. The district does not indicate what steps it is taking to prevent these assignment and quality patterns from occurring. Section 3.6. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. With respect to new school construction and school closing, Joshua has not been involved in the meetings of the west Little Rock school site selection committee and to our knowledge, no site has been selected. The location of that site could significantly affect desegregation possibilities or -17- created further desegregation problems. On the other hand, on information and belief, the district plans to close Mitchell, Badgett and Rightsell because of age and poor maintenance. Joshua is concerned that court release could free the district to place the Jefferson replacement school in a site which is disadvantageous to Black pupils. It also leaves open the possibility of keeping Jefferson as a school. This would tend to create greater desegregation burdens upon African American students. Section 2.4. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. First, Joshua has not been involved in the devisation of the promised programs, policies and procedures in this section or any other section. The 504 program is replete with difficulties and programs which tend to impact African American students in a disparate way. As reflected by the charts on page 22, it appears that African American male and female students are over identified. Such identifications have labeling effects which are anathema to a unitary school system. Section 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The disciplinary programs still tend to be disproportionate. We note that the District has not indicated by gender as it did with respect to the charts on page 22 the students who are actually being suspended. Joshua contends that the suspensions and expulsions are falling most heavily upon African American male students. Some schools are more zero tolerant than others. While the district has diminished the number of overall suspensions, we note that the reduction in white -18- suspensions between 1998 and 2000 was approximately 29%, while the reduction in Black suspensions was approximately 5%. The numbers are roughly equal but the percentages are grossly disparate. This reflects a district still inclined to give more favor to white students. For each Black reducton it makes a white reduction. This is disturbing for if disparate treatment was occurring, the students who benefit from the remedy should be those who suffer rather than those who benefitted all along. Joshua will also point up at a hearing that virtually all the referrals by resource officers and/or district officials to juvenile officials are of Black pupils. White students are seldom referred to those sources when they misbehave. Furthermore, when Black resource officers attempt to respond sensitively to suspensions and referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice system, there is evidence that those resource officers are subject to removal or dislocation. Zero tolerance practices tend to apply generally to Black students and not to white students. Section 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are discipline in a fair and equitable manner. This section has to be constantly subject to review because of the disparate treatment received by Black students, especially Black males. See Section 2.5 above. Joshua also requests that the district provide a breakdown by school and by gender, race and offense of the discipline sanctions imposed upon the students during each of the past 3 years. Section 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students discipline records after the fifth grade an eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. -19-The district has not adopted a policy to apply or define with respect to the best interests of the students. This allows subjective consideration to displace objective consideration. Section 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of Ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. Joshua has serious concerns about the ombudsperson position with respect to job description, role and relationship to the administration, duties to students, sufficiency of staff and receptivity of administrators to the efforts of the ombudsperson to investigate complaints. Joshua submits that the Office of Ombudsperson requires a staff, organization, definition of roles and responsibilities and a direct reporting line to the superintendent and the board if the agreed upon expectations are to be realized. Joshua further notes the activities of the ombudsperson are not in this report. His reports, however, demonstrate that there are myriad problems associated with school desegregation implementation which give substance to the need for position in the first place\nand which justify court continued supervision in the second place. Section 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua is concerned with the lack of definition with the term students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 95 Until that term is defined and standards set for implementation, there can be no assurance that the plan being developed addresses the purposes of this section and are being administered in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Moreover, there is no showing how the District has -20- applied these plans since 1997 in order to assist Black students. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses the gifted and talented program. Joshua is grossly concerned about the extracurricular section. First, the figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The administration of the advanced placement program gives rise to concerns that white students are being placed more into AP courses in earlier points in their lives and that in effect when one views the participation of academic activities one will find that those are largely participated in by white students. With respect to football, basketball and track, those activities are disproportionately Black. The Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) gives rise to the impression that Black students are being place therein in order to qualify them for athletic participation. In any case, extra curricular participation is not as the district presents it. The chart on page 28 shows that co-cunicular participation has been increasing at the same rate for Black students over the past three years. Joshua is not familiar with an Activities Advisory Board and how it relates to having met desegregation goals and objectives, and has not been invited to participate in it. Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African- American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement -21-courses. There has been no assessment of the training programs for teachers and counselors for each of the last three years in order to assist them in identifying and encouraging African American students participation in honors, enriched and advanced placement courses. These sections demonstrate that programs are beginning to be implemented for the first time in 2001 and afterwards. These programs are 3 years late, with no evaluation criteria or component and are rife with problems, and no track record! For example, the board is establishing different graduation seals, using standards that are arbitrary and which particularly favor white students. Joshua is completely opposed to a system where Black children are not taught on the same basis as white children and then have that lack of teaching rubbed into their faces at graduation when they are denied honors. We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation. We note also that in the elementary and junior high grades, there have been hundreds of Black pupils whose standardized test scores place them in the 90+ percentiles. While the district says it is trying to get everybody onto the same playing field, on an equal basis, establishing criteria which give the impression that white students are inherently unequal is patently unfair. In reviewing the additional courses and other activities, Joshua has general concerns about those programs and activities that are set forth on pages 32-35. There is no educational justification for an International Baccalaureate Program at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High School. These students do not have the resources available to them as do students at Parkview and Central. The gifted participation remains as it has been, mostly white at the elementary schools and the percentage at the secondary schools appears to be moving up from 50% to 52%. As with white -22- and Black students with discipline, the practice to provide a one for one benefit for white pupils any time Black pupils advance. The District presents a chart to show African American student enrollment is increasing in advanced placement courses, p. 38. Joshua observes that there is no real change. In 1997, 33% of those students were minority and in 2000, 35% were minority. While the number increased from 33 to 39 in tw'o years, it dropped to where it was in 1997. The African American totals appear to have increased from 471 in 1997 to 797 in 2001, a difference of 326. The non black numbers. however, increased from 964 to 1495, a difference of 531. Taking into account the fact that non Black students are only approximately one third of the school system, their numbers increased to a point that virtually every non-black student is in an AP class. That translates into mostly white classes for white or non-black pupils. It is projected that for next school year there will be 2230 non Black students in the high schools. Assuming that at least 1495 of them as was the case last year are in AP courses, then 67%, or two of every three of the white students are in AP courses. Assuming that there will be 4509 Black students in the high schools next year and that 797 will be in AP courses that means that only 17%, or less than two of every ten of the Black students will be in AP courses. We submit that there is no way under the sun that a white population can be so much smarter than a Black population whoever makes the assessment. On the percentages alone, that means that the white students are almost four times more likely, i.e. smarter, to be placed into AP courses than Black students. It means that every time an additional Black student is placed into an AP course, 1.5 white students are placed in to AP classes. The further ahead we get, the further behind we get comment often made by African American citizens is given dramatic proof by this single statistic. There are some interesting patterns of enrollment in AP courses. Black students are -23- enrolled more in AP American history then any other subject. White students are enrolled more in English IV, English III and Environmental Science and Spanish IV. Less than 10% of the students\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1107","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2000-01-13/2000-12-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1107"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["153 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 13, 2000 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, January 13, 2000, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Baker Kurrus Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Kumpuris Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Vice President Katherine Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6: 17 p.m. Four members of the Board were present at roll call\nMr. Kurrus arrived at 6:30 p.m.\nMs. Strickland and Mr. Kumpuris were absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following items: Presentation: Wings of Eagles Charter Proposal Action: Residential Alternative Charter School Executive Session for Personnel Items Discussion: Additional budgetary funding/campus level Appointment ofFundraising Board or District Foundation SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 13, 2000 Page2 ID. PRESENTATION Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Clarence Harville, Wade Poole, William Broadnax and James Lester attended the meeting on behalf of the Wings of Eagles Charter School. Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Harville currently own and operate five day care centers in the Little Rock/North Little Rock area. Mr. Poole made a brief presentation summarizing the intent and purpose of the application to the State of Arkansas for securing a charter for operation of a program for public school four and five year old students. William Broadnax, who serves as a consultant to the Harville's in this endeavor, also spoke to the Board at length regarding the goals and objectives which are detailed in the application. The Board agreed to review the application prior to the regular January Board meeting and to meet in a work session thirty minutes prior to the meeting on January 27th if there are any additional questions or concerns to be addressed to the Harvilles. IV. ACTION Residential Alternative Charter School Dr. Linda Watson presented a recommendation for authorizing implementation of the Elementary Residential Charter School for the 2000-2001 school year. The Board had, in previous action, approved the site and had authorized the process for selection of a Director. The Arkansas Department of Education had previously granted the District $10,000 for first-year planning, and a $47,000 continuation grant for second year planning initiatives. Dr. Carnine reported that the application was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education in December 1999 and that the ADE had contacted him regarding a formal Board action authorizing a letter of intent. He indicated that the full application packet and additional details would be presented to the Board prior to the March meeting for final approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the recommendation to submit the application for a residential elementary alternative charter school with the understanding that the final determination would be made later based on further information. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Personnel: Mr. Berkley made a motion for the Board to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 13, 2000 Page3 The Board returned from executive session at 8: 12 p.m. and reported that no formal action had been taken. Dr. Carnine recommended to the Board that Dr. Gary Smith be hired as the Director of the Division of Exceptional Children. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the recommendation, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent also recommended that Dr. Don Stewart be employed as the District's Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the recommendation. Mr. Kunus seconded the motion and it carried 4-0-1, with Dr. Mitchell abstaining from the vote. Discussion: Budgetary Funding/Campus Level Dr. Carnine indicated that additional funding for the local schools should be available as a result of funds received from the State due to increases in enrollment across the District. He indicated that additional information would be made available for review at the worksession, which is scheduled later in January, and that he would be asking the Board to approve additional funding for the schools at that time. Discussion: Advisory Board for District Foundation Dr. Carnine suggested that a 14 or 15 member advisory board be named to oversee the District's formation of a Fundraising Committee or District Foundation. After a brief discussion, the Board members agreed to a seven-person advisory committee to determine whether such a board should exist. Each Board member is to submit the name of one person to serve on this committee. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the formation of an exploratory committee for a fundraising or foundation board. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kurrus moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Magness and carried unanimously. Baker Kurrus, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 RECEVED MAR 3 2000 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District rescheduled the regular January meeting due to inclement weather on January 27. The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 3, 2000, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Board President, Sue Strickland, presided. Prior to the meeting, the Board requested a brief session to discuss a proposal for a charter school by Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Clarence Harville. In addition to Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Harville, William Broadnax and Wade Poole responded to questions from the Board regarding the application to operate an early childhood charter, Wings of Eagle. The Harvill es indicated that they had received funding from the Arkansas Department of Education and from the Wal ton Family Foundation in the form of planning grants. They also indicated that they would be seeking additional grant funds if their application for a charter were approved by the state. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness ALSO PRESENT: I. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER Sue Strickland, President, called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. Four members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 6:25 p.m. Ms. Magness and Mr. Kumpuris were absent. Ex-officio representative to the Board, Darrick Williams, teacher from Washington Elementary School was also present. - REGUIAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Page2 II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular board meeting of December 16, 1999, and from a special meeting on January 13, 2000 were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Berkley. ill. PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Ex-officio member of the Board, Darrick Williams, teacher from Washington Elementary School, was presented with a citation of appreciation for his service on the Board for the month of January. B. PARTNERSHIPS Due to the rescheduling of the January meeting, partnerships noted in the agenda will be recognized at the February 2000 meeting of the Board. C. BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Mitchell reported that she had visited alternative programs at the Metropolitan Accelerated Leaming Center. She noted that this was a wonderful opportunity for students to gain skills and become involved in career education programs that will encourage them to continue their education beyond high school. She noted that some of the students leaving Metropolitan go directly to work in their chosen field. She also thanked James Washington, the District's ombudsman, for doing a good job in a difficult position. Mr. Kurrus thanked Bill Spivey and David Duke who are parent volunteers in the girls soccer program. He stated that these men give a lot of time to these teams and are very talented and professional coaches. Mr. Kurrus also encouraged the community to attend District athletic events\nhe remarked on the good sportsmanship of the players and the good behavior of our student spectators. Ms. Strickland stated that she had dropped in for informal visits at several schools. She was pleased to see a number of learning activities and students who were actively involved in their work. She thanked Mike Peterson for his enthusiasm about the programs at Metropolitan. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Page3 D. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Frank Martin addressed the Board on behalf of the Classroom Teachers Association. He asked that the Board allow the CTA to submit questions for consideration on the Charter School issue. He noted that this is the final year on the three-year contract with support personnel. He is hopeful that negotiations with these groups and with the teachers can be concluded before personnel head home for the summer break. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Clois Bell, teacher at Mabel vale Elementary School, spoke on behalf of the faculty and staff at Mabelvale. She noted that the campus leadership team, the faculty, staff and parents at Mabelvale voted to support the extended year proposal and she asked the Board to support the calendar, which is scheduled for a vote on this agenda. Sharon Faulkenberry, teacher at Rightsell Academy, will be assigned to the new Stephens School when it opens during the 2000-01 school term. She spoke in favor of the extended year program, and noted that this schedule will be of great benefit to student learning. She noted that shorter breaks throughout the year (intercessions) would be helpful in remediation efforts for those students who require extra tutoring. She asked the Board to support the extended year proposal that they will vote on in this agenda. V. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review - Section K Policies KDA, Public Information/School Communications Program, KDD, News Media Relations, and KDE, Crisis Management, were presented for second reading approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Board Policy Review - BEDB The Board requested a review and revision of Board Policy BEDB - Agenda. Since first reading, the Board agreed to modify the policy to include \" Citizens Committees,\" which would allow presentations by groups or individuals at Board meetings. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the amended policy on second reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Page4 C. K-5 Reading Textbook Adoption The Reading Textbook Committee provided a recommendation for adoption of Harcourt Brace Reading Series for grades Kindergarten through fifth grades for the duration of the new state reading adoption cycle. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the recommendation, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Dr. Daugherty arrived at 6: 25 p.m. D. Extended Year Education Frances Cawthon-Jones, Assistant Superintendent, provided a recommendation to approve the acceptance of an extended year calendar for the 2000-200 I school year at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens Elementary Schools. The committee met with a consultant on extended year education and will continue planning for the remainder of the current school year. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the recommendation at these three sites. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. E. Negotiations Team for Teacher Contract The administration asked for the Board to affirm their representatives in the teacher negotiation process. The proposed team is Brady Gadberry, Jimmy Mosby, Tyrone Harris, Gwen Ziegler, Mark Milhollen, Vic Anderson, and Dick Hurley. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to approve the listed administrators. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Student Calendar, 2000-2001 Brady Gadberry provided the Board with a proposed calendar for the 2000-0 I school year. He worked with representatives of the three Pulaski County School Districts to align the calendars as much as possible. In addition, Dr. Carnine asked the Board to suspend the rules in order to consider the calendar proposed for the extended year schools, which were approved earlier in this agenda. Mr. Kurrus offered a motion to suspend the rules for this consideration. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley then offered a motion to approve both of the proposed student calendars. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. - REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Pages G. Southwestern Bell Easements The Board was asked to approve a request from Southwestern Bell for an easement at the Alternative Learning Center. Mr. Eaton reported that granting this easement would not affect the normal operations at the school. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the requests for easements. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Allocation of Resources - Additional Funding for Schools The Board was provided with information on the provision of additional resources to the individual campuses. Dr. Carnine reviewed the proposal and responded to questions from the Board. The recommendation was made to provide additional funds to address some of the funding deficiencies in co-curricular activities, with the condition that the Campus Leadership Teams would be involved in deciding where the money would be spent. Funds would also be spent to implement requirements of the National Science Foundation grant, with the vast majority of that money being spent on graphing calculators and other math and science equipment. Dr. Mitchell spoke to the proposal, saying that she was supporting the expenditure of these funds, but that she still had concerns that the money should be spent in the schools where there was the greatest need. She noted that there are severe space and maintenance needs at some of our schools that should be addressed. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the allocation of additional resources. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. L Recommendation for Salary Schedule for Speech Pathologists The District's Speech Pathologists presented a proposal, through Dr. Richard Hurley, which would remove them from the L.R. Classroom Teachers Association bargaining unit and would establish a separate salary schedule for them. The proposal would result in a savings to the district which was estimated to be $210,000 annually. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the recommendation to place the Speech Pathologists on a separate salary schedule. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. J. Charter School Proposal: Wings of Eagles The Board heard a presentation by Clarence and Charlesetta Harville, William Broadnax and Wade Poole on January 13, 2000. At that time the Board requested additional information regarding the Wings of Eagles proposal and Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Harville were present prior to this meeting to respond to additional questions from the Board. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Page6 At the conclusion of their presentation, Dr. Mitchell suggested that the Board delay action on this issue for one week to allow District staff and administrators to further review the materials submitted. Dr. Mitchell, therefore, offered a motion to table. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Mr. Berkley. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOIJDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Carver Magnet School $ I 0,000 cash to purchase computer lab Carver Magnet PTA software Chicot Elementary Schoo I $1,000 cash to purchase library books (in National Education Goals Panel honor of President Clinton for his (presented by Secretary of Education contributions to meeting the Panel's goals) Riley in Washington D.C.) Forest Heights Middle School Athletic Dept. $20.00 cash Robert and Marilyn Beach $540.00 cash Robert B. and Lisa Beach $40.00 cash Oscar E. and Sue S. Davis $100.00 cash James C. Clark, Jr. Forest Heights Middle School Drill Team $250.00 cash J 45ili Social Club $50.00 J. C. Penney Gift Certificate Margaret 1bomas Geyer Springs Elementary $500.00 cash . West L.R Kiwanis Club Otter Creek Elementary Hewlett Packard 812 C printer (valued at Tommy Hodges/Otter Creek Land $150.00) Company Pulaski Heights Elementary Lexmark 211 printer Anita Aebersold Services of an art teacher and art supplies, P.H. Elementary PTA valued at $9,023 Pulaski Heights Middle School Three wooden bookcases with glass doors U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal and three file cabinets Highway Administration Terry Elementary School 27 Hewlett-Packard 712 C printers. Total Terry Elementary PT A estin1ated value $3,000 Western Hills Elementary Computer table valued at $200.00 Jannette Prinlm LRSD Athletic Dept for Central Basketball 60 pairs of shoes and socks, 50 tee-shirts, Nike Team 6 coaches polo shirts, 20 travel bags, 24 hats, 15 warm-up suites and 6 pairs of coaches' shoes. Total value $8,790. Central High Schoo I Incentive Program $500cash Randy Williams/Josten's Graduation Shop REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Page7 SCHOOIJDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Central High School $1,000 cash Robert East Company, Inc. $312.30 cash Target Take Charge of Education Central High School Band Dept Flute, valued at $200.00 Mary Janet Murray Piano, valued at $2,000 and $50,00 cash Dr. Gary Wheeler for equipment $100.00 cash for equipment Dr. Tommy McCall $500.00 cash for equipment St Mark Church Central High School Science Dept. $200.00 cash for equipment Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Jeffery Kirchner $5,000 cash for equipment Ms. Alice Faust $250.00 cash towanl purchase of a Regions Financial Corporation computer L. Personnel Personnel items were printed in the agenda. No additional information was requested or reported. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the recommendations for personnel. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. M. Financials The monthly financial reports were printed in the Board's agenda for review and approval. Dr. Carnine introduced Dr. Don Stewart, who was recently hired as the District's Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the reports as presented. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Desegregation Update Junious Babbs provided a brief review of current activities in the Student Registration Office and the Board was provided with the January 11, 2000 enrollment count. He reported that the open enrollment period for the 2000-01 school year had been extended an additional two days due to the inclement weather of last month. The compliance committee continues to meet monthly to prepare the report that is due March 15, 2000 to the U. S. District Court. In addition, Dr. Terrence Roberts, desegregation consultant, met with campus supervisors and school resource officers and he will continue to return periodically to provide inservice for District staff. REGULAR BOARD l\\1EETING January 27, 2000 Page 8 B. Budget Update Dr. Carnine reported that the formal budgeting process will begin within the next few eeeks for the 2000-01 school year. Mark Milhollen and Don Stewart will meet with the Board as soon as they have prepared preliminary information for review. C. Stephens Construction Update Doug Eaton reported that materials had been received for the roof and that sixty percent of the flooring had been completed. By the end of the month he expects that the exterior walls will go up. He invited the public and Board members to visit the site and see the progress. He estimated that the project was three weeks off schedule due to the cold and wet weather, but that they expected this time to be made up by working 6 and 7 day shifts throughout the spring and summer months. It is expected the building will be complete in December 2000, with an anticipated occupation in January 2001. D. Auditors Report Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor, provided a written report for the Board's review. He responded to questions from the Board and indicated he was prepared to meet with Board members individually at their convenience to review specific information or provide additional details. E. Millage Campaign/Bond Issue Report Dr. Carnine reported that he had been speaking regularly with Senator Riggs, and that they had met with the Superintendent's Student Cabinet.and various other community groups. He asked the Board to set a date and time for a special session to hear the recommendations of the exploratory committee. Dr. Carnine suggested either the February agenda meeting, or a special meeting on February 17tli. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None IX. DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS None REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 27, 2000 Page9 IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Mitchell moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Berkley and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: ~ J. 4 00 Baker Kurrus, Secretary , LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 10, 2000 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, February 10, 2000, immediately following the regular agenda meeting, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Vice President Katherine Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:56 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nMs. Strickland was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following items: Action: Wings of Eagles Charter Proposal Discussion: Proposal to Rename the Instructional Resource Center IV , SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 10, 2000 Page2 III. ACTION Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Clarence Harville, Wade Poole, William Broadnax and James Lester attended the meeting on behalf of the Wings of Eagles Charter School. Board members expressed several concerns regarding support for this proposal and the Harvill es responded to questions and concerns. Some of the considerations and concerns expressed by the Board are noted below.  That the school would not promote the county-wide school desegregation efforts. (Mr. Broadnax responded that the 100-student capacity would not significantly impact the LRSD student population.)  Questions and concerns about plans to attract and recruit students. The area where the school is located would tend to promote a one-race student population. (Mr. Broadnax responded that they would \"aggressively\" recruit at-risk and economically disadvantaged students.)  On the issue of funding and eligibility for state monies, it was noted that the application did not specifically address how monies for early childhood and kindergarten programs would be kept separate.  The ADE requires that Charter schools be innovative and fiscally sound. The Board noted that the Wings of Eagle application does not provide evidence of either.  Concerns were expressed regarding providing services to special education students. In addition\nit was noted there is a significant Hispanic population in the area where the school is located and it was questioned whether ESL services would be included in the curriculum. (Mr. Broadnax noted that these services would be contracted out.) Mr. Kurrus made a motion that the Board disapprove the application for a charter as submitted by Wings of Eagle. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0- 1, with Dr. Daugherty abstaining. Under the rules and guidelines for Charter School of the Arkansas Department of Education, the Board is required to submit a letter of objection. The Board asked the Superintendent to have the letter prepared and submitted. A copy of that letter is attached to these minutes. , SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 10, 2000 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Dr. Mildred McNair of Inglewood, California submitted a request for Board consideration to rename the Ish School/Instructional Resource Center after Attorney John W. Walker. Mr. Kurrus asked for a review of the District's policy for renaming facilities expressing some concern that Mr. Walker may not be aware of these efforts. Dr. Mitchell noted that the District had not ever renamed a facility that was previously named for an individual. Dr. Jefferson Ish, for whom the building is named, was a prominent African American physician in Little Rock who made many contributions to the community during the time he practiced medicine here. She feels that the current community still remembers Dr. Ish for these contributions and she would object to removing his name from this building. Mr. Kumpuris supported Dr. Mitchell's viewpoint and stated that although he has a high degree ofrespect for Mr. Walker and the work that he has done for desegregation in the three districts in Pulaski County, he noted that Mr. Walker's work is not complete. Mr. Walker still has a lawsuit pending against this school district and Mr. Kumpuris would ask the Board to consider this an inappropriate time to consider naming a building for Mr. Walker. Ms. Magness and Dr. Daugherty concurred with these statements. Dr. Daugherty further stated that, because we are still in litigation with Mr. Walker, naming of a facility for him could be construed as an attempt to influence Mr. Walker. He also suggested that the timing was inappropriate. The Board agreed by consensus to deny the request for naming the Ish facility for Mr. Walker. Mr. Kurrus invited further di~ogue for future consideration ofnarning a facility for Mr. Walker. It was agreed that a letter to Dr. McNair would be prepared noting the objections and reasons for denying the request at this time. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 6:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugh,,e rty and carried unanimously. r ~Lfj?_c J[i_ Ll0u- JJ Sue Strickland, President APPROVED: J ,J.,4 ~oo \u0026amp; 1,t\n/1.1,1,... _ _, Baker Kurrus, Secretary February 11, 2000 Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Simon: The Little Rock School District Board of Education cannot support the proposed Wings of Eagle Charter School Academy. The reasons fall into the following four categories which are described in more detail below: educational\nfinancial\ninclusion issues\nand other legal issues. EDUCATION 1. One purpose of the Arkansas law allowing the creation of charter schools is to free the schools from the burdens of existing laws and regulations so that they can try new and innovative approaches to education. The educational programs described in the Wings of Eagle petition, however, are already in place in the Little Rock School District. 2. The exemptions from state law sought by the Wings of Eagle Charter School do not indicate intent to offer programs different from what can now be offered by public schools within the current restraints of state law. They seek only to use non-certified teachers and administrators, to contract out other staff positions, to employ a reduced salary scale, and to adopt a different school calendar. 3. The Wings of Eagle petition contains no plan for academic achievement. It states only that such a plan will be developed before the beginning of the school year in August, 2000. FINANCIAL IMPACT 1. No budget was included with the original Wings of Eagle petition. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 February 11, 2000 Page 2 2. A budget, which was later provided, seems to depend upon state financing of four-year-old students, something the state has been unwilling to do. 3. The Wings of Eagle representatives have indicated that they may seek daycare funding from the Department of Human Services and charter school funding from the Arkansas Department of Education for the same students. This may not be legally possible. 4. LRSD's regular state aid for the 2001-2002 school year would be reduced to the extent LRSD students choose to attend the Wings of Eagle Charter School. Additionally, the loss of LRSD students would jeopardize the District's growth funding which it has received from the Arkansas Department of Education for the last few years. INCLUSION ISSUES 1. There is a substantial likelihood that Wings of Eagle Charter School will be established as a racially identifiable school. LRSD cannot support the creation of a new racially identifiable school, which will have no significant plans or prospects for desegregation. 2. The neighborhood in which the Wings of Eagle Charter School would be established has a significant Hispanic population. The Wings of Eagle Charter School petition does not reflect adequate resources or an adequate plan for teaching ESL students. 3. The petition does not show that Wings of Eagle Charter School has the capability or the resources to include special education students in its program. OTHER LEGAL ISSUES 1. Private or parochial elementary schools that were in existence on July 30, 1999 are not eligible for open enrollment charter school status. The petitioners have been operating a four-year-old program with an educational component at the site designated for the charter school. There is an argument that the charter school petition would merely convert a privately funded four-year-old program into a publicly funded program and add a publicly funded kindergarten program. February 11, 2000 Page 3 2. Charter schools are not allowed to be religious in their operations or programmatic offerings. The petitioners presently operate a daycare program doing business as \"In His Image\" at the site designated for the charter school. It is not clear from the petition how any religious program offered at the site will be separated from the publicly funded charter school program. For these reasons, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District voted 5-0-1, to decline to support the petition for the Wings of Eagle Charter School. This motion will be found in the minutes of the meeting held on February 10, 2000. cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Clarence Harville LRSD Board of Directors Respectfully submitted, tJ, n a/ ~u ~ \" Lesli~ f. Carnin-e ~- - - Superintendent of Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Mildred McNair 2918 W. 101 51 Street Inglewood, CA 90303 Dear Dr. McNair: February 25, 2000 I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for submitting the request to rename the lsh Instructional Resource Center for Mr. John W. Walker. Our Board of Directors placed this item for discussion on the agenda of a special meeting held on February 10, 2000. Each of the Board members expressed interest in the biographical information provided in your proposal. Mr. Walker has certainly established himself as a leader in the efforts to provide a better educational opportunity for all of the children in Little Rock, Pulaski County and the State of Arkansas. The Board declined by consensus to rename the lsh Instructional Resource Center. Some of the reasons for this included the fact that the Instructional Resource Center was originally constructed as an elementary school and was named for Jefferson G. lsh, who was a prominent African American physician in the Little Rock community. One Board member in particular recollected that Dr. lsh saved her life as an infant and she would certainly object to removing his name from this educational facility. She also noted that there have been no instances where a facility previously named for one individual was renamed for another. As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of the minutes from our February 10 meeting. You will note that several Board members agreed that further dialogue for future consideration of naming a facility for Mr. Walker was entirely possible, but that any consideration would be after the current litigation is no longer before the Courts. Thank you for your interest in the Little Rock School District and I look forward to a time in the future when your proposal may come back before our Board for review and consideration. Sincerely, 1 I', d .t/- 1 \\,,/ I 1 \"--- ~ at., e..-\n!). {AJ..-\u0026lt;.J C4,/L /i/ Strickland, President Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 MAR 3 1 20 3 OFFICE I OESEGISTION ITORl The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2000 in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Board President, Sue Strickland, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes L CALL TO ORDER II. Sue Strickland, President, called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Margaret Leigh, teacher from Watson Elementary School and student representative, Langston Carr from Fair High School, were also present. READING OF MINlJTES: Minutes from the regular January 27 Board meeting, which was rescheduled due to inclement weather to February 3, and from a special meeting on February 10, 2000 were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Kurrus. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page2 ID. PRESENTATIONS: A. SPECIAL PERFORMANCE: ANIMATED LITERACY Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education, introduced students from Terry and Mabelvale Elementary Schools and their teachers, Nona Grubbs, Ann Filiatreau and Donna Hudgens. They demonstrated a student reading program called Animated Literacy, which focuses on phonemic awareness in early reading instruction. B. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of February were presented citations of appreciation. The teacher representative was Dr. Margaret Leigh from Watson Elementary School and the student representative was Langston Carr from J. A Fair High School. C. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals who recently established working partnerships with District schools. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: M. L. King Elementary School - represented by Tyrone Harris, in partnership with Bank of the Ozarks - represented by Pamela Petty and Mark Ross Meadowcliff Elementary School - represented by Jerry Worm, in partnership with K-Mart Rightsell Academy - represented by Sharon Brooks \u0026amp; Ma,y Ann Hansen, in partnership with The Weekend Theatre - represented by Val Carr \u0026amp; Dr. Richard Jordan with the cast of the current show Terry Elementary School - represented by Nancy Acre, in partnership with Kidsports McClellan High School - represented by Wanda Baskins, in partnership with Club KLP. Communications, Inc. - represented by Pam Brown Courtney REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page3 Partnerships (continued) Metropolitan Career Center - represented by Mike Peterson \u0026amp; Terry Kirkpatrick, in partnership with: Buds Graphics - represented by Robert Kirkpatrick Tammy Taylor Nails - no representative Thelma's Beauty Academy- represented by Mattie Woods \u0026amp; Pauline Sanders Nashville Auto-Diesel College - represented by Dan King IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association, asked the Board to support the administration's recommendation for a resolution in support of a millage election and bond issue. He stated that improvements to the District's infrastructure, necessary advancements in technology, and a need for more staff development were the issues that would compel the public to support a millage election at this time and he pledged the whole-hearted support of the CTA in the promotion of this effort. Vic Anderson introduced Rose Thompson, who represents the Pankey Community Improvement Association, Inc. Dr. Anderson provided brief background information on the District's deeding of property to the Pankey Community and Ms. Thompson reported on the progress of construction of the Josephine Pankey Education Center. She introduced the architect, Mr. Wali Caradine, and the builder, Mr. Moxie Hall of Sundial Management Construction. They estimate that the construction is 60% complete and they are asking the Board to consider granting additional time for the completion of the project. V. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness stated that she had visited Metropolitan Career and Technical Center on their Open House/Career Day. She thanked Mr. Peterson for his enthusiasm and remarked on his motivational remarks to a group of students who were visiting Metropolitan from the ALC. She thanked student Shemika Walker for giving her a manicure during the visit. In addition, Ms. Magness thanked Mr. Martin for his remarks and the CT A for their support in the effort to embark on a successful millage campaign. Mr. Kurrus also thanked Mr. Martin and the CTA for their support. He thanked Ms. Thompson for the report on the Pankey Community Center and offered to make a personal contribution to the construction fund. Dr. Mitchell reported that she had attended the Leaming to Cope with Differences workshop led by Dr. Terrence Roberts. She stated that the sessions teach about tolerance of others, and she encouraged the other Board members to take advantage of the training. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page4 VL REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Dana Berry, member of the Campus Leadership Team at Terry Elementary School, asked the Board to support the proposed millage election and bond issue. She stated that Terry Elementary, as well as other schools in the District, were in critical need of improvements to the buildings and grounds. Brooke Ivey, student at Hall High School, also spoke in support of the millage campaign. She stated that progress is expensive and that a successful millage election would show students that they have the support of the community. She noted that improvements to the facilities could also impact the overall financial condition of the District by drawing students away from private schools. Deon Bennett, teacher at Mann Magnet School, remarked that she could provide perspective as a teacher and as a former student in the District, where the schools were in dire need of repair. She noted that at Mann the roof leaks, the restrooms are in poor condition, the science department had to be evacuated due to structural problems in that wing of the building, and that the computer equipment needed to be upgraded and enhanced. Tony Woodell, parent at Pulaski Heights Elememtary and a member of the Campus Leadership Team, stated that at PHE the staff, the parents and the teachers work together to do the best they can with what they have available. He urged the Board to support a millage election as a way of showing appreciation and support for the District's teachers and staff members, as well as for the sake of the students. Lillie Carter, principal at Pulaski Heights Elementary spoke as the president of the Principals' Roundtable. In that role, she stated that she was speaking on behalf of every child in every school. She encouraged support for a millage campaign to provide revenue to repair leaky roofs, replace old plumbing, resurface parking lots, replace worn carpet, upgrade electrical wiring, and to provide technology for student instruction. Angela Woolery, teacher at Hall High School, also spoke in support of a millage campaign. She stated that at Hall they are facing critical space needs. They are currently using portable buildings and there is not enough space in the cafeteria for the 1400 students to sit down to eat lunch. She also noted they would like to provide new band uniforms, choir robes, gym and physical education equipment and facilities, as well as basic technology needs. She stated that well-maintained schools increase self-esteem in students and leads to greater academic achievement. Dr. George Blevins, representing the Mitchell PTA and president of the Wright Avenue neighborhood association, urged the Board to move forward with a millage campaign. He noted many concerns that must be addressed at Mitchell as well as the other older school buildings in the city. He asked that the Board and administration to work toward better communication of how the funds will be spent. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page 5 Henry Nesbitt, teacher at Williams Magnet School, asked the Board and the general public to support a millage campaign. He stated that the physical structures should be a high priority and that good teachers can do a better job of teaching students where they are in a safe and clean environment. Derrick Williams, student body president at Central High School, asked the Board to aim toward comfortability, accessibility and excellence in education. He noted how difficult these things are when the plumbing is old and ceilings cave in due to water damage and how hard it is for teachers to maintain a productive classroom environment when there are structural problems in the school. He asked the Board to ask the community for a millage. Nancy Rousseau noted that although the Pulaski Heights school facility is structurally sound, there are many basic improvements that need to be made. The Campus Leadership Team has identified a list of repairs and upgrades to technology that will provide for greater student achievement. She encouraged the Board to ask for the millage election as soon as possible. Ricky Jackson, Mitchell Elementary School PT A president, stated that the Mitchell PTA is 100% in favor of a millage election. He noted that Mitchell is one of the older buildings in the city and that they are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. He also stated that the Mitchell community was behind Darian Smith as the building principal and they were hopeful that he would be permanently assigned to that position. Leroy Ayers, parent of Mitchell School, also stated support for the millage election and support for Mr. Smith as principal. He noted that he currently has three children at Mitchell, as well as numerous nieces, nephews and other family members. Barbara Jones, a parent of a Dunbar student, stated that her family had only moved here a few years ago. Moving into our community, she was surprised at the poor condition of some of the school facilities. She noted the historical significance of Dunbar, and urged the restoration and preservation of the building, as well as other improvements to the educational environment of that school. Jeannie Price, president of the PTA Council, stated that she was proud of the accomplishments the District has achieved over the past two years. She stated that the PTA would be behind a millage campaign 100% and they would work to see that the issue passed. The welfare of the children in our community is the main focus of PTA and technological improvements and the physical appearance of the schools should be the major focus in the campaign to gain community support in the election. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page6 SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules and reorder the agenda to move the Millage Election/Bond Issue and the Capitol Projects/Sequence of Events for Second Lien Bond Issue (items B \u0026amp; Con the printed agenda) to the front of the agenda. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion to reorder the agenda and it carried unanimously. A. MILLAGE ELECTION/ BOND ISSUE Mark Milhollen, Vic Anderson and Don Stewart were present to respond to the Board's questions regarding the millage issue that is on the action agenda. Dr. Stewart addressed the Board and briefly discussed the resolution to call for the election, the need for approval by the Board of a request to the Federal Court asking their permission for an election, and authorization to send a request to the Arkansas Department of Education. Mr. Kurrus moved to suspend the rules in order to consider the Millage Election/Bond Issue as a part of this meeting agenda. Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kumpuris moved to approve a Resolution calling for a millage election on May 9, 2000, to ask the Federal Court to allow this election and to authorize the District's administration to send a letter to the Arkansas Department of Education asking for their approval. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and, by a roll call vote, it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus and Mr. Berkley spoke in favor of the motion, noting that the efforts of a lot of people go into making good things happen in our District and that a millage campaign will be a huge task requiring a lot of hard work to make it successful. Mr. Kumpuris noted that the Board and the community have a great deal of confidence in the current financial management team of the District, and that confidence would be cause for support for this election issue. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the proposed budget for the fiscal year July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. In addition, the Board named the chairpersons of the millage election committee on a motion by Mr. Kumpuris, seconded by Mr. Berkley and passed unanimously. Dr. Carnine recommended that Senator John Riggs and Bishop Steven Arnold be named cochairpersons of the millage committee. Mr. Kumpuris moved to approve the Superintendent's recommendation and Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page7 Ms. Magness offered an amendment to the motion to include Board President Sue Strickland as a co-chair of this committee. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion to amend, and it carried unanimously. On the amended motion, the vote was unanimous to name Senator John Riggs, Bishop Steven Arnold and Sue Strickland as co-chairpersons of the millage campaign committee. B. CAPITAL PROJECTS/ PROPOSED SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR SECOND LlEN BOND ISSUE Vic Anderson addressed the Board regarding the list of capital projects presented as a part of the printed agenda. Consideration for funding these projects will require Board approval of the second lien bond issue, as well as authorization by a resolution to borrow from the existing fund balance to begin these projects immediately. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the second lien bond issue. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A second motion to approve a resolution to borrow from the existing fund balance was offered by Mr. Kurrus. Ms. Magness seconded that motion and it carried unanimously. The Board took a brief recess and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. Vll. CONSENT ITEMS Items listed on the consent agenda were approved unanimously on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Magness. The items approved were: A. Revision of Administrative Regulation IKEC-R3 B. Arkansas Better Chance Grant Proposal C. MCI-Marco Polo Grant D. National Parks Service Central High School Grant E. Southwestern Bell Easement One item, Revision of Administrative Regulation IKF-R, was listed on the consent agenda but was pulled from consideration and will be resubmitted in March. VIII. ACTION AGENDA Items A \u0026amp; Bare reported earlier in these minutes due to a reordering of the agenda by Board motion. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page 8 C. Board Policy Review - Section D, Fiscal Management Fiscal Management policies were presented for review and approval on first reading. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve this policy section as presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to graciously accept the donations, seconded by Mr. Kumpuris. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Badgett Elementary Five Compaq computers w/ monitors and St Paul Fire \u0026amp; Marine Insurance keyboards, valued at $350- $400 per unit Company Dunbar Magnet Middle School Sony rear projection TV, valued at $5,000 Ors. Joan and Morris Cranmer for use in lhe English Department Forest Heights Middle School $200 to FH drill team Henry Akins, 11 - Central Arlt. Hospital $100 to FH drill team Rickey Hicks $500 cash for School El,'Plorers' Team Martin \u0026amp; Melissa Thoma Two Soulhwest airline tickets, valued at Kalhy Easter $350.00 to FH drill team Jefferson Elementary School Microphones, stands, and cords valued at Jefferson PTA $372.00 Mabelvale Elementary School $300 for holiday decorations Target store #162 Mann Arts/Science Magnet School $20.00 cash for library books Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Harold Stanley $100.00 cash for library books Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Steven Kirkegy, Sr. $25.00 cash for library books Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Hargris $10.00 cash for library books Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Jay Shearer $5.00 cash for library books Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Paul Fleming McClellan Magnet School $2,000 cash for Teachers of Tomorrow Pam Brown Courtney, KIP, Inc. Grant activities $225.00 cash for Teachers of Tomorrow Mr. Hardy A. Thrower activities Romine Elementary Portable Sound System/ die Romine PTA casts/educational CD's/misc. office supplies and educational games (total value $2,211.71 HIPPY Program $200.00 cash HIPPY Advisory Committee REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page9 E. Personnel Personnel items were printed in the agenda. In addition, Dr. Carnine asked the Board to suspend its' rules to consider an item not previously listed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. Dr. Carnine recommended hiring Krishna L. Young as the Director of the Residential Charter School. Ms. Magness moved to approve the superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the recommendations for personnel as printed in the agenda. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Financials The monthly financial reports were printed in the Board's agenda for review and approval. Mr. Milhollen responded to questions from the Board and noted that the annual audit would be presented as a part of the financial report at the March Board meeting. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to approve the reports as presented. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT A. Desegregation Update/Census and Compliance Report Mr. Babbs reported that school assignment letters for the 2000-01 school year are scheduled to be mailed the week of March 1, 2000. The committee working on the compliance report continues to meet weekly and have set a targeted completion date of March 15. Terrence Roberts, desegregation consultant, was also present. He is currently working with groups of employees in \"Leaming to Cope with Differences\" workshops. He reported that the current plan is to keep the individuals in each of the workshop groups intact in order to train other groups of employees in the future. He thanked Linda Watson and Marion Woods for coordinating these sessions. B. Budget Update/Finance Report Dr. Carnine noted that the audit report would be presented to the Board prior to the March Board meeting. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 24, 2000 Page 10 C. Stephens Construction Update Vernon Smith, Construction Supervisor, reported that the roof is 80% complete and that the interior concrete block walls are 15% complete. All underground utilities are in place and it is expected that the previous delays due to weather should not have a significant impact on the original projected completion date. D. Internal Auditors Report Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor, provided a written report for the Board's review. He responded to questions from the Board and indicated he was prepared to meet with Board members individually at their convenience to review specific information or provide additional details. E. Proposed UALR Information Technology Minor Bonnie Lesley reviewed a proposal from UALR to provide professional development for twenty-five teachers to earn a post-baccalaureate certification in Information Technology. A summary of the proposal was printed in the Board's agenda. Dr. Lesley reported that it was possible that grant funds would be available to supplement the costs associated with the proposal. No formal Board action was required. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS None XI. HEARINGS None XIl. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Berkley and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 3 J. 3 -00 4L~ SuStrickland, President Baker Kurrus, Secret LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March9,2000 REC a 1 2000 u rlGE Ot REGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, March 9, 2000, immediately following the regularly scheduled agenda meeting, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Sue Strickland presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Sue Strickland called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. and stipulated a quorum without a roll call. All members of the Board were present. Il. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following items: I. Personnel Changes IL Approval of Make-Up Days III. Employee Hearing SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 9, 2000 Page2 III. ACTION AGENDA A. Personnel Changes The Board was asked to approve two promotions of current District employees. Suzanne Davis was recommended for the position of Director of English, Language Arts, and Foreign Languages. In addition, Barbara Brandon, a seventh grade teacher at Cloverdale Middle School, was recommended to assume duties previously performed by Ms. Davis as the Middle School Teacher Leader for the Reading I Writing Workshop. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the recommended promotions. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Approval of Make-Up Days The Superintendent presented a recommendation for make-up of two school days that were missed due to inclement weather in January. Brady Gadberry reported that in order to avoid extending the end of school dismissal for the year, District administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association coordinated a recommendation to make up the days on March 24 and April 21, 2000. These days were previously on the calendar as non-student teacher workdays. In addition, the Board was asked to approve June 5 as a staff development day for teachers, in order to make up the April 21 date previously reserved for inservice. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the recommendation for making up the student attendance days and the staff development day for teachers. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Ms. Magness left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. C. Employee Hearing Dick Hurley provided background information for a hearing requested by Anthony Bland, employee of the Division of Exceptional Children. The director of that department, Dr. Gary Smith, recommended Mr. Bland for termination and this hearing was held in response to Mr. Eland's appeal of that termination recommendation. The documents provided that Mr. Bland had been employed since August 19, 1999. Dr. Smith reported various problems with Mr. Eland's work performance, including complaints by supervisors and outside agencies that work was not being done in a timely manner. Mr. Bland was reported to be conducting personal business on SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 9, 2000 Page3 District phones, that he used District copiers and computers for personal reasons and that he continued to fail to perform the duties of his job by not following up on prior written reprimands. Mr. Bland denied these accusations, and stated that other employees were not reprimanded for similar infractions and that he felt an overload of duties that other employees were not expected to perform. Board members questioned Dr. Smith, Dr. Hurley, and Mr. Bland and requested an administrative recommendation from the Superintendent. Dr. Carnine stated that, due to the lack of response to specific warnings for improvement in performance of his job duties, Mr. Bland should be terminated. He also noted the importance of responding to requests for release of records in the Division of Exceptional Children in a timely manner. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to uphold the recommendation for termination. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 5-1 with Dr. Daugherty voting \"present.\" V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kurrus moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Dr. Daugherty and carried unanimously. APPROVED: 3 J.:\u0026gt;  00 4~e .,.,d/ \u0026amp;:Strickland, President /Jvl 1~ Baker Kurrus, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2000 in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Board President, Sue Strickland, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes L CALL TO ORDER Sue Strickland, President, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Cynthia Buehling, teacher from Western Hills Elementary School and student representative, Lauren Weintraub from Hall High School, were also present. II. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular February 24, 2000 Board meeting and from a special meeting on March 9, 2000 were presented for Board approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Dr. Mitchell and seconded by Ms. Magness. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page2 ill PRESENTATIONS: A. SPECIAL PERFORMANCE: M. L. KING ELEMENTARY JAZZ PERCUSSION ENSEMBLE Mary Lou Kahler, assistant principal at M. L. King Elementary School, introduced the members of the Jazz Percussion Ensemble and their teacher, Sheldon Joshua. The students performed several instrumental songs using electric keyboards, the piano, drums, and several other percussion instruments. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Mr. Kurrus made a motion to suspend the rules to reorder the agenda to consider the Bonds Project at this point in the agenda. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Carnine asked Dr. Anderson to make a brief presentation on the Bonds Project list, which was provided to the Board for review and consideration. A suspension of the rules to consider the item on tonight's agenda was required prior to action. Dr. Mitchell offered the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Kurrus and approved unanimously. The projected list would result in a total of $120,445,297 in improvements to school buildings and other District facilities. Mr. Kumpuris made a motion to move ahead with the proposed Bond projects as listed. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Board members thanked staff members and the Superintendent for the work that went into planning and implementation of the proposal. It was noted that local school leaders were integral in the decision making process for proposed improvements to the school campuses and that several months of meetings at the local schools went into determining the most necessary improvements to facilities and technology. B. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Dr. Carnine introduced Ellis L. Flowers, head custodian at Mitchell Elementary School. Mr. Flowers was recently recognized by the teachers, counselors, students and parents at Mitchell for maintaining a clean and beautiful school and campus. The Superintendent's Citation was presented in appreciation for his dedication and hard work. Representatives from State Farm Insurance Company were present to recognize Rene' Carson, the LRSD Science Specialist as a State Farm Good Neighbor. State Farm representatives included Alicia Cunningham, Eddie Jo Williamson-Nesby, Dwight Brooks, Alvin Smith, Ed Hoyt, Andre' Pendleton, Marsha Patterson, Launey Jason, Mike Hart, Terry Ray and Morris Anderson. The Good Neighbor Award to Ms. Carson included a plaque and a check for $5,000 to be used in the LRSD Science program. A full-page advertisement in the March issue of several national magazines will feature Ms. Carson and her weather-related science instruction. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page3 Deepika Kunapuli, student at Henderson Magnet Middle School, received a Superintendent's Citation in recognition of recently winning the Pulaski County Spelling Bee, which is sponsored by the Pulaski County Board of Education. In addition, Joseph B. Marks, student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won third place in this same competition, and was also awarded a Superintendent's Citation. Dr. Carnine introduced Dan Parker, CEO of CNA Health Partners. CNA employees recently participated in the KaBoom Project at Wakefield Elementary School. KaBoom is a national nonprofit organization committed to building 1000 playgrounds across America. It was estimated that over 1,200 volunteer hours went into the recent playground construction at Wakefield. A certificate of appreciation was presented to Mr. Parker and his employees for all their hard work and the dedication of this group in completing the playground construction project. The LRSD Quiz Bowl coaches and winning team members were present and received Superintendent's citations in recognition of their achievement. 0 0 0 Fulbright Elementary School won first place in the elementary division one competition\nEileen Hammond was their coach and team members included Patrick Conley, David Chucoski, Isaac Hayes, Cyrus Bahrassa, Zack Mayo, Afshar Sanati, Cletis Jones, Hannah Ledbetter, and Devery Peoples. W estem Hills Elementary School won first place in elementary division two competitions. Their coach was Beth Collins and team members included Jennifer Crafton, Brad Cook, Christian Outlaw, LeTara Moor, and Amanda Nieto. Dunbar Magnet Middle School won the middle school division of the Quiz Bowl. Arthur Olds and Diana Priest were coaches and team members were: Sunny Patel, Tyler Carllee, Elizabeth Burnham, Ke Xu, Daniel Krupitsky, Eden Liu, Scott Beattie, and KathmDunn. Laura Beth Arnold was recognized for being selected to receive the Outstanding Educator's Award at the Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education (AGATE) Conference. Debbie Berry, principal from Dunbar Magnet Middle School, accepted a citation on behalf of her faculty for being selected to receive the Challenger Award at the AGATE conference. The ex officio representatives to the Board were given certificates of appreciation for their service during the month of March\nCynthia Buehling, teacher at Western Hills Elementary School, and Lauren Weintraub, student at Hall High School. C. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGUIAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page4 Newly established partnerships include: Woodruff Elementary School - represented by Janice Wilson, in partnership with State Farm Insurance - represented by Marsha Patterson, La.uney Jason \u0026amp; others Metropolitan Career Center - represented by Mike Peterson \u0026amp; J C. Skipper, in partnership with NAP A Genuine Auto Parts - represented by Phil Dowden \u0026amp; lvfike Wise In addition, Ms. Milam introduced Keisha Patterson of the LRSD VIPS office to announce the annual VIPS Recognition celebration \"An Evening for the Stars.\" This year's program will be held on April 25 at Ricks Armory. All Board members and District employees were invited to attend. IV. CITIZENS COMMITTEES Eleanor Coleman greeted the Board on behalf of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, but made no formal presentation. She had provided each Board member a copy of a written correspondence prior to the meeting, which she asked them to read and consider for further discussion at a later date. V. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness thanked all District patrons who had volunteered to make calls and contacts for the upcoming millage election. She and State Senator John Riggs had met with several student councils to discuss their participation in the campaign. Mr. Kurrus asked the audience to seriously consider the upcoming millage election and noted that Fulbright Elementary School was having their recruitment fair tonight. Ms. Strickland reported that she had attended a spring festival at Otter Creek Elementary School on last Friday night. She thanked District employees for their hard work and commitment to doing a good job. VI. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Madalyn Scallett, parent of a ninth grade student at Parkview, asked the Board to consider the recent policy change that allows students to be excused from taking final exams. The policy stipulates that students maintain good grades and regular attendance in class in order to be permitted to skip the final. Ms. Scallett is concerned that students need the experience of taking and passing finals as a part of preparation for college and she stated that she would require her daughter to take the test regardless of the policy. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page 5 Melissa Gulden addressed the Board regarding the uniform policy that is to be implemented next school term at Carver Magnet Elementary School. Her son has attended Carver since kindergarten and she stated that she would consider moving him to another school if there are no provisions made to \"opt out\" of wearing a uniform. She provided information for the Board to review and stated that there is no documented evidence that wearing uniforms will increase learning or improve the overall school environment. VIII. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review - Section D, Fiscal Management Fiscal Management policies were presented for review and approval on second reading. The Board unanimously approved these policies for first reading on February 24, 2000. Ms. Magness made the motion to approve this policy section as presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Pankey Property Deed The Pankey Community Improvement Association reported to the Board at the meeting in February. They reviewed the plans to complete a community center on property originally deeded to them by the District in 1992. This deed was revised in 1997, which extended the deadline for them to complete the community center or other facility for educational use. A new deed was provided for the Board's review and approval at this time. Board approve of this deed will convey title to the property to the Pankey Community Improvement Association. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the deed. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Special Needs Transportation Fleet - Bus Purchase The administration requested Board approval for the lease purchase of six new buses for the special needs transportation fleet. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement, reported that 65 buses currently serve 55 special needs routes. This purchase would allow the District to retire six older model buses and replace them with new and more cost efficient vehicles. The total estimated cost for the purchase is $342,000, which would be financed over seven years, for a yearly payment of $59,821 , which would be added to the Transportation Department budget for 2000-01 . Dr. Mitchell made a motion to apprqve the purchase of six new buses. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page6 D. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Mr. Kumpuris. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR LRSD Assorted office furniture and equipment u. s. Bankruptcy Court valued at approximately $3,000 LRSD Desegregation Plan Scholmhip Fund $250.00 cash Anonymous District Employee Booker Arts Magnet $9,981.27 cash to purchase 27 televisions Booker Arts Magnet PTA and VCR's to be mounted in all K-5 classrooms Booker Arts Magnet 67 Monthly Pocket Planner/Calendars for Charlie Huie faculty members, total value $398.65 Central High School Incentive Program $1,500.00 cash Darren McDonald/Coca-Cola Bottling Company $100.00 cash Ken Coon/HRD Consultants Dodd Elementary Used HP Deskjet printer, valued at Dorothy Brown $250.00 Forest Heights Middle School Albletic Dept. $100.00 cash Pendleton Youth Athletics Garland Academy ELITE Teaching and $600.00 cash for RIF Program Kiwanis Club of Pulaski Heights Leaming Pulaski Heights Middle School $250.00 cash for technology program Arl\u0026lt;ansas Blue Cross/Blue Shield Wilson Elementary Window shades for the cafeteria, valued at Wilson Elementary PTA $2,000.00 $500.00 cash Clinton Sanders/Asher Avenue Kroger Store Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Materials and equipment for the auto paint NAPA Auto Parts and body program valued at $14,600.00 Newtek Video Toaster/software and Ari\u0026lt;ansas Game \u0026amp; Fish Commission manuals/Waveform Monitor for the TV production program, valued at $1,200.00 REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page7 E. Personnel Personnel items were printed in the agenda. In addition, Dr. Carnine asked the Board to suspend its' rules to consider action on hiring summer school principals. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. Mr. Berkley then moved to approve all personnel items presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Financials The monthly financial reports were printed in the Board's agenda for review and approval. In addition, the annual audit report had been provided previously for the Board's review. Mr. Don Smith from Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas auditing firm was present to review the findings of the audit and respond to questions from the Board. The audit report was accepted by a unanimous vote\nMr. Kurrus made the motion to accept and Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the monthly financial reports as presented in the agenda. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT Mr. Kurrus moved to suspend the rules to reorder the report agenda to allow Senator Riggs the opportunity to present the millage campaign report. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. A. Millage Campaign Report Senator John Riggs unveiled a campaign poster for the upcoming millage election indicating Yes for Kids as the campaign slogan. He noted that the campaign will emphasize the fact that a 5 mill increase in personal property taxes will cost the average family approximately $6.00 per month, or the equivalent of a burger and fry meal from a fast food restaurant. He thanked the people who are working on the campaign and noted that the strategy committee will continue to meet every Tuesday morning until the election. B. Desegregation Update/Census and Compliance Report Mr. Babbs presented a brief update of student registration activities and noted that Terrence Roberts has been providing training \"Coping With Differences\" for District employees. Dr. Roberts will be returning for several additional sessions and will continue to work on compliance requirements with the District's committee. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 23, 2000 Page8 C. Budget Update/Finance Report No report. Additional budget information will be developed for presentation to the Board after the millage/bond issue election. D. Stephens Construction Update Doug Eaton reported that 95% of the concrete floor work has been completed at the new Stephens School. 25% of the interior walls are complete and work is progressing 2 to 3 weeks behind the original schedule. The construction committee continues to meet once per week and they feel the work will progress much quicker once the weather improves. He invited the Board to contact him any time they wanted to go to the construction site for a visit and that he would be happy to provide a tour. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's audit report was included in the printed agenda. There was no additional discussion. F. Stephens, Inc. Report A written report was provided for the Board's review. Dr. Don Stewart was present to respond to questions from the Board. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS None XI. HEARINGS None XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by , . Berkley and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: Y :J 7 lf) Baker Kurrus, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT March 29, 2000 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: RECEIVE MAR 31 200D 81:E~ ~lJJHftJNlmRlNQ I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on February 24 and March 9, 2000. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 JUN 12 200D Off/Cf Of DESEGREGATION r, 1 NITORI The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 2000 in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President, Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Mike Kurnpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes L CALL TO ORDER II. Katherine Mitchell, Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nMr. Kumpuris arrived at 6:20 p.m. and Ms. Strickland was absent. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Henry Nesby, teacher from Williams Magnet Elementary School, and student representative, Erica Griffin, from Hall High School, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular March 23, 2000 meeting of the Board were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Berkley and seconded by Mr. Kurrus. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page2 ill PRESENTATIONS: A. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Dr. Carnine introduced Cassandra Nonnan, principal of J. A. Fair High School, who in tum introduced members of the Fair basketball team. The team won the 5-A State basketball championship title this year. Their coach, Charles Johnson, was also recognized for being named the state of Arkansas' Coach of the Year. Each of the team members was presented with a certificate in recognition of their athletic, as well as academic, achievement. The superintendent presented a statistical report of positive trends as evidence of growth and achievement in our District. Third quarter student behavior and discipline reports indicate a 21 % decrease in suspensions from the same period last year\ndropout statistics for the same period indicate a 67% reduction. A positive increase in volunteer hours was noted, up 8% over the previous year. In addition, 25% more students are enrolled in advanced placement courses over the 1997- 98 school year, with a 48% increase in African-American student participation. Dr. Carnine expressed appreciation to students, parents, teachers, administrators and other volunteers who have worked during the past year to achieve these successes. Mrs. Lenora Murray from Dunbar Magnet Middle School was recognized for her efforts in coaching the Math Counts Team. Students who placed in the competitions and who were present at the Board meeting include: Ke Xu, Joel Simon, Sunny Patel, and Lawrence Watts, all students at Dunbar, and Yang Dai, from Pulaski Heights Middle School. Also, Ms. Murray introduced Trela Cook, the assistant Math Counts coach, who teaches at Pulaski Heights. Certificates of appreciation were presented to the ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of April, Henry Nesby, teacher at Williams Magnet Elementary School, and Erica Griffin, student at McClellan High School. B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam introduced Brenda James, principal at Mann Magnet Middle School. Dr James announced the establishment of a partnership between Mann Magnet and Johnson Controls. The partnership will be officially presented for Board approval at the May Board meeting, but several students were present to express appreciation to Johnson Controls for the assistance of their employees in Earth Day activities. Johnson representative, Melanie Cranford, accepted tokens of appreciation from the students and noted that they were very happy to become a part of the Mann Magnet School family. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page3 IV. Debbie Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: M. L. King Elementary School - represented by Debbie Lawson, in partnership with Kidsports Fun \u0026amp; Fitness - represented by Denver Walker \u0026amp; Lou Ann Hawks Wilson Elementary- represented by Beverly Jones \u0026amp; Marjorie Plant, in partnership with UALR Share America- represented by Amy Burnett, Heather Gage, Shara Stewart \u0026amp; Cheryl Chapman CITIZENS COMMITTEES Clementine Kelley, representing the Classroom Teachers Association, reported that their members had been working the phone bank at the millage campaign office. She noted that the CTA' s proposal for the negotiations would be completed soon and that they were looking forward to a productive contract and salary agreement process. V. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness thanked all the folks who have gone \"above and beyond\" to encourage voters for the millage election, especially the PT A groups who organized to make telephone calls. She announced that additional telephone callers are needed on Saturdays and Sundays between now and the election on May 9. Mr. Berkley and Mr. Kurrus also thanked the many campaign volunteers and asked people to get out and vote. Mr. Kurrus noted that Frank Lambright, a former member of the Board, had made a financial contribution to the campaign and had been talking to people and encouraging voters to show up at the polls to support the District. Mr. Kumpuris noted that other former Board members had also been working to get voters to the polls. He thanked the neighborhood association people who had been supportive of the campaign efforts. Dr. Mitchell thanked Judy Magness for coordinating the volunteer efforts for the election. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page4 VI. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Cedric Williams, president of Glen Eagle property owners association, questioned the Board about campaign financing and whether any District money was being used for the campaign. Normally, Board members do not respond during this portion of the agenda, but they stated for the record that no public funds were used and that all money spent on the millage campaign had been donated by individual citizens and local business supporters. Gay Wyatt, teacher from Fulbright Elementary School, Linda Smith, teacher from Jefferson Elementary School, Tony Woodell, a member of the Campus Leadership Team at Pulaski Heights Elementary School, and Erica O 'Neal, teacher from McDermott Elementary each asked for the Board to consider additional early childhood and four-year-old programs at their schools. It was noted that additional space was available in most elementary schools because of the move of sixth graders to the middle school campuses. They each noted the numerous benefits of early educational intervention and stated that the four-year-old programs would serve as a recruitment tool because most families had their children in private preschool programs by the age of four. Harold Ford, president of Little Rock Engineers Club, read a resolution in support of the millage proposal. VIII. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review: First Reading, Section D - Fiscal Policies Policies DKC, Travel Expense Authorization/Reimbursement, and DFD, Gate Receipts and Admissions policies were presented for review and approval on first reading. Accompanying regulations were provided for the Board's review and comment. Ms. Magness moved to approve these policies on first reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Board Policy Review: First Reading, Section D - Fiscal Policies Policy DCA, Management of Capital Projects Fund, was presented for first reading. Regulations for administering this policy were also provided for the Board's review and comment. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve DCA on first reading, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. C. Board Policy Review: First Reading, Section J - Students Policies for inclusion in Section J of the Board's policy manual were presented for review and approval on first reading. The policies included in.this reading include: JB - Equal Educational Opportunity\nIBA - Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities, with Regulations\nJC - School Attendance Zones\nJCA - Student Assignment\nREGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page5 JEC - Pupil Enrollment Requirements\nn - Student Rights and Responsibilities~ JJIA - Intramural Games and Sports\nand JRAA - Regulation Only. Ms. Magness moved to approve the policies as presented. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Board Policy Review: First Reading, Section F - Facilities Policies FBC, Closing of Schools, and FCC, Temporary School Facilities, were provided for the Board's review and first reading approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve on first reading. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. E. Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Communities Application The Board was asked to approve the submission of an application to the Arkansas Department of Education for 1999-2000 Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools and Communities funding. As a recipient offederal funds, the District is required to implement a comprehensive drug abuse prevention program in grades K - 12. Our allocation will total $126,822, and the application is due by April 28, 2000. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the submission of the application. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. Teachers of Tomorrow The Board was provided with curriculum modifications and graduation requirements for the Teachers of Tomorrow program. Fair High School will pilot the program in the LRSD in 2000-01 and additional schools will be added the following year. Wanda Baskins, teacher at McClellan Community School, was present to respond to questions from the Board. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the curriculum and credit requirements as presented. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. Bilingual Education: Training for AU Teachers Grant A grant proposal for Bilingual Education: Training for All Teachers, has been submitted to the U. S. Department of Education, requesting funds in the amount of $236,256 over a three-year period. The District has designed this proposal as an element of the Commitment to Resolve Agreement with the Office of Civil Rights of 1999. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the submission, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. H. Teacher Training - Informational Technology The administration presented a proposal for training a cadre of teachers to assist with utilization of technology in the classroom. The program would establish a relationship between the LRSD and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Initially, twenty-five REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page6 teachers would be identified to begin the three-year process. Each year an additional twenty-five teachers would be accepted to the program so that by the end of the third year approximately 75 teachers would be involved. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the proposal. Mr. Kumpuris seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. I. Foreign Language Textbook Adoption, Secondary 6-12 The Secondary Foreign Language Textbook Committee made their recommendations for the Board's adoption of selected series for foreign language instruction in grades six through twelve. Ms. Magness moved to approve the selected texts, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. J. Coordinated Career Education Textbook Adoption The Family and Consumer Science, Trade and Industrial Education and Coordinated Career Education Textbook committees voted unanimously to recommend appropriate textbooks for the new adoption cycle. Their recommendations were presented for the Board's review and approval. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the committee's recommendations. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. I Can Learn Algebra Program Dr. Carnine presented a proposal for implementation of the I Can Learn Algebra Program in the District's secondary schools. Marcelline Carr, mathematics specialist for the District, responded to questions from the Board. Representatives from I Can Learn visited the District for two days in order to provide an opportunity for teachers to view the program and demonstrate the benefits for students. Dr. Carnine asked for the Board to conditionally approve the proposal, contingent :upon approval of the bond issue that goes before the voters in a few weeks. It was specified that without the funds from a successful millage election, there would not be money available to fund the program and, therefore, the Board asked that approval be conditional upon available funds. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the proposal with stipulated conditions. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Mr. Kurrus casting the \"no\" vote. L. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Mr. Berkley. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Dodd Elementary Bumper stickers and window stickers Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. A G. Krippendorf valued at approximately $350.00 Fulbright Elementary Clothes racks, plastic book racks, metal K-Mart Store, Rodney Pamam Road shelving, wooden magazine racks, and REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page7 SCHOOLJDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR book shelf\nvalued at approx. $750.00 Geyer Springs Elementary $350.00 for purchase Caldecott \u0026amp; West L. R. Kiwanis Club Newberry nominee books Romine Elementary $100.00 cash for purchase of crupet for Mr. James Pfeifer main office $100.00 cash for purchase of crupet for Romine PTA main office Williams Magnet Elementary $11,000 cash to purchase instructional Williams Magnet PT A materials and behavioral incentives Woodruff Elementary Five new computers and five Canon color Woodruff Commwiity Center ( directed printers valued at approximately $3,660.51 by Mr. Hayse Miller, Family Services Agency) Dunbar Magnet Middle School 24reams of colored paper and 90 Rabbi \u0026amp; Mrs. Eugene Levy computer disks valued at $200. 00 Mabelvale Middle School Master Flame barbecue grill, valued at Wal-Mart Store #124 $129.99 E. Personnel Personnel changes were printed in the agenda. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the items as presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. F. Financials The monthly financial reports were printed in the Board's agenda for review and approval. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve reports as presented, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT A. Desegregation Update/Census and Compliance Report Mr. Babbs presented a brief oral report noting on-going planning for day-to-day compliance requirements. He reported that he and Senator John Riggs had met with the Neighborhood Connection to discuss the upcoming millage election and ask for their support. Ms. Magness asked about any changes that might occur with the current attendance zones for the next school year and Mr. Babbs responded that no changes are expected at this time. He noted that any changes that might be necessary would be discussed with the Board in advance. B. Budget Update/Finance Report No report. Additional budget information will be developed for presentation to the Board after the millage/bond issue election. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page8 C. Stephens Construction Update Doug Eaton reported that progress on the new Stephens School was moving along as scheduled. The next phase will join the school building with the community center that is being built at the site. The ramps between the upper and lower areas of the building are complete and it is estimated the building will be finished in approximately eight months. Mr. Eaton also noted that Valentine Street between 17th \u0026amp; 18th would be closed to through traffic during the school day to allow for student safety. The gates will be opened after hours for neighborhood access to those streets. D. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's audit report was included in the printed agenda. There was no additional discussion. E. Charter School Update Dr. Watson provided a printed report for the Board's agenda. She was present to respond to questions and she introduced Krishna Young, the new Charter School Director for the District. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS None XI. BEARINGS The Board called for a briefrecess at 8:40 p.m., and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. for a closed employee hearing. Mr. Cedric Blue was appealing the administration's decision to terminate his employment. Dr. Hurley presented background information and documentation provided by Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities Services. Mr. Blue had been employed as a security officer at McClellan High School. On January 18, 2000, Mr. Blue was asked to submit for a drug screening because of suspicion of drug abuse. Mr. Blue signed the waiver for the drug/alcohol screening and tested positive for THC. Mr. Blue represented himself in the hearing and stated that he was concerned that he was not provided an opportunity to confront the students who had accused him of using drugs. He also stated that there was no evidence to show cause for the \"reasonable suspicion\" that led to the drug screening. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2000 Page9 Ms. Magness made a motion to uphold the Superintendent's recommendation for . termination. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board convened an executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel issues at 9:12 p.m. They returned at 10:00 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken. XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Kurrus moved to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED SJ.5-oo ~~~j) Sue Strickland, President Baker Kurrus, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 11,2000 RECEIVED JUN 12 2000 DESEG OFFICE OF REGATION MONffORJNQ The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, May 11, 2000, immediately preceding the regularly scheduled agenda meeting in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Sue Strickland presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris MEMBERS ABSENT: Judy Magness ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Sue Strickland called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty arrived at 5:25 and Ms. Magness was absent. Ex-officio representatives to the Board were also present\nShirley Krannichfeld, teacher at Wilson Elementary and Derrick Mitchell, student at Parkview Magnet High School. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting listed the following items: I. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Second Lien Bonds II. Approval of Expenditure from Bond Account ill. Personnel Changes , SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 11, 2000 Page2 ID. ACTION AGENDA A. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Second Lien Bonds Mark McBride, representative of Stephens, Inc., was present to review the resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of $6.2 million in bonds. This agreement names Morgan Keegan \u0026amp; Company as the management firm, and Stephens, Inc. as the District's fiscal agent. Mr. McBride and Mark Milhollen responded to questions from the Board. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Approval of Expenditure from Bond Account Vic Anderson asked for the Board to approve expenditure from the bond account in the amount of $11,000. This will allow completion of the projects begun at Quigley stadium and Parkview practice field, which the Board previously approved in the amount of $110,000. The Quigley stadium seating is almost complete at a total expense of $80,000. The Parkview practice field project came in over the budgeted amount and will total $40,950. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the expenditure of funds. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Personnel Changes The Superintendent recommended placement of Darien Smith as principal at Mitchell Academy for the 2000-01 school year. Mr. Smith has been acting principal at Mitchell for the current school year. In addition, he recommended Mary Smith for the position of principal at Rightsell Academy. Ms. Smith is currently the curriculum specialist at Carver Magnet School. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve these two assignments, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Dr. Mitchell moved to adjourn. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board took a brief recess before convening the regular agenda sessi~2 .O:1 ~~_, ~ 1,/7, \"- {) qe Strickland, President APPROVED '.5.J5 OD ~ ~ akerKumis, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 25, 2000 in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Sue Strickland presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Strickland Katherine Mitchell Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. Board President Sue Strickland called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Four members of the Board were present at roll call\nMr. Kumpuris arrived at 5 :22 p.m., Mr. Kurrus arrived at 5:30 p.m., and Dr. Daugherty arrived at 5:45 p.m. Ex-officio representatives to the Board, Shirley Krannichfeld, teacher from Wilson Magnet Elementary School, and student representative, Derrick Mitchell, from Parkview Magnet High School, were also present. READING OF MINUTES: Minutes from the regular April 27, 2000 meeting and from a special meeting held on May 11, 2000 were presented for approval. The minutes were unanimously approved on a motion by Mr. Berkley and seconded by Dr. Mitchell. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page2 fil PRESENTATIONS: A. STUDENT PERFORMANCE Students from Otter Creek Elementary School were introduced by their principal, Janice Tucker. The students performed mini-skits that they learned through the character education program at Otter Creek. B. SUPERINTENDENT'S CITATIONS Dr. Carnine recognized several individuals who were instrumental in the recent successful millage election. It was noted that thousands of volunteer hours went into the campaign\nvolunteers included parents, students, teachers, administrators, business volunteers, and many others. Students from M. L. King Elementary School, 6 year old Jaelyn Epps and 4 year old William Palmer, assisted in presenting gifts and citations to several of the key volunteers. Bishop Steven Arnold, Senator John A. Riggs, W, and Board President Sue Strickland served as campaign co-chairmen. They received framed original works of art by District students as a token of appreciation for their dedicated efforts. Members of the media were also recognized for their efforts to keep the campaign positive and for using their media outlets to provide factual information to the public, as well as to provide strong endorsement of the millage increase. Dale Nicholson, John Brummett, and Max Brantley were also presented with student artwork as a gift of appreciation for their hard work. In addition, Dr. Carnine thanked Cynthia Howell for her reporting of factual and pertinent information on the millage campaign in the daily news. Stacy Pittman was recognized for leading the steering committee of the Yes for Kids campaign and was also presented with a framed work of student art. She took the opportunity to thank the Board, the Superintendent, and the community for their hard work in getting the public to vote their support of our school district. PT A Council President Jeannie Price was asked to make a presentation on behalf of the PTA. She announced that Superintendent Carnine had received the Statewide Administrator of the Year Award and that several of our schools received membership awards at the recent Statewide PT A Council meeting. She displayed several plaques and trophies that were awarded to our schools. One student from each of the District's high schools was selected to receive a $200.00 award for their artwork. The works will be framed and hung in the Administration Building Lobby. The winning students were: Deon Robinson from J A. Fair High School\nSoroush Morshedi from Hall High School\nJoshua Harrell from McClellan High School\nLauren Sudduth from Parkview Magnet High School\nand Antijuan Jackson from Central High School. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 25,2000 Page3 Board member Baker Kurrus was presented with a certificate from the Arkansas School Boards Association for completing six hours of required Board member training. A copy of that certificate will be made a part of these minutes. Mike Peterson, Principal of Metropolitan Career Technical Center, was introduced and asked to make special presentations to the Metropolitan Vocational Industrial Club of America (VICA) team members. These students competed in the statewide competition, and several of them will be competing in nationals during the summer months. Student Ashley Anglin will represent Arkansas at the National Skills USA Championships as a voting delegate. Tina Boykins, Amy Morgan, Tonya Burns, and Desire Willis were winners of the Arkansas Statesman Award. Desire Willis also took the 2nd place award for keeping of the chapter scrapbook. Magan Bradley won 2nd place in the Occupational Health and Safety Manual competition. Shamika Walker, Chermica Moore, Ashley Anglin, and Erica Miller won awards in the cosmetology/nail care categories. In addition, several other students who could not attend the Board meeting were noted as winners in the auto paint and body category, and the diesel technology field. Justin Mercer was presented a citation in recognition of his selection to attend the 2000 Telluride Association Sophomore Seminar in Bloomington, Indiana this summer. Annette Jones and Leathel Sanders, custodians at Pulaski Heights Elementary School, were recognized for their superior service to the students and staff at Pulaski Heights Elementary School. The staff at PRE nominated these individuals for going above and beyond in their efforts to keep the school and grounds clean and well-maintained. The National Faculty's Delta Teachers Academy Media \u0026amp; Technology Team has worked together for three years to learn new and creative ways to teach technology in our schools. Olivia Gad.by, Sherolyn Jones, Stella Cameron, Judy Meyer, Phyllis Johnson and Sharon Faulkenberry were present to present an award of appreciation to Mary Beth Ross from the National Faculty for her dedication and service to the teachers in our District. The Central High School Mock Trial Team was recognized for winning, for the second year in a row, the Arkansas Bar Association High School Mock Trial Competition. This team scored the highest point total in the finals that had ever been recorded in the 14-year history of the event. They went to the National Competition in Columbia, South Carolina and placed fifth nationally. Sarah Luppen and Jordan Tinsley received National Outstanding Lawyer Awards, and John Baber and Justin Rapp received National Outstanding Witness Awards. In addition, the team's coaches, Sam Stueart, Melissa Colburn, Jack Lasiter, and Patty Luppen, were presented with certificates of appreciation. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page4 The Pulaski Heights Lions Club recently honored three teachers in our District with their Award of Excellence. The teachers were Marjorie Plant from Wilson Elementary School\nPam Wallace from Mabelvale Middle School\nand Sam Stueart from Central High School. Certificates of appreciation were presented to the ex officio representatives to the Board for the month of May, Shirley Krannichfeld from Wilson Elementary School, and Derrick lvfitchell from Parkview Magnet High School. C. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION Debbie Milam reported that her office is working to assign students in this summer's Vital Link Program. A total of372 students have enrolled and VIPS staff is still recruiting businesses to place them for the program. Ms. Milam presented certificates to businesses and individuals that recently established working partnerships with District schools. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Newly established partnerships include: Mann Magnet Middle School - represented by Karla Hand/,ey, in partnership with Johnson Controls, Inc. - represented by Melanie Cranford Mitchell Academy - represented by Veta Flanagan, in partnership with the Young Lawyers Association of the Arkansas Bar Association - represented by MarkHodge IV. OTIZENS COMMITTEES Clementine Kelly, representing the Classroom Teachers Association, noted that the 1999- 2000 school year was ending on a positive note and that she was looking forward to a successful 2000-01. She stated that a lot of positive things were accomplished this year and that the CT A was looking forward to a speedy negotiation process. V. REMARKS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Ms. Magness offered a thank you to all the people who worked on the millage campaign. She thanked the staff and volunteers and noted that the campaign could not have been successful without the combined efforts of all who were involved. Mr. Kurrus also expressed appreciation to the community for supporting the District in the millage campaign effort. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page5 Ms. Strickland thanked the voters for going to the polls to support the District. She also thanked the hundreds of volunteers who gave their time and energy to support \"the kids\" and she offered a special note of thanks to Judy Magness for coordinating the campaign volunteers. Dr. Mitchell announced that the Watershed had received a grant for a summer program for children ages 9 to 14. The all-day program will offer academic reinforcement and recreational activities. VI. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Angela McCoy, parent from Rockefeller Elementary School, stated that she was an active PT A member and spokesperson for a group of parents who were unhappy with a change of rules at Rockefeller. She noted that the Friday law firm sponsors a banquet for honor roll students, and that some students were disqualified from attending because of a change in the citizenship requirement. Vivian Mangan, PTA president, spoke on behalf of parents and staff at Rockefeller who were protesting the closing of one of the four-year-old classes at Rockefeller. They asked for the Board to direct the administration to reconsider this decision and reinstate the class. Karen Sanders, parent from Rockefeller noted changes in the desegregation plan regarding racial and socio-economic balance at Rockefeller. She stated that sibling preference in assignments to Rockefeller should be allowed and that students who live in the attendance zone should not be required to go on a waiting list while seats are held for the possible enrollment of white children. Judy Meier, a fifth grade teacher at Rockefeller, stated that the decision to allow only students with good citizenship and academic grades to attend the honors banquet was made by the teachers and the Campus Leadership Team at Rockefeller. The purpose was to teach the children that there are rewards for good behavior and sanctions for not being a good citizen. Students with N's and U' s (Needs Improvement and Unsatisfactory) on their report cards are no longer selected to attend the honors banquet. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Prior to the action portion of the meeting, Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules to reorder the agenda in order to move the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Report to the front of the agenda. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page6 Safe Schools / Healthy Students Grant Report: Linda Young and Bonnie Lesley briefed the Board on the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant application. They noted that the application/grant writing process included a number of community stakeholders, including the City of Little Rock, the Little Rock Police Department, Centers for Youth and Families, Pulaski County Juvenile Court, New Futures for Youth, Pulaski County Enterprise Community, and a number of neighborhood associations. In addition, several of the District's departments were involved in the writing of the grant application, including Safety and Security, Pupil Services, the staff at the Alternative Learning Center, Early Childhood, Student Hearing, and others. The grant will provide additional school and transportation safety measures, alcohol and drug prevention strategies, peer mediation training, additional centers for short-term suspensions, mental health prevention, intervention and treatment, and parenting classes. Additional information is to be provided to the Board over the summer with periodic updates as information becomes available. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA There was a brief discussion regarding the items listed as \"Consent.\" All of the items included for the Board's review were regulations for the administration of previously approved policies. After a brief recess, Ms. Magness made a motion to move the list of consent items to the report agenda so that additional discussion could take place. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. (Dr. Daugherty did not return immediately from the Board's recess.) IX. ACTION AGENDA A. Board Policy Review: Second Reading, Section D - Fiscal Policies Policies DKC, Travel Expense Authorization/Reimbursement, and DFD, Gate Receipts and Admissions, were presented for review and approval on second reading. Accompanying regulations were provided for the Board's review and comment. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve these policies on second reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. B. Board Policy Review: Second Reading, Section D - Fiscal Policies Policy DCA, Management of Capital Projects Fund, was presented for second reading. Regulations for administering this policy were also provided for the Board's review and comment. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve DCA on second reading, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page7 C. Board Policy Review: First Reading: Section D, Fiscal Management Several policies for Section D, Fiscal Management, were presented for review and first reading approval. This reading included: DFB - Revenues from School-Owned Real Estate\nDFC - Leasing of District Facilities\nDFE - Royalties\nDFF - Income From School Sales and Services\nDGE - Personal Debts of Employees\nDID - Inventories (with Regulations)\nDIE -Audits/Financial Monitoring\nDID - Cooperative Purchasing and Resource Sharing\nDJGA - Sales Calls and Demonstrations\nDLA - Employee Benefits Administration\nand DN - School Property Disposal (with Regulations). After a brief discussion, Dr. Anderson agreed to return policy DID, with regulations DID-R with a few modifications as requested by the Board. Ms. Magness offered a motion to approve these policies on first reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. D. Board Policy Review: Second Reading, Section J - Students Policies for inclusion in Section J of the Board's policy manual were presented for review and approval on first reading. The policies included in this reading include: JB - Equal Educational Opportunity\nIBA - Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities, with Regulations\nJC - School Attendance Zones\nJCA - Student Assignment\nJEC - Pupil Enrollment Requirements\nn - Student Rights and Responsibilities\nJnA - Intramural Games and Sports\nand JRAA-R (Regulation only). Ms. Magness moved to approve the policies as presented for second reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. E. Board Policy Review: Second Reading, Section F - Facilities Policies FBC, Closing of Schools, and FCC, Temporary School Facilities, were provided for the Board's review and second reading approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve on the policies on second reading. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. (Dr. Daugherty returned.) F. Plan to Restructure the Parent Program Ms. Magness made a motion to suspend the rules and reorder the agenda to move item M - Plan to Restructure the Parent Program to Item Fon the agenda. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 25,2000 Page8 A written report had been provided to the Board as a part of the printed agenda. In addition, several parents who participate in the District's Title One Parent Advisory Committee were present to review and present their recommendations. Parents who attended included: Barbara Osborne, Diane Vibhaker, and Thelma Jasper. In addition, Bob Trevino, representing the League of Latin American Citizens, made supporting statements and recommendations for the Board's consideration. Ms. Magness offered a motion to approve the plan as presented and Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. There was a brief discussion in which Dr. Mitchell stated that she planned to ask the Board to table this item for further discussion. There was no formal motion to table and no second to a possible motion. Mr. Kurrus also stated objections. Dr. Lesley responded to several concerns noted by Dr. Mitchell and agreed to meet with individual Board members if there were additional questions or concerns. On the motion, the Board voted to approve 5-2, with Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Kurrus casting the \"no\" votes. G. School Uniforms The establishment of a districtwide dress code for students is required under Act 1301 of 1999, and by statute the Board is required to create an advisory committee for the purpose of considering whether the District should adopt a uniform dress code for students. Mr. Gadberry provided a report for the Board's review as a part of the printed agenda and responded to questions from the Board. Ms. Magness made a motion to establish a districtwide committee for the purpose of making a dress code or uniform policy recommendation. Each Board member is to nominate two parents and one student to serve on this committee. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. H. Revisions for the 2000-2001 Student Handbooks A summary of changes and additions to the 2000-01 student handbooks was presented for the Board's review and approval. Dr. Watson was present to respond to questions from the Board, and agreed to provide additional updates as they become available. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the changes and additional provided, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. I. 2000-01 Student Calendar Revision Mr. Gadberry provided a revised calendar of student attendance days for the 2000-01 school year. Due to the Arkansas Department of Education scheduling of SAT9 testing, it was necessary to reschedule staff development and parent conference days. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the revised student attendance calendar. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page9 J. Arkansas Mentoring Model Pilot Sites Grant A proposal was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education for the Beginning Intern Teachers Grant. Dr. Lease responded to questions and reported that the grant will provide funds for stipends to be paid to experienced teachers who mentor new teachers. Ms. Magness moved to approve the submission, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. K. Resolution Approving the Use of Postdated Warrants to Finance Purchase of School Buses Dr. Anderson presented a resolution for the Board's review and approval that would authorize the purchase of six additional buses to provide transportation for the new charter school and for the special needs transportation fleet. Financing will be by postdated warrant, which requires approval of a resolution. Dr. Anderson reported that a second resolution would be provided at the June meeting of the Board. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the resolution and Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. It carried 7 -0. L. Bus Lease Purchase for LRSD Special Needs Transportation Fleet Dr. Anderson provided information on the lease/purchase of six additional school buses for the special needs transportation fleet and for the operation of the charter school and short-term suspension centers. The estimated cost is $350,717, financed over a sevenyear period, with an annual payment of approximately $50,102. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the administration's recommendation. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. M. Recognition and Rewards System Sadie Mitchell reported to the Board on the proposed Recognition and Reward System for Schools. Representatives of the Campus Leadership Teams met quarterly to aid in the development of the \"collective responsibility\" concept, which would provide a formalized reward system for schools that achieve goals related to student learning and achievement. The full proposal was printed as a part of the Board's agenda and the Board was provided an opportunity to review the document and ask questions of Ms. Mitchell and Dr. Carnine. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the recognition and rewards system. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. There was a great deal of discussion among the Board members, and it was noted specifically that any vote taken at this time would be on the concept of setting up a rewards and recognition system and not on allocating a specific dollar amount for funding the rewards. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page 10 Mr. Kunus noted objections, specifically that he thinks the additional funding should be provided to the schools which are not operating successfully so that they may begin to achieve at the level of the more successful schools. Ms. Strickland remarked that she wanted to ensure that the Board and administration provided the necessary support for each school to be successful. Mr. Berkley noted concerns regarding perceptions of quality and customer service. Dr. Mitchell wanted assurances that the awards and rewards would not be based solely on test scores. It was proposed by the Cluster Coordinating Committee that the awards would be presented to the schools at the annual convocation ceremony. Achievement would be based on goals and indicators as reported on the State Report Card. It was emphasized that the plan would not encourage competition between the schools, but would be based on each individual school's growth and achievement of the established criteria. Mr. Kumpuris offered an amendment to the original motion: he asked that consideration be given to providing incentives other than cash awards, that the actual awards not be distributed until August of 2001\nand that criteria measuring \"customer satisfaction\" be added to the guidelines and criteria. Mr. Kurrus seconded the amendment to the motion and it carried 4-3, with Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Berkley and Ms. Magness casting the \"no\" votes. Ms. Magness noted that she could not support the amendment to the motion because the proposal before the Board had been developed and approved by the Campus Leadership Teams and it should not be up to the Board to amend their proposal without their input. On the amended motion to approve the Recognition and Reward System, the Board voted unanimously to approve. N. New Course at Mabelvale Middle School The administration asked for the Board's approval to implement an Environmental Investigations Course at Mabel vale Middle School in the fall of 2000. The course will be an elective in addition to the required science courses already provided by the curriculum. Ms. Magness moved to approve the additional course offering, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 0. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the donations, seconded by Ms. Magness. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus read the list of donations\nitems are noted in the following chart. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page 11 DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Dodd Elementary School 12 yards of shredded mulch, valued at McKenzie Landscaping, Inc. $85.00 for landscaping on Earth Day 10 Azalea bushes and flats of mixed Goldmon Lawn Care annuals for Earth Day landscape project-total value $65.00 Forest Park Elementary School Seven window air-\u0026lt;:onditioners for use in Forest Park PTA classrooms - valued at $4,383.95 Mabelvale Middle School HP Deskjet 540 printer and a Microsoft Mr. Gilles Lecointe Encarta Encyclopedia CD Magnavox VCR Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. W. H. Cameron Magnavox VCR Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Richard F.mmel $289.44 cash to purchase VCR's for El Chico Restaurant instructional use Williams Magnet Elementary School $9,077.18 cash to purchase six Dell Williams Magnet School PTA computers, expansion code for Accelerated Reader, and shirts for staff members in honor of Teacher Appreciation Week Pulaski Heights Elementary $5,000 cash to purchase three Dell PC's Pulaski Heights Elementary PT A and three HP Desk.jet 950 C printers E. Personnel Personnel changes were printed in the agenda. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the items as presented. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. F. Financials The monthly financial reports were printed in the Board's agenda for review and approval. Dr. Stewart was present to respond to questions from the Board. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve reports as presented, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT A. Discussion: Regulations listed as Consent Items A review of regulations listed in the consent agenda was moved to the report agenda for further discussion. Those regulations are: JJIB-R, Change of Residence/Interscholastic Competition\nID-R, Student Schedules\nIKF A-R, Early Graduation\nand IKC-R, Class Rankings/Grade Point Averages. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page 12 Dr. Mitchell had several questions regarding IKC-R and the implication for students who desire to retake classes in summer school to increase their skills or improve their grade point averages. She stated opposition to any policy, rule or regulation which would deny students an opportunity to attend summer school for reasons other than failure of a class. Dr. Lesley and Dr. Lacey responded to questions and Dr. Mitchell indicated that she would ask for additional information and for the policy and regulations to be brought back before the Board for additional review and discussion. B. Desegregation Update/Census and Compliance Report Mr. Babbs was present and introduced Dr. Terrence Roberts for a brief review of desegregation compliance issues. The \"Learning to Cope With Differences\" training is progressing as planned, with groups 7 and 8 finishing up this week and groups 9 and 10 scheduled for training the first part of June. C. Budget Update/Finance Report Don Stewart reported that District Budget Managers were actively working on the planning for 2000-01. Work in updating budget codes is taking longer than planned, but they expect that process to be completed in July. A tentative budget will be prepared and ready for review with the Board in July. A budget work session will be scheduled as soon as there are preliminary figures for review and discussion. D. Stephens Construction Update Doug Eaton reported on the progress of the new Stephens School. This is the ninth month of construction and in his estimation, all is moving along as planned. The interior walls and drywall work is taking place and Entergy has completed the interior electrical work. Installation of the heating and air conditioning systems is scheduled and they are over 60% complete on the roof and other exterior work The building should be ready for student occupancy in late December or early January. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's report was printed as a part of the agenda. In addition, the Board was provided with a report on the Athletics expenditures. There were no additional questions or concerns. Board members will call Mr. Becker if they wish individual appointments or for further information. F. Middle School Research and Writing Curriculum Suzi Davis, Diane Rynders, Barbara Brandon, Cynthia Collins and Laura Beth Arnold provided a review of several curriculum-writing projects for Middle School instruction. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May25,2000 Page 13 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS None XI. HEARINGS Mr. Berkley made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of hearing a petition for expulsion of three students. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Watson provided a recommendation for the expulsion of three students who had been involved in an incident at Southwest Middle School on February 17 and 18, 2000. A weapon had been brought to the campus and had been hidden in an area behind the school. School administrators were not aware that the gun was on the campus until afte\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_97","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2000-01/2000-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/97"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["250 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REcc,vco FEB 1 ZO[a UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for January, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assista t Atto e General 323 Center S t, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 !Iii~ 99 ~Hi \\mfirlltlin ~Yl~!~i!I It iisirniir ~1i ~~I~\n~ii !mlFiill!~tii m~ eqmt!i.t~ti@o rwnPimi ttFY! ~i!PPtiY~i~ttJi m~n?MJ/4 $9li$ffl.i~ntii B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 ~iii PD t~i !Bfirmi!,em :!xl1!ii1! ltR*Sillit ~11 j$ijijfJt\\gmffi.S iii.iiiij1ii ftRM~@lQQl$YP1Wm!t P$tj@.gjggtjj$Jmio1M C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 111111,11.1,\n1ii~i~!iiri.lt1QG.$At~i~1ggr4\nJ,iitl@P.Ym\ni.ngfgrflMiitPQ \u0026amp;1111 rm~ l!!Btml@~ qf ffiti~i ffiBY!!ll!,em: Ewml\\m\nsilswlit! f 9[ Fi ijg(QQ ij1 p~~mt@ll$J}jg~~(YP1@(Jg p~rjg@ $.#JmMID~bt$Ml\u0026amp;~fW ij~f!!M\u0026amp;$\n!illlilil:!lf-1111. 8q}I!d~$@i2HWJ D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 iiiil RD ~~i ~n~irli11im iii~!il~~\nii Iii i!JqQ!!t~~ !{JP$P.lmigr 111 )iii ft6 ~!\n1/QQ\n$QpJgfJp P@figJ@pJ!l@tm?b!$i E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 %~~g RD mJ 1hfdf 9.1~J,h ava ila~iiil~~ {{DE 9Ji9y!~f d ~t R~sim~~f ~1-l 1~~~ f(fY9WQO\nsubjecft9perlodic a\u0026lt;lJQstments. It $fioftl(tb~h6.tEifftha(.cUrfe.ot.ty the Magnef Review G~mmlttee. is i\nepbrting this irif9rmation ih~tgti:'.!d of the s#if.f attotryeY,~s lndicatedjo the tmplern~fitaticn Plan, F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Based bn the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 1999 for FY 99/00, subject to periodic adjustments.  G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Distributions for FY 99/00 at December 31 , 1999, totaled $4,289,494, Allotment calculated.for FY 99/00 was $10,074,196 subject to periodic adjystrpents, H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Calculated for FY 99/00, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 1.m1i1ij~w1im~ r1r 1t gwrqi il@ig~mi~r@11 1gwi 11r~~ 1111111111~11: .... 8@\nj $4.\\~$@.}944 liil!!Blii~isili4l@i\nifiriltMgwf PPitilgmiJ~r\n1\njgwill@j~g~tQ p~fiiijig @91A$Jttlinti:!iW$'t$.I J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In July 1999, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 99/00 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In September 1999, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 99/00 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In September 1999, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 99/00 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At iJgliroiir1iti, the following had been paid for FY 99/00: LRSD -$1,139,152.67 NLRSD - $192,666.67 PCSSD - $648,457.33 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98-99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 1998- 99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99-00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99-00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be del ivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD- 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 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 January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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. 8 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 12 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 14 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. 17 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, 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 18 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February. 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. 24 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 25 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the AD E's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 3l VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 33 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SA T-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 34 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 3 5 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 36 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 37 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 38 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 39 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 40 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97 /98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 41 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 42 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 43 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 44 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31 , 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 45 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31 , 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 46 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) illl~lllr1ilill!J.il1~fitf lllllllli,lilll1,1llllllfllll~~g L~!tn~ti~P1!ti99f9\\U!t2ra({J,jg9!ll\nigg211Isl!1Brnmlffi!Jl!D!!Mt (ijpfl).f p~Htns~tm11t~ltiifi!BilsQK~lJftmmiYit~~ffiiPQ ni!Qifi{L.  CbBiBitf!IDB ist.!:t!il!Is!In! pm~as1amm~!iv$t:rnnm n$xtm~wttm wm PW pgp@Jtw@T2QPQ$.l1h@\nQe\n47 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 48 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at UA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them. They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith, April 13, 1999 and Grambling University, April 15, 1999. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 49 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. In May 1999, requests were made to the Pulaski County Schools for a list of teacher openings and grade levels. In June 1999, the Professional Licensure Unit received a list of teacher shortage areas and openings for Pulaski County Schools. In December 1999, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. 50 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. In May 1999, requests were made to all colleges and universities for their spring minority graduates for 1999. In June 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure received minority graduate reports from colleges and universities. In December 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actua! as of January 31 , 2000 In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. 51 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. E. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. In July 1999, the minority graduate reports from the colleges and universities were mailed to all Pulaski County Schools. Job openings for Pulaski County Schools were mailed to all colleges and universities. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of AD E's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11 , 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 52 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In December 1999, The ADE requested a letter from each of the three Pulaski County schools documenting the effectiveness of help given the districts. 53 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 54 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) E. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 55 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 56 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESE LP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. 57 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121 ,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121 ,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. 58 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21 , 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21 , 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31 , \" an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 59 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) SB261 \"to encourage teachers to participate in and complete NBPTS Certification by authorizing the Department of Education to pay full tuition and incentive bonuses.\" SB 113 \"to amend A. C.A.  6-17-410 to clarify that the Department of Education will pay criminal record check fees for certain public education employees.\" The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on May 13, 1999 at the ADHE. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, ADHE, and ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship application deadline for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the new rules and regulations for professional development that are to go out for public comment were distributed. The committee discussed the status and impact of the following Acts related to teacher recruitment: Act 905 (formerly HB1466)\nAct 391 (formerly SB237)\nAct 58 (formerly SB261)\nAct 226 (formally SB113). On August 23, 1999, Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1999-2000 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 300 ESEL 81 ,717 101 ,250 6* Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 425,000 94 Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 65,000 17 * These are all minority students. The Minority Teacher Scholarship committee gathered on November 9, 1999 at the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. Representatives from the ADHE, ADE, and the three districts were present. The committee discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pool and reviewed the current Rules and Regulations for Professional Development. Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education made a correction to the 1999 - 2000 scholarship report that was presented in the August PMT. The total number of awarded scholarships for the Minority Teacher Scholars program were 97 rather than 94, also the amount of money awarded for the Minority Teacher Scholar program was $466,104 rather than $425,000. 60 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 61 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to co\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"ndd_holsaertfaith_r4416t58z","title":"Celebrating the Southwest Georgia Movement, 2000","collection_id":"ndd_holsaertfaith","collection_title":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Holsaert, Faith"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["fhpst03018","https://repository.duke.edu/iipsrv/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=/srv/perkins/repo_deriv/multires_image/5/4/b1/54b13921-22b9-4065-83dc-097b93bd48ad/fhpst03018001.ptif/full/!350,350/0/default.jpg"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Faith Holsaert papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Feminism","Civil rights","Social justice","Women political activists","Women's rights","Voter registration--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Celebrating the Southwest Georgia Movement, 2000"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Duke University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4416t58z"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Duke has not determined the copyright status of this item. Regardless of its status, we have made a good faith determination that online access through the Duke Digital Repository is an acceptable fair use and otherwise permitted under U.S. copyright law. For more information, see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_429808","title":"Class of 1950 50th Reunion materials","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas"],"dc_date":["2000"],"dcterms_description":["Items from the 50th reunion held by alumni from the Dunbar High School class of 1950 held in Little Rock, Arkansas.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Class reunions"],"dcterms_title":["Class of 1950 50th Reunion materials"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/429808"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_970","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/970"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["16 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nII NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT II RE .-EIVED Ill SEP\n0 2001 Urfit\nt Of Ill DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING ll ANALYSIS I OF ' DISCIPLINARY I ACTIONS I I District Level I I ll 2000-2001 I ll ll FRANC/CAL]. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs I I Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/10/01 16:06:08 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through JUNE ==========================-=---------------------------====--------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ======================---------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ==========--===---======--------=======--------------=--====-===-=-=-----------= 09 S.A.C. 113 58.5% 58 30 .1% 19 9.8% 3 1.6% 193 54 39 17 2 112 10 HOME SUSP. 263 62.9% 80 19.1% 62 14.8% 13 3.1% 418 171 54 42 11 278 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 246 61.5% 63 15.8% 75 18.8% 16 4.0% 400 120 40 36 8 204 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 100.0% 0 O!l-  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 =========================--------------------------============================- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =========================--------------------------============================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =============================--------------============== =========-============ 09 S.A.C. 25 48 .1% 19 36.5% 6 11.5% 2 3.8% 52 21 13 5 2 41 10 HOME SUSP. 204 70.3% 55 19.0% 28 9. 7% 3 1.0% 290 123 42 21 3 189 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 162 58.3% 55 19.8% 40 14.4% 21 7.6% 278 101 44 23 10 178 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----================---------------------------============================----= COMPARISON ----=================----------------------=-==============-==================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----============--=--------------------------================================== 09 S.A.C. 88- 77.9-% 39- 67.2-% 13- 68.4-% 1- 33.3-% 141- 33- 26- 12- 0 71- 10 HOME SUSP. 59- 22.4-% 25- 31.3-% 34- 54.8-% 10- 76.9-% 12 8- 48- 12- 21- 8- 89- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 84- 34.1-% 8- 12.7-% 35- 46.7-% 5 31. 3 % 122- 19- 4 13- 2 26- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- ~ ~ .) Ref: DIS032 Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:08 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE ==============================-----------------------------------------==------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==========================-====--------------------------=---------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================-========--------------==========================--------- 09 S.A.C. 652 52. 7% 329 26.6% 186 15.0% 71 5. 7% 1238 295 185 107 43 630 10 HOME SUSP. 47 52.2% 14 15.6% 28 31.1% 1 1.1% 90 21 9 16 1 47 11 BOYS CLUB 203 54 .1% 98 26.1% 58 15.5% 16 4.3% 375 116 66 40 9 231 12 E. I.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ==========================-------==-------------------=====================----= 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ============================-------------------===============================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================--------------------------===========================-- 09 S.A.C. 500 54.0% 260 28.1% 131 14.1% 35 3.8% 926 254 136 85 26 501 10 HOME SUSP. 104 74.8% 18 12.9% 16 11. 5% 1 7!1-  0 139 35 11 8 1 55 11 BOYS CLUB 175 58.3% 88 29.3% 29 9. 7% 8 2. 7% 300 99 48 22 5 174 12 E.I.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0~  0 0 0!1-  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 ==========================-----------=----==-==================================- COMPARISON ========================--------------=---=====================================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===================--------------------------==============================---- 09 S.A.C. 152- 23.3-% 69- 21.0-% 55- 29.6-% 36- 50.7-% 312- 41- 49- 22- 17- 129- 10 HOME SUSP. 57 121.3 % 4 28.6 % 12- 42.9-% 0 . 0 % 49 14 2 8- 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 28- 13.8-% 10- 10.2-% 29- 50.0-% 8- 50.0-% 75- 17- 18- 18- 4- 57- 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 Ref: DIS032 Date: 9 /10/01 Time: 16:06:09 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE =====--===========-------====--------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==================-----=====---------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =======================-===-----------------------------=====-=======----------- 09 S.A.C. 703 56.7% 275 22.2% 196 15.8% 65 5.2% 1239 266 155 110 40 571 10 HOME SUSP. 94 72.9% 19 14. 7% 12 9.3% 4 3 .1% 129 54 12 11 3 80 11 BOYS CLUB 148 66.7% 31 14.0% 32 14.4% 11 5.0% 222 102 26 27 8 163 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 66. 7% 0 0~  0 1 33.3% 0 0~  0 3 2 0 1 0 3 ===========================----------------------=============================-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ============-=-============-----------------------===========================--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========================-------------------------------------============------- 09 S.A.C. 567 56.4% 277 27.5% 130 12.9% 32 3.2% 1006 242 143 85 24 494 10 HOME SUSP. 79 65.3% 19 15.7% 20 16.5% 3 2.5% 121 47 18 12 2 79 11 BOYS CLUB 150 65.5% 48 21. 0% 27 11. 8% 4 1. 7% 229 104 36 25 4 169 12 E. I.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 g..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 11.1% 0 Og..  0 5 55.6% 3 33.3% 9 1 0 5 3 9 -========================------------------------=============================-- COMPARISON -=======================--------------------------============================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===========================------------------================================-- 09 S.A.C. 136- 19.3-% 2 .7 % 66- 33.7-% 33- 50.8-% 233- 24- 12- 25- 16- 77- 10 HOME SUSP. 15- 16.0-% 0 .0 % 8 66.7 %- 1- 25.0-% 8- 7- 6 1 1- 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 2 1. 4 % 17 54.8 % 5- 15.6-% 7- 63.6-% 7 2 10 2- 4- 6 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 %- 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 %- 4 400.0 % 3 300.0 % 6 1- 0 4 3 6 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:09 School: 012 NORTH Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST LITTLE ROCK HIGH Through JUNE SCHOOL - 11/12 ==================----==---==----------------=-=====-====-======---------------= 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ==================----=====---------------------=============------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==============-------=======-------------===============================------== 09 S.A.C. 160 47.5% 90 26. 7% 63 18. 7% 24 7.1% 337 94 65 44 17 220 10 HOME SUSP. 7 63.6% 0 Og...  0 2 18.2% 2 18.2% 11 5 0 2 2 9 11 BOYS CLUB 44 56.4% 12 15.4% 16 20.5% 6 7.7% 78 34 11 14 4 63 12 E. I. C. 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 1 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ==========================------------------------===========================--- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =======================---------------------------------=---===============----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ========================----------------------------==========================-- 09 S.A.C. 142 51. 4% 68 24.6% 54 19.6% 12 4.3% 276 87 so 40 9 186 10 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 2 28.6% 2 28.6% 0 Og...  0 7 3 2 2 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 52 57 .1% 19 20.9% 18 19.8% 2 2.2% 91 43 16 17 2 78 12 E. I.C 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 Og...  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 1 50.0% 0 Og...  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 ---==================--------------------------================================= COMPARISON ----=================----------------------===-================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------============================--- 09 S.A.C. 18- 11.3-% 22- 24.4-% 9- 14.3-% 12- 50.0-% 61- 7- 15- 4- 8- 34- 10 HOME SUSP. 4- 57.1-% 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 4- 2- 2 0 2- 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 8 18.2 % 7 58.3 % 2 12.5 % 4- 66.7-% 13 9 5 3 2- 15 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:09 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ----====------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---==-=---------------------------------------------==-------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 538 60.2% 184 20.6% 132 14.8% 40 4.5% 894 170 92 66 23 351 10 HOME SUSP. 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 0 09-  0 12 7 2 3 0 12 11 BOYS CLUB 104 72.2% 19 13.2% 16 11.1% 5 3.5% 144 68 15 14 5 102 12 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 -======================------------------------===============================-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ---======-==============-------------------------================----=========-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========---=============-------------------------============================== 09 S.A.C. 424 58.2% 209 28. 7% 76 10.4% 20 2. 7% 729 155 95 46 15 311 10 HOME SUSP. 4 66. 7% 2 33.3% 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 6 4 2 0 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 98 71. 0% 29 21.0% 9 6.5% 2 1. 4% 138 62 20 8 2 92 12 E.I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 4 57.1% 3 42.9% 7 0 0 4 3 7 -==-------------------------------------------------==========================-- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ====---------------------------------------=-===-============================-=- 09 S.A.C. 114- 21.2-% 25 13. 6 % 56- 42.4-% 20- 50.0-% 165- 15- 3 20- 8- 40- 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 42.9-% 0 . 0 % 3- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 6- 3- 0 3- 0 6- 11 BOYS CLUB 6- 5.8-% 10 52.6 % 7- 43.8-% 3- 60.0-% 6- 6- 5 6- 3- lO- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 4 400.0 % 3 300.0 % 6 1- 0 4 3 6 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:09 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY -----=-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----==------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 7 58.3% 3 25.0% 1 8.3% 1 8.3% 12 7 3 1 1 12 10 HOME SUSP. 126 65.3% 32 16.6% 33 17.1% 2 1.0% 193 62 21 20 1 104 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--=====----====-=====----------------------------------=======================- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ==-====------=========-=------------------------------------==================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==========================------------------------------------================== 09 S.A.C. o 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 172 71.4% 32 13. 3% 33 13. 7% 4 1. 7% 241 72 24 17 3 116 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 09--  0 0 0 9--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 7- 100.0-% 3- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 12- 7- 3- 1- 1- 12- 10 HOME SUSP. 46 36.5 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 2 100.0 % 48 10 3 3- 2 12 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:10 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL --------===--=------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ======-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---======-----===========-------=-------------------==================--==------ 09 S.A.C. 220 55. 7% 82 20.8% 52 13.2% 41 10.4% 395 103 48 31 21 203 10 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 BOYS CLUB 119 64.0% 33 17.7% 21 11. 3% 13 7.0% 186 66 23 19 6 114 12 E. I.C. 0 Og,  0 0 Og,  0 0 09-  0 0 Og,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 0 g,  0 0 0 g,  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ===--=--------====----------------------------------====------======----==-----= 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 -=====--------=-=-----------------------------------=============-======-======= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==---------------------------------------------------========-----=--====---- 09 S.A.C. 154 50.8% 97 32.0% 42 13. 9% 10 3.3% 303 83 49 26 7 165 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0% 0 0 g,  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 112 59.3% 52 27.5% 19 10.1% 6 3.2% 189 57 26 14 3 100 12 E. I. C 0 0 g,  0 0 09-  0 0 0 g,  0 0 0 g,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 09-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 g,  0 2 2 0 0 0 2 -----------------------------------------------------=====-=-==-----====---=---- COMPARISON =-=------------------------------------------------=---------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ===----------------------------------------------=---===================--====== 09 S.A.C. 66- 30.0-% 15 18.3 % 10- 19.2-% 31- 75.6-% 92- 20- 1 5- 14- 38- 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 1 0 0 1- 0 11 BOYS CLUB 7- 5.9-% 19 57.6 % 2- 9.5-% 7- 53.8-% 3 9- 3 5- 3- 14- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 g, 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Ref: DIS032S Date : 9 / 1 O / O 1 Time: 16:06:10 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL -------==----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 96 45. 7% 66 31.4% 41 19.5% 7 3.3% 210 48 37 28 5 118 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 13 35.1% 17 45.9% 6 16.2% 1 2. 7% 37 9 12 5 1 27 12 E.I.C. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======--================-------------------------============================== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =====------============-------------------------------========================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 117 49.0% 56 23.4% 50 20.9% 16 6.7% 239 59 30 34 11 134 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 27 55 .1% 17 34. 7% 4 8.2% 1 2.0% 49 19 9 4 1 33 12 E.I.C 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,  0 0 Og..  0 0 O!l,  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------=========--==--------=---=-----================================ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------======================--- 09 S.A.C. 21 21.9 % 10- 15.2-% 9 22.0 % 9 128.6 % 29 11 7- 6 6 16 10 HOME SUSP. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 14 107.7 % 0 . 0 % 2- 33.3-% 0 .0 % 12 10 3- 1- 0 6 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL =======------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------===----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 119 48.4% 62 25.2% 49 19.9% 16 6.5% 246 64 39 20 12 135 10 HOME SUSP. 1 33.3% 0 O!!--  0 2 66.7% 0 O!!--  0 3 1 0 2 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 41 41.8% 30 30.6% 26 26.5% 1 1.0% 98 22 17 13 1 53 12 E. I.C. 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--==--================------------------------------------====-----======---- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ~==-=======================--------------------------------======---==========-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =---===--===============-----------------------------------------==--=======---- 09 S.A.C. 56 47.9% 44 37.6% 9 7.7% 8 6.8% 117 34 26 9 7 76 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 17 51.5% 12 36.4% 3 9.1% 1 3.0% 33 10 7 2 1 20 12 E. I.C 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 O!!--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====-=-----=-============--=----------------------------=====================--- COMPARISON ========-===================-==------------------==--========================--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ============================-=--===------------=-===========================---- 09 S.A.C. 63- 52.9-% 18- 29.0-% 40- 81.6-% 8- 50.0-% 129- 30- 13- 11- 5- 59- 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 3- 1- 0 2- 0 3- ll BOYS CLUB 24- 58.5-% 18- 60.0-% 23- 88.5-% 0 . 0 % 65- 12- 10- 11- 0 33- 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Ti me : 16 : O 6 : 1 O School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL =====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---==--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 215 56.1% 117 30.5% 44 11. 5% 7 1.8% 383 84 60 28 6 178 10 HOME SUSP. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 !1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 30 55.6% 18 33.3% 5 9.3% 1 1. 9% 54 21 14 3 1 39 12 E. I.C. 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0~  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----=--------------------------------------------------=====----=======----===- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ======----------------------------------------------------=====================- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---====-----======--=--------------------------------------=====--------------== 09 S.A.C. 174 64.9% 63 23.5% 30 11.2% 1 4 !1--  0 268 82 32 18 1 133 10 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 0 !1--  0 5 3 1 1 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 19 65.5% 7 24 .1% 3 10.3% 0 0!1--  0 29 15 6 2 0 23 12 E. I.C 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0!1--  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-----------------------------------------=-================================ 09 S.A.C. 41- 19.1-% 54- 46.2-% 14- 31.8-% 6- 85.7-% 115- 2- 28- 10- 5- 45- 10 HOME SUSP. 3 300.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .o % 5 3 1 1 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 11- 36.7-% 11- 61.1-% 2- 40.0-% 1- 100.0-% 25- 6- 8- 1- 1- 16- 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---==--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 42 75.0% 5 8.9% 7 12.5% 2 3.6% 56 20 5 6 2 33 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==-===--------===-----------------------------------=============-=-============ 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ~=--==--------===-=-----------------------------------=========---=----==----==- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =--===--------========------------------------------=========----======-=====--= 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 Og..  0 0 OJ\u0026gt;,-  0 0 Og..  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 24 52.2% 16 34.8% 5 10.9% 1 2.2% 46 13 11 5 1 30 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 Og..  0 0 09,  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------------------------=========================== COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------============---============ 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 18- 42.9-% 11 220.0 % 2- 28.6-% 1- 50.0-% 10- 7- 6 1- 1- 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------==----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16. 7% 4 66.7% 1 16.7% 0 O!l-  0 6 1 3 1 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l-  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 09-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--=----------------------------------------------------======-----======----- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ~=--====-===============--------------------------------============-=========-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===-==---=-==-==========------------------------------------=====--------====--- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 09-  0 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 09-  0 3 0 2 1 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 O!!.-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =====------------=--=-----------------------------===-=======================--= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-----------------=--=-----------------=-================================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 100.0-% 2- 50.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 3- 1- 1- 0 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------===---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 =====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----===------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 47 73.4% 17 26.6% 0 0 g..  0 0 Og..  0 64 31 9 0 0 40 ll BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 99 82.5% 20 16.7% 0 Og..  0 0 8 !1--  0 120 53 11 0 1 65 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======================-----------------------------------=-================-=-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ===-===================---------------------------------------================-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--====-==============----------------------------------------===============-- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 49 80.3% 11 18.0% 1 1. 6% 0 Og..  0 61 29 7 1 0 37 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 42 84.0% 8 16.0% 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 50 33 6 0 0 39 17 EXPULSION 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 Og..  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT ( +/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =-----------------------------------------------==----=-====================---- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 4.3 % 6- 35.3-% 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 2- 2- 1 0 3- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 57- . 0 % 12- .0 % 0 .0 % 1- . 0 % 70- 1- 1- 0 1- 26- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------==------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----====------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 93 66.4% 41 29.3% 6 4.3% 0 O!,,-  0 140 42 26 5 0 73 10 HOME SUSP. 21 70.0% 5 16.7% 4 13. 3% 0 O!,,-  0 30 17 3 2 0 22 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 4 100.0% 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 4 4 0 0 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===--==------========-------------------------------=======------====---=----==- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =---==--------==-=----------------------------------=---=======--=-==-------===- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 11 84.6% 2 15.4% 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 13 7 2 0 0 9 10 HOME SUSP. 12 57.1% 6 28.6% 3 14.3% 0 O!\\-  0 21 9 4 1 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 44 68.8% 18 28.1% 2 3 .1% 0 O!\\-  0 64 24 13 2 0 39 17 EXPULSION 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!,,-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ==--------------------------------------------------=============-=--===-======= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =---------------------------------------------------=============---====--====== 09 S.A.C. 82- 88.2-% 39- 95.1-% 6- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 127- 35- 24- 5- 0 64- 10 HOME SUSP. 9- 42.9-% 1 20.0 % 1- 25.0-% 0 . 0 % 9- 8- 1 1- 0 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 40 . 0 % 18 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 0 .0 % 60 10 18 2 0 35 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:10 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ======-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ------=------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 16 66.7% 6 25.0% 1 4.2% 1 4.2% 24 11 6 1 1 19 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 38 73.1% 11 21. 2% 0 5.8% 0 0!1-  0 52 24 11 2 0 37 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =====--======-----===----------------------------------------------=------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====---=======-==-======------------------------------------------========------ 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23 85.2% 3 11.1% 1 3.7% 0 0 !1-  0 27 16 3 1 0 20 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 8 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 8 8 0 0 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======--------=-=====-------------------------------------------=======-------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==========-===========--=---=------------------------=------=============------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 43.8 % 3- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 3 5 3- 0 1- 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 30- . 0 % 11- . 0 % 3- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 44- 1- 1- 3- 0 29- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:10 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --====------------------------------------------------------------=------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -=--==--------------------------------------------------------====-=======------ 09 S.A.C. 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 O!!-  0 1 25.0% 4 2 1 0 1 4 10 HOME SUSP. 51 59.3% 14 16.3% 18 20.9% 3 3.5% 86 28 7 7 2 44 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 09,.  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--====================---------------------------================--=---=-====== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =======----===========----------------------------====--======================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 3 75.0% 1 25.0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 4 3 1 0 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 27 77 .1% 4 11.4% 3 8.6% 1 2.9% 35 20 3 2 1 26 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!\\-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 09,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 09,.  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ====------------=======---------------------------============================== COMPARISON =-=---------------------------------------------=-============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------------------=----======================== 09 S.A.C. 1 50.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 1 0 0 1- 0 10 HOME SUSP. 24- 47.1-% 10- 71.4-% 15- 83.3-% 2- 66.7-% 51- 8- 4- 5- 1- 18- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------=------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 22 52.4% 1 2.4% 13 31.0% 6 14.3% 42 16 1 12 5 34 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 105 46.9% 32 14.3% 0 32 .1% 0 6.7% 224 40 18 34 7 99 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======-------=======-----------=----------------=======================-======= 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 -====---------=======-----------------------------============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-----------------------------------------------------------------------=====--- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 14 73. 7% 1 5.3% 4 21.1% 0 0!1-  0 19 9 1 4 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 52 46.8% 15 13. 5% 29 26.1% 15 13. 5% 111 26 12 15 6 59 17 EXPULSION 0 0!1-  0 0 0 !1-  0 0 O!\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------------------------------------------======--------------------- COMPARISON -----------------------------------------------=--====-------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------------------=-======--=----------==---=-- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8- 36.4-% 0 .0 % 9- 69.2-% 6- 100.0-% 23- 7- 0 8- 5- 20- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 53- .0 % 17- . 0 % 43- . 0 % 0 .0 % 113- 1- 1- 43- 0 40- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -======------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -=====-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---====-------------------------------------------------------------==--------=- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 55.6% 9 33.3% 3 11.1% 0 Og,.  0 27 11 4 2 0 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -======----===========--------------------------=====-====-=---=--============== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =====---------========----------------------------------=--------=============== 09 S.A.C. 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 45 81. 8% 6 10.9% 4 7.3% 0 Og,.  0 55 20 5 2 0 27 11 BOYS CLUB 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 0 Og,.  0 l 100.0% 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 1 0 l 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 Og,.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON --------------------------------------------------------==========-=-==-======== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ========--====================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 30 200.0 % 3- 33.3-% 1 33.3 % 0 .0 % 28 9 1 0 0 10 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 1 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 l 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---===-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -====-------------------------------------------------------------====---------- 09 S.A.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 20 54 .1% 10 27.0% 7 18.9% 0 02-  0 37 13 9 6 0 28 11 BOYS CLUB 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 O!?--  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--================--------------------------------------=-=======----------==== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ==================------------------------------------------==================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 O!?--  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 28.6% 0 02-  0 5 71.4% 0 02-  0 7 2 0 4 0 6 11 BOYS CLUB 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 2 20.0% 4 40.0% 3 30.0% 1 10.0% 10 2 4 2 1 9 17 EXPULSION 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==---------------------------------------------------------==================-== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 18- 90.0-% 10- 100.0-% 2- 28.6-% 0 .0 % 30- 11- 9- 2- 0 22- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 2 .0 % 4 .0 % 3 .0 % 1 .0 % 10 2 4 3 1 9 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -----==------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ----==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 9 7 0 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 OS\\-  0 0 09--  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--===---------=------------------------------------========================---- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =--=====---=-=========----------------------------===============-----=----===-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =========================-----=-----------------================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 OS\\-  0 0 OS\\-  0 8 6 2 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09--  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 14 41.2% 9 26.5% 6 17.6% 5 14. 7% 34 11 8 4 3 26 17 EXPULSION 0 09--  0 0 OS\\-  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------=-========================-== COMPARISON -----------------------------------------------================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------=---=================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 33.3-% 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 1- 2 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 14 .0 % 9 .0 % 6 .0 % 5 . 0 % 34 14 9 6 5 26 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:11 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---====------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 --===--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -===---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1-  0 0 0!1-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 0 O!!-  0 8 5 1 2 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 1 100.0% 0 0!1-  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 ====-===----=-========-------------------------------=---------====--=-===------ 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =--======--============---------------------------------------===============--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =====-=----============---------------------------------------================== 09 S.A.C. 0 O!!-  0 0 .0% 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!!-  0 0 Og_  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 g_  0 0 O!!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------------=-============================ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------========================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 8- 5- 1- 2- 0 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 9/10/01 16:06:11 School: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------=------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---====------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=--=-----------------------------------------------==========------===-==------ 09 S.A.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 100.0% 0 02-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 02-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!!-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======------========-------------------------------=====================--===== 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ====----------====-------------------------------------------======-====---===== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===--------======------------------------------------========----==-==---==--- 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0% 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 0 02-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0% 0 0 2-  0 1 50.0% 0 0 2-  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 0 2-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 O!!-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 2-  0 0 02-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------============-=====----===--- COMPARISON ----------------------------------------------------=-==========-----=====------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT (+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------------------=====================--===== 09 S.A.C. 1 100 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 0 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100 0 % 0 .0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I .c. 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:11 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --==---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ===-==-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 18 36.7% 16 32.7% 13 26.5% 2 4.1% 49 10 12 12 1 35 10 HOME SUSP. 12 46.2% 7 26.9% 6 23 .1% 1 3.8% 26 10 7 5 1 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =--=====--=-=-=======------------------------------============-==============-- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 =====---=-===========--------------------------------=-========================- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =========================-----------------------===========================~==== 09 S.A.C. 9 27.3% 16 48.5% 6 18.2% 2 6.1% 33 9 10 5 2 26 10 HOME SUSP. 1 20.0% 3 60.0% 0 0 9-  0 1 20.0% 5 1 3 0 1 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 09-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 05!,,  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ==---------------=-------------------=========================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------------------=-==-================================-== 09 S.A.C. 9- 50.0-% 0 . 0 5!,, 0 7- 53.8-% 0 .0 % 16- 1- 2- 7- 1 9- 10 HOME SUSP. 11- 91.7-% 4- 57.1-% 6- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 21- 9- 4- 5- 0 18- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 9/10/01 Time: 16:06:11 School: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL =====--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 ---====------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --==--==---------------------------------------------------==========-=--------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0%- 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 3 2 0 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==---===========-==-------------------------------------------=============----- 2 0 0 0 - 0 1 ====---=---=-=-===--=====--------------------------------==-===----===---=-===-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===========-====-==-----------------------------------------=============----- 09 S.A.C. 0 0!1,-  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0!1,-  0 0 0!1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 O!l,o  0 1 100.0%\" 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,o  0 0 O!l,o  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 !1,-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------------------------------------=-===================--- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 100.0-%- 1 100.0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 2- 2- 1 0 0 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 %- 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 %- 0 .0 %- 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools I Analysis of Discipline Actions I School Year 2000-2001 I District Level I Elementary I Middle Schools I High Schools I 8 Year Comparison North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 1468 662 401 139  00-01 1092 556 267 69  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension 450_/ 400-V -b 350- i,,- 300- /- 250- /- 200- /- 150- /- ~ 100- /- - ~ e-- L 50- /- - - ~ 0 ... I,--- i,,~ ~ ____,. ,_ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 387 92 64 7 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club 400 _,, 350J ~ ~ 300- /,- 250- ,,,,_. 200- ,,,_. 150- _,\u0026gt;- .r--:\nrC-- 100- ,,- - ~L 50- ,,,..... - - - 0 ... - .,,,_ ~~ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 351 129 90 27 D 00-01 325 136 56 12  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250-\" ~ 200- v,- ..:::=? 150- v,- 100- v,- .=:\n50- v'- ,_~b_ ~ 0 - ---- --- ju-FrL BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 246 63 75 16 D 00-01 162 55 40 21 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion 5- ,,__ ~ 4.5- ' 4-v ~. 3.5 _v 3-V fl/!-- [, 2.5- v .... pr-- f' 2- v .... - ,...._ 1.5- v\u0026gt;- r-- 1 -v- i,-- 0.5- I,'- ~ - 0 - - )- BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  99-00  00-01 120 100 80 60 40 20 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 113 58 19 3 000-01 25 19 6 2  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension 300-\" ,:::\nj 250- ,.,\u0026gt;- - 200- / ,-. - 150- ,,._ 100- ,,._ ~L ~ 50- ,,._ - _\n:\n_ ..':::::7 0 - - - ~ - BM BF NBM NBF C 99-00 263 80 62 13 D 00-01 204 55 28 3 / 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11 : Boys Club 1 _/ 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6-V 0.5 _v 0.4- 0.3_/ 0.2-V 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 0 0 0 0 000-01 0 0 0 0  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 250 _,, _.. 200- ,,.. ... ...._ - 150- ,,.. ... 100- ,,.. ... ..,_. _ ... 50- ,,.. ... -- ...._ - .r--:.1 0 - - - 0 ll BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 246 63 75 16 000-01 162 55 40 21 99-00  00-01 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  99-00 D 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 700- -c::::\n600- v'- 500- v- _,, 400- v- ..c::::\n300- ,,- I-- ~ 200- ,,- - b 100- ,,~ - ,___ 0 ..... - ,~. .......... _l=fL BM BF NBM NBF Cl 99-00 652 329 186 71 000-01 500 260 131 35 99-00  00-01 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 99-00 47 14 28 1 000-01 104 18 16 1  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club 250 _,, 200-V - ---- 150- ,, .... 100- i.,1--- n:::: -- 50- i.,1--- - - -- 0 - - - ~ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 203 98 58 18 D 00-01 175 88 29 8  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _/ 0.9 _,, 0.8 _,, 0.7 _,, 0.6 _,, 0.5 _v 0.4 _,, 0.3 _v 0.2 _,, 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 0 0 0 0  00-01 0 0 0 0 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion 2-/ .__ 1.8 _v 1.6 _v 1.4 _v 1  2 _v 1 _v ~ . 0.8- v._ 0.6- v._ 0.4- v,- 0.2- v- .' 0 - - BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 1 0 0 0  00-01 2 0 0 0  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC 800 _,, 700--' - 600- .,,,.... -- 500- v\u0026gt;- 400- v'- 300- v'- 200- v\u0026gt;- .. ,____ - 100- v'- \u0026gt;--- 0 ~ --- - _r-9- BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 703 275 196 65 000-01 567 277 130 32  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension 100 _/ ,.c::::.i 90- v- 80- L/\u0026gt;- :=:\n70- v\u0026gt;- 60- v- 50- v- 40- ,-,\u0026gt;- 30- V,-.. 20- v\u0026gt;- - , ,\n._.,, 10- v\u0026gt;- --- -\nc - 0 - -- --- r r-,j_, BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 94 19 12 4  00-01 79 19 20 3 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club 160- ~ tL- 140- I,,\u0026gt;- 120- 1,,\u0026gt;- 100- i..,t- 80- 1,,\u0026gt;- 60- 1,,- ~ 40- I,,- 1 .r:=. ~ I' 20 1,,\u0026gt;- ,___ r--- 0 = - t\n,- -~~ BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 148 31 32 11 D 00-01 150 48 27 4 99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1 _,, 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7 _v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 0.4-\" 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 0 0 0 0  00-01 0 0 0 0 99-00  00-01 II --- II II q North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion 5_/ - 4.5 _v 4-v 3.5 _v 3-V ,4- 2.5 _v ,-- 2-V ,- ,__ 1.5- 1,,\u0026gt;- ,-- 1 -1\n\u0026gt;- ,....._ - .- 0.5- v- ,. ,-- 0 - ., --:,, BM BF NBM NBF  99-00 2 0 1 0 D 00-01 1 0 5 3  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF 93.94 977 529 449 156 869 460 411 126 1052 446 410 140 96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139 D 00-01 1092 556 267 69  93-94 094-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF 93-94 231 60 76 22 236 106 103 20 162 46 47 3 96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 387 92 64 7  93-94 0 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 800 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 119 39 39 9 094-95 133 44 31 8  95-98 334 82 72 12  96-97 357 148 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27 000-01 325 136 56 12  93-94 0 94-95  95-98  98-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 0 00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1600- 1400- 1200 1000 800- 600 400- 200 lUi.r 0- _.,_.. ~  - BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 168 54 45 8 D 94.95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21  93-94  94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 8 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 6 4 3 0 094-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0 000-01 3 0 5 3  93-94 D 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00 D 00-01\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_454","title":"Grants","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Grants"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/454"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["48 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District February 22, 1990 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Community Support Grants Ihe Little Rock School District met with Area Schools Committee on February 12 to discuss deletions and/or additions to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. Both parties agreed that the community support grants should be deleted from the plan. The community support grants were intended to be used by area schools to support recruitment efforts. However, both parties agreed that the attendance zones will serve as a natural recruitment tool. Please note that this request only applies to the community support grants. The academic progress incentive grants should not be deleted. cc: Chip Jones Estelle Matthis Martha Alman, Committee Chairperson Arma Hart 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361received mm 27  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Office of Desegregation Monitoring z TO: Board of Directory May 28, 1992 FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Estelle MatthH,* Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools 6^^ Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) Grant Proposal The Arkansas Department of Education recently announced the availability of funds to establish and expand developmentally-appropriate early childhood programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children, ages three (3) to five (5), as specified in the Arkansas Better Chance Program, Act 212 of 1991. The request for proposals was released after April 16, 1992, and the deadline for submission is June 1, 1992. Provided for your review are copies of the Program Abstract for applications for expansion of our center- and home-based early childhood education programs. The goals, objectives, and other components provide the basic information that was provided to you in our Early Childhood Continuance Grant last month. The proposed expansion sites for our center-based program are Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Watson, and Wilson Elementary Schools. Southwest Little Rock is the targeted area for expansion of our home-based program. We are also requesting funds to improve playgrounds and expand our staff development activities for our early childhood staff. Attached is the proposed Arkansas Better Chance budget request for funding. We recommend the approval of our submission of this expansion proposal to the Arkansas Department of Education.ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE PROGRAM 1992-93 PROGRAM ABSTRACT A, Statement of Need The Little Rock School District believes that Early Childhood Education is a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Furthermore, we believe that effective early childhood programs will reduce, if not eliminate, the need for major remediation programs in the upper grades. For these reasons. the enhancement and expansion of the Early Childhood Education program will continue to be a priority for the Little Rock School District. During the 1992 registration period, 671 parents registered their child from within the Little Rock School District, 15 applicants from North Little Rock, and 20 applicants from Pulaski County. Needless to say, the demand is greater than the supply. 706 total applications 378 openings B. Overall Objectives The overall objectives of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students at the earliest possible age in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged children.Arkansas Better Chance Program - Page 2 C. Type of Program The center-based program for four-year-old children is designed to proxdde developmental and educational experiences that hold the potential for greater academic achievement and enhanced educational opportunity for all children. The early childhood educational center-based programs are geared to providing the skills and experiences that have often been lacking in the lower-income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parent but to the self-image and selfconfidence of the child. The early childhood education programs are a major part of the Little Rock School Districts response to Goal One of America 2000: All children in America will start school ready to learn. D. Number of Students To Be Served The Little Rock School Districts center-based program will serve 378 children. Fifty-four of the students are included in the continuance grant and 324 will be served through the expansion grant (90 students-five new classes - playground/staff development - 234 children). E. Curriculum The Little Rock School Districts curriculum-based four-year-old-program uses a curriculum that was developed by a task force composed of specialists, teachers, instructional aides, and parents. The curriculum is based on young childrens interests and styles of learning which guide daily activities. It allows for children to become active learners and gives them freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, and to move about and interact verbally and physically with other children and their teachers. The curriculum is sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children and provides for interaction with students from various backgrounds in diverse settings to learn to respectArkansas Better Chance Program - Page 3 and value each other. It also enables children to deal more skillfully with differences they encounter upon entering school. F. Parent Involvement Component Active involvement of the parents is critical to the childs success in school. It reinforces and helps sustain the effects of school programs. Parents will become involved in the implementation of the program through: * Orientation meetings - parents will be acquainted with the initial program at Open House. * Parent participation - parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompanying the class on field trips, and observing the children in the classroom.  Workshops - will be provided on various topics as a means to improve parent effectiveness. * Advisory Council - parents who serve on this council will have direct input into the programs. G. Collaboration With Other Service Agencies The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Education Program works actively with other service agencies such as: human service agencies, health care agencies. Interagency Coordinating Council, and various other agencies to ensure that the needs of our children and their families are met.Arkansas Better Chance Program - Page 4 H. Screening and Evaluation Plan Frequent assessments of the childrens progress through teacher observations, samples of childrens work, and parental input are used to modify experiences to enhance development and to ensure \"that all children will start school ready to learn.\" Also, children who are in the program will be monitored as they progress through the grades. EPSDT screening will be provided for all children in the program. I. Community Involvement The Little Rock School District has a strong tradition of involvement with local community groups. businesses, industries, and institutions of higher education. Community and parental involvement is essential for the programs success. The program grew out of the needs of the community, and it will be responsive to the community. J. Plan for Transition from Early Childhood Programs to Public Schools The center-based programs are located in sixteen (16) individual school sites which allows the programs to be introduced to and receive the services of numerous resources and support staff available within the public schools. The plan allows for visitation of kindergarten classes within the schools along with participation and involvement in school activities. Also, information regarding individual student progress is shared with the upcoming teacher.PROGRAM ABSTRACT HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS A. Statement of Need The Little Rock School Districts Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) will serve economically and educationally at-risk families during the 1992-93 school year. The southwest Little Rock area has been identified as the targeted population as many children in this area are not being served by pre-school agencies. HIPPY programs operate with two major sets of goals and objectives. The child-focused goals include Ua'O years of programming with 18 story books, 60 activity packets, and a set of 16 colored plastic shapes. These materials concentrate on language development, sensory and perceptual discrimination skills, and problem solving. Specific objectives include: language instruction skills such as listening, asking questions, talking about the text, picture reading, story creation, serialization and vocabulary-building\ndiscrimination skills such as visual, auditory and tactile skills\nand problem-solving activities such as listing, sorting, matching. and grouping concrete objects, then representations of objects. Parent-focused objectives include improvement of parental self-esteem, improved parent-as-educator skills, improved parental problem-solving skills, and development of the parents concept as an advocate for their childs educational needs. Operational goals and objectives for HIPPY programs in the 1992-93 school year include recruitment of HIPPY families by mid-September and delivering of the 30- week curriculum with the program concluding by the end of May, 1993. Family group meetings will be scheduled and held on a monthly basis, statewide coordinator meetings and training will occur on a bi-monthly basis, and various paraprofessional training will be held throughout the year. Regional coordinator meetings will be held on a bi-monthly basis alternating with the statewide meeting schedule. B. Type of Program Home-based Program The placement of the HIPPY program in the Little Rock School District has been done with the specific intention of working in a cooperative and collaborative effort to maximize our efforts to effectively intervene in the lives of these children. This program is designed to empower parents. All parents want what is best for their children\nHIPPY builds upon this basic fact. The HIPPY model creates opportunitiesArkansas Better Chance Program - HIPPY Page 2 for positive educational interactions between parents and their four- and five-year olds. Parents take active roles as their childrens primary educator. C. Number of Students to Be Served/Service Areas The HIPPY program sponsored by the Little Rock School District is designed to address the educational and developmental needs of four- and five-year-old children in our program service area. We will identify educationally \"at risk\" families with children in these two age groups through formal screenings, recruitment from targeted neighborhoods, and other informal approaches. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program plans to serve an additional 36 children during the 1992-93 school year. D. Curriculum The HIPPY program is designed for parents with limited formal schooling to provide educational enrichment for their preschool children. Support and training for the parents are given by paraprofessionals, themselves parents of young children from the communities served by the program. International research suggests that HIPPY benefits disadvantaged children by improving academic achievement and adjustment to school\nby improving parental self-concepts\nand by increasing their interest and involvement in the education of their children, their involvement in community affairs, and their interest in pursuing further education for themselves. The HIPPY curriculum guides parents in creating opportunities for their children to learn the basic skills and knowledge necessary for early school success. E. Training and Professional Development Training and professional development opportunities are provided weekly during inservice training. District supervisors and community leaders provide enrichment for our Home Visitors. They also attend the training provided by the Arkansas HIPPY Technical Resource Center. F. Parent Involvement The program provides parental outreach through the Parent Advisory Council and office staff. Special programs and workshops enhance parents interests and knowledge of child growth and development. The Parent Advisory Council that is in place will sponsor activities for parents and act as a liaison for parents in the community.Arkansas Better Chance Program - HIPPY Page 3 G. H. 1. Transition Activities Transition activities will be available for parents and HIPPY children by providing kindergarten teachers, parents, and social workers the opportunity to speak at group meetings and give information on the requirements of schools. This information will empower the parents and children as to what is needed to successfully make the transition from home-based services to kindergarten, a more structured school envirorunent. Collaborative Agreements We will work to serve HIPPY program children through Watershed, Inc. and the Adult Education Center. Watershed, Inc. will refer potential Home Visitors applicants and the HIPPY program will refer HIPPY parents to Watershed when they need assistance for food, clothing, or utilities. The HIPPY staff will present the HIPPY concept to participants involved in job training at Watershed. The Adult Education Center will allow the HIPPY staff to use their auditorium for special programs. The Little Rock HIPPY staff will refer HIPPY parents to Adult Education in order for them to continue their education. Screening and Evaluation All of the five-year-old participants receive pre and post assessments by the District using the Early Prevention of School Failure assessment instrument. A pre and post assessment will be conducted using the HIPPY curriculum to identify the participants readiness skills. The program will be evaluated in order to determine the overall effectiveness of early childhood services. A survey to kindergarten teachers and a telephone survey to parents will be used to measure the program goals and objectives. The Home Visitors will be evaluated at least twice during the year to assess their knowledge of the program. All HIPPY programs in Arkansas participate in a standardized program evaluation system. This system consists of a set of materials issued from HIPPY USA and submitted by local programs back to HIPPY USA or the Arkansas Regional HIPPY Office. This data will cover recruitment of HIPPY families and initial family assessment (baseline data information). Paraprofessional home visit reports will be completed after each visit with parents. Monthly reports summarizing each family s involvement will be completed by the staff and forwarded to HIPPY USA.ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE PROGRAM - PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY ABC MATCH TOTAL SALARIES Coordinator/Program Manager Teachers Paraprofessionals Administrative/Support Personnel Other (specify) HIPPY Secretary 17,720.00 154,500.00 61,190.00 69,312.00 401,700.00 130,223.00 87,032.00 556,200.00 191,413.00 FRINGE BENEFITS 33,600.00 15,942.00 82,334.00 15,942.00 115,934.00 MAINTENANCE OF OPERATIONS Advertising Rent/Lease Utilities Phone OfSce Supplies Copier/Duplication/Printing 450.00 101.00 153,600.00 4,560.00 Postage O 1,300.00 500.00 500.00 3,060.00 556.00 153,600.00 4,560.00 1,300.00 3,560.00 500.00 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES Instructional 27,750.00 60,000.00 87,750.00 EQUIPMENT Instructional Classroom/Playground 13,940.00 90,000.00 36,000.00 49,940.00 90,000.00 SUPPORT SERVICES Food/Nutrition Assessment/Screening Transportation for Students Parent Involvement Activities 51,905.00 1,980.00 1,680.00 11,060.00 17,820.00 51,905.00 19,800.00 1,680.00 11,060.00 TRAINING 20,200\n00 20,200.00 RENOVATION OF SPACE (Must attached contractors estimate) TRAVEL In-state Out-of-state 1,286.00 9.000.00 5,123.00 6,409.00 9.000.00 TOTAL $498,561.00 $979,775.00 $1,478,336.0011/16/93 18:38 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/002 -i Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE November 16,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD TO WRITE GRANT FOR STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGUSH LANGUAGE SKTTIS The Little Rock School District is writing a grant proposal in the amount of $175,000 to expand the district's English as a Second Language (ESL/LEP) program. With funding, the district will use the money to create five intake centers for students who are in need of special English language tutoring. The centers will be equipped to provide the services necessary to assess language and academic skills, to provide intensive English language instruction, to provide appropriate grade level placement and educational orientation services to meet the needs of a diverse English limited student population, representing up to 66 language groups. In addition to the intake centers, extensive staff training is also planned for teachers, counselors and tutors. The tutoring staff will be expanded and materials will be purchased, including IBM compatible language learning software. ###FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS received September 22, 1994 SEP 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent THROUGH: e: . WiTli erintendent SUBJECT: School-based Service Learning Grants Program The Arkansas Department of Education has announced the availability of federal grant awards through the Corporation of National and Community Service to enable local school districts to improve the quality of education by integrating service learning into the curriculum. This process will allow students to use information learned to solve problems within the school and community. Planning and operational grant awards of up to $12,000 are available to assist districts with program development and staff training. The deadline for submission is September 26, 1994. The District's proposal will involve developing a model service learning program in an elementary , junior high and a senior high school. Local governmental, civic and business groups will also participate in the program's design and implementation. It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the administration to proceed with Department of Education. an application to the State JEE/mab Little Rock School District May 15, 1998 Pat Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Ms. Gee, Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for your kind words about me at the Board meeting this past week. It is always gratifying to learn that ones contribution to a cause is appreciated and has achieved a recognized impact. Your candor at the meeting was particularly touching. In truth, I was not aware of your initial reservations about my role at the District. This is a result, I believe, more from your level of professional decorum than my own lack of attention. Nevertheless, your remarks offered an unexpected personal moment in the formal agenda. Thank you for the statement of support. I have enclosed the summary of grant activity you requested. Please note that I maintain these annual records to match the fiscal calendar. The final tally includes activity through June 30 each year, though decisions concerning grants frequently are not received until the following year. Despite this delayed response, the 1997-98 school year was particularly productive for grants revenue. A greater number of grants have been submitted and approved than ever before, and a larger number of high dollar proposals have been awarded. You will likely receive a second copy of this listing through the Superintendents office, but I wanted to send this copy because of a recent communication I received from Dr. Gamine concerning my contract with the District. As you may be aware, I have been informed that my contract will be renewed only through December 1998. Dr. Gamine plans to eliminate my position and reassign my responsibilities to a committee. I have been encouraged to secure employment outside the District. I received this administrative decision with shock and disappointment. I do not believe the assignment of grants writing responsibilities to a committee is in the best interests of the Little Rock School District. Nor do I believe that my accomplishments in this position and my service to the educational community are fully realized by the administration. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000-2- May 15,1998 My primary basis for this assertion is that since joining the District in May 1994 I have never had an annual assessment or review session of any kind with a supervisor. Other than you, no one has ever asked for an accounting of my on-going activity or a year-end summary of my achievements. I can attribute this to some degree to the change in supervision in the Planning, Research and Evaluation Division and the Superintendents Office. Nevertheless, other than the staff I have directly assisted in grants preparation, few people across the district are aware of my achievements. The annual tally of grants activity enclosed in this mailing is a summary of that service. One important conclusion from that summary should be emphasized. The total funds awarded to the District through grants include an indirect or administrative cost that has more than exceeded my annual salary. My service to the District has not only paid for itself, it has created income. Not listed in the annual summary are the support services I have provided to help LRSD educational staff better address the process of resource acquisition. I have conducted numerous grants writing workshops for the Staff Development Division with consistently excellent evaluation reports from teacher attendees. I continue to meet with school and teacher teams as a consultant to building-level planning. In the past few months, I have begun a direct communication to increase awareness of grants opportunities. A monthly flyer titled Grant Opportunities for Teachers and Schools has a wide distribution across the District. The grants listing is also published in the LRSD monthly newsletter. The result of this initiative has been outstanding. More educators are aware of grant resources and a larger number are applying for them. I do not believe the services I provide as a high performance and innovative grants writer can be duplicated by a committee. Project planning certainly requires group effort and inclusion, but the actual writing and packaging of complex proposals with multi-year budgets does not. It is a job best handled by a single person who can work with diverse groups and meet deadlines. In my tenure, the LRSD has never missed a submission deadline. My work in this regard, done largely behind the scenes and very frequently through the early hours of the morning, is known to very few. The proposal recently approved by the National Science Foundation is an example. I do not seek distinct credit for my contribution to the project, but I feel slighted when decisions concerning my service to the District are made without full understanding of my contribution. At this time, I am waiting the arrival of Dr. Bonnie Leslie and a discussion with her continuation with the District. Dr. Gamine told on my me his position is based on her initial assessment of District administrative staff. My immediate concern, then, is to better acquaint her with my job history and gain her approval of my position. If unsuccessful, I may request a hearing before the Board.-3- May 15,1998 I am sharing all this with you at this time because your remarks at Board meetings and to me personally have always shown a high regard for personal commitment to our common task. Hopefully, Dr. Leslie will share that view and these issues will be appropriately addressed. Please let me know if there is any additional information I can provide or questions I can answer about grant activity in the past year. I will be pleased to do so. Sincerely, Marvin Schwartz Grants Writer Enclosure (1)active.doc C:\\winword Grant activity since July 1997 Current as of May 15, 1998 Project Awarded Proposals Amount 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Family preservation - HIPPY Diesel Mechanics - Metro Voc Center Business Education - Central Business Education - Fair Business Education - McClellan Business Education - Forest heights Jr HS Carl Perkins - Voc Ed Art program - Jefferson Ark Better Chance - Early Childhood Prog 10. Family Preservation - human service worker 11. Youth employment - pupil services 12. Goals 2000 - staff development 13. Model schools for kit based science- 14. Learn and Serve -pupil services 15. Technology Literacy Challenge - Lucy Lyon 16. Vital Link - VIPS 17. Vital Link transportation 1. Central High architectural conservation 18. Comprehensive Health program - Washington Magnet 19. HIV education - Franklin 20. School Improvement - Carver 21. Model schools for CMP 22. Safe and Drug Free Schools 23. LRCPMSA 24. Prof dev. - Eisenhower Grant - federal prog. 25. Student travel to DC - Rightsell 26. Arts in education - Forest Park 27. Arts in education - Carver 28. ASSI teacher training - Romine 29. Capitol View summer program - Liz Lucker 30. Total teen Tale troupe - Liz Lucker 31. Youth employment center - Pupil Services 10,000 25,000 21,660 18,043 21,660 45,118 358,239 1,000 233,992 30,500 15,000 120,755 6,000 23,600 100,000 1,000 35,000 25,000 2,000 5,000 9,500 7,182 166,696 3,801,155 141,798 2,500 3,600 5,125 10,000 19,420 11,160 20,000 $5,296,703 Submission Date June 30 Aug. 20 Aug. 20 Aug. 20 Aug. 20 Aug. 20 Aug. 20 April 21 April 18 Sept 1 Sept 1 Sept. 12 Sept. 15 Sept 24 July 15 Oct 1 Oct 10 Oct 10 Oct. 15 Nov. 1 Jan. 1 Jan. 1 Oct. 3 Octl5 Dec. 1 Dec. 11 Feb 2 Feb 2 Mar. 6 April 14 April 14 April 14 Sponsor/Contact DHS ARDoE ARDoE ARDoE ARDoE ARDoE US DoE Entergy Ark Early Childhood Comm Ark DHS City ofLR ARDoE AD HE Corp National and Comm Serv DoE Entergj' LR Education Comm Getty Grant Program ARDoE Ar DoE WRF AD HE Ar DoE NSF Ar DoE LR Task Force for Youth Ark. Arts Council Ark. Arts Council AD HE City ofLR City ofLR City ofLR1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Denied Applications Career education - Otter Creek Classroom technology - Forest Park Elem Astronomy Club - Washington (Lanette Kemp) Learn and Serve - Linda Young Parental Assistance Program - St HIPPY, CYF Art program - Jefierson Behavior Management Lab - Franklin Technology Iimovation Challenge Teaching Tolerance Carver youth garden After school tutoring - McClellan Comm Ed. Breast cancer awareness - For Hghts \u0026amp; Clov Jr. HS Abstinence Education - Otter Creek McClellan - Marion Baldwin Early Literacy Program - Reading dept Arts in education - Pulaski Heights Elem Total 1,872 20,892 1,000 79,745 180,000 3,500 46,904 1,135,683 2,000 750 9,000 48,637 37,918 10,000 253,000 5,750 $1,836,651 June 27 Dec. 31 Oct. 15 May 5 Feb. 21 Mar 30 Mar. 30 May 30 Oct 15 Nov. 14 Dec. 11 Dec. 1 Dec. 8 Jan. 16 Jan 28 Feb 2 DoE Sturgis Ark Instructional E.xcell Grant Corp for National Service DoE Target Common Ground/ADAP US DoE Southern Poverty Law Center National Gardening Assoc LR Ed Commission Avon Products Ar. Dept. Health Div Children \u0026amp; Families, DHS Corp, for National Service Ark. Arts Council 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pending Proposals Math/Science Equipment - Washington Family Preservation - Pupil Services, Elston Conflict resolution - Tony Petty/Pupil servies Dropout Prevention - Pupil Services -Valery Hudson Community Learning Centers - Marion Baldwin Ark Better Chance - Early Childhood 2,502 ? 30,000 9,750 380,401 233,992 Nov. 14 Jan. 16 Feb. 20 Mar. 6 Mar. 9 Apr. 17 7. 8. Vital Link - VIPS LRSD Community Based Conflict Management Training Initiative 1,000 25,000 April 15 April 20 AR DoE Div Children \u0026amp; Families, DHS ADAP Div Children \u0026amp; Families, DHS US DoE ADHS, Div of Child Care and Early Childhood Ed Entergy Gov. Partnership for Children \u0026amp; Families Total $682,645 2Grant Activity 1997-1998 School Year Current as of: 28-May D12 File name: 97-98grants [Awarded Proposals i Project_________________________________________ 1. Art program - Jefferson 2. Ark Better Chance - Early Childhood Program 3. Family Preservation - HIPPY 4. Technology Literacy Challenge - Instructional Tech. 5. Diesel Mechanics - Metropolitan 6. Business Education - Central 7. Business Education - Fair 8. Business Education - McClellan 9. Business Education - Forest Heights Jr. HS 10. Carl Perkins  Vocational Education 11. Family Preservation Program - Pupil Services 12. Youth employment - Pupil Services 13. Goals 2000 - Staff Development 14. Model schools for kit based science - Science Dept. 15. Learn and Serve -Pupil Services 16. Vital Link-VIPS 17. Safe and Drug Free Schools - Pupil Services 18. Vital Link transportation - VIPS 19. Architectural Conservation - Central High 20. Comprehensive Health Program - Washington Magn 21. LRCPMSA - Math/Science Departments 22. HIV education - Franklin 23. Prof. Dev. Eisenhower Grant - Federal Programs. 24. Student travel to DC - Rightsell 25. School Improvement - Carver 26. Model schools for CMP - Math Dept. 27. Arts in Education - Forest Park 28. Arts in Education - Carver 29. Conflict Resolution - Pupil Services 30. ASSI Teacher Training - Romine 31. Capitol View Summer Program - New Futures 32. Total Teen Tale Troupe - New Futures 33. Youth Employment Center - Pupil Services Total Amount 1,000 233,992 10,000 100,000 25,000 21,660 18,043 21,660 45,118 358,239 30,500 15,000 120,755 6,000 23,600 1,000 166,696 35,000 25,000 2,000 3,228,022 5,000 141.798 2,500 9,500 7,182 3,600 5,125 30,000 10.000 19,420 11,160 20,000 $4.753,570 Submission Date 21-Apr 18-Apr 30-Jun 15-Jul 2 O-Aug 20-Aug 20-Auo 20-Aug 20-Aug 20-Aug 1-Sep 1-Sep Sept. 12 Sept. 15 24-Sep 1-Oct Oct. 3 10-Oct 10-Oct Oct. 15 Oct. 15 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 11 Jan. 1 Jan. 1 2-Feb 2-Feb Feb. 20 Mar. 6 14-Apr 14-Apr 14-Apr Sponsor/Contact Entergy Ark Early Childhood Comm DHS DoE AR DoE AR DoE AR DoE AR DoE AR DoE US DoE Ark DHS City of LR AR DoE ADHE Corp National and Comm Serv Entergy AR DoE LR Education Comm Getty Grant Program AR DoE National Science Foundation AR DoE AR DoE LR Task Force for Youth WRF ADHE Ark. Arts Council Ark. Arts Council ADAP ADHE City of LR City of LR City of LR [penledProposals | Project 1. Career Education - Otter Creek 2. Astronomy Club - Washington 3. Teaching Tolerance - Hall HS 4. Math/Science Equipment - Washington 5. Youth Garden - Carver 6. Breast Cancer Awareness - For Hghts. \u0026amp; Clov. Jr. HS 7. Abstinence Education - Otter Creek 8. After-School Tutoring - McClellan Comm Ed. 9. Classroom Technology - Forest Park Elem. 10. Summer Programs -McClellan Comm. Education 11. Early Literacy Program - Reading Dept 12. Arts in Education - Pulaski Heights Elem. 13. Parental Assistance Program - HIPPY 14. Art program - Jefferson 15. Behavior Management Lab - Franklin 16. Learn and Serve - New Futures 17. Technology Innovation Challenge Total Amount 1.872 1.000 2,000 2,502 750 48,637 37,918 9,000 20,892 10,000 253,000 5,750 180,000 3,500 46,904 79,745 1,135,683 $1.839.153 Submission Date 27Jun Oct. 15 15-Oct Nov. 14 Nov. 14 Dec. 1 Dec. 8 Dec. 11 Dec. 31 Jan. 16 28-Jan 2-Feb Feb. 21 30-Mar Mar. 30 5-May 30-May Sponsor/Contact DoE AR DoE Southern Poverty Law Center AR DoE National Gardening Assoc. Avon Products AR. Dept. Health LR Ed Commission Sturgis Trust Div Children \u0026amp; Families, DHS Corp, for National Service Ark. Arts Council DoE Target Common Ground/ADAP Corp for National Service USDoE iPending Proposals Project 1. Family Preservation  Pupil Services 2. Dropout Prevention - Pupil Services 3. Community Learning Centers - McClellan 4. Ark Better Chance - Early Childhood 5. Vital Link-VIPS 6. Conflict Management Training - Pupil Services 7. Goals 2000 - Staff Development Total Amount 7 9,750 380,401 233,992 1,000 25,000 239,579 $889,722 Submission Date Jan. 16 Mar. 6 Mar. 9 Apr. 17 15-Apr 20-Apr 20-Way Sponsor/Contact Div Children \u0026amp; Families, DHS Div Chikdren \u0026amp; Families, DHS USDoE Ark Early Childhood Comm Entergy Gov. F^rtnership for Children \u0026amp; Families AR DoELITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Division of Schooi Services Sadie Mitcheil, Associate Superintendent received SEP 1 3 2000 TO: ice of Desegregation Monitoring QFFiCEOf FROM: 'Carnine, Superintendent of Schools DESEGRESATtOH WCMnORlMG DATE: September 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Magnet Schools Assistance Program Grant The Little Rock School District is in the process of developing a plan that will improve the educational offerings of four schools in Southwest Little Rock: Fair High School, McClellan High School, Mabelvale Middle School and Cloverdale Middle School. The schools have decided to adopt magnet-like school themes to focus on academic content and to increase student engagement in learning. The schools, along with the District's Director of Planning and Development, will aggressively seek resources to support the themes. The Magnet Schools Assistance Program provides grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs). Each eligible LEA that desires to receive assistance shall submit an application before December 22, 2000. The Little Rock School District is preparing to submit an application which will include the schools listed above. If you have questions, please call Sadie Mitchell at 501/324-2007. c: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent - Student Registration Dr. Terrence Roberts, Desegregation Consultant Dr. Stephen Ross, Desegregation Consultant LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2003 SPECIAL MEETING September 14, 2000 OFICEOF OESEGRSGATfOMMOailTOfUSa Budget Work Session II. III. IV. AGENDA Approval of 2000-01 Budget A+ Charter Maumelle (Linda Watson) Don Stewart Mark Milhollen Contract for Magnet School Proposals (Sadie Mitchell) Technology Consultant Contracts (Lucy Neal) / /w LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Les Gamine, Superintendent of Schools DATE: September 14, 2000 SUBJECT: MSAP (Magnet Schools Assistance Plan) Grant The Little Rock School District has been in the process of developing a plan that will improve the educational offerings of four schools in Southwest Little Rock: Fair High School, McClellan High School, Mabelvale Middle School and Cloverdale Middle School. The schools have decided to adopt magnet-like school themes to focus on academic content and to increase student engagement in learning. The staff feels that it is important to aggressively seek resources to support this effort. The Magnet Schools Assistance Program provides grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs). Each eligible LEA that desires to receive assistance shall submit an application before December 22, 2000. This memorandum serves as a request to approve the submission of an application for the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Grant. Approval is also requested to secure support and consulting services from Phale D. Hale. Mr. Hale's services will include advice on program design, reviewing drafts of the application, workshops to facilitate the development of the application, and assistance with the proposed budget. You will find attached a copy of the agreement. Thank you. s, z 4' : i'. \\ t  2300 M Street, NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20037 (202) 296-3500 (202) 296-5910 FAX Web\nwww.phalehale.com July 12. 2000 Linda Young Austin, Director Planning and Development Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 i \u0026gt;\nDear Linda, I am very pleased that I will be working with the Little Rock Public Schools for the . upcoming grant cycle. I look forward to developing a successful MSAP grant application. Enclosed is a contract for my services. Please review it and have it executed by the appropriate person in the district. I look forward to seeing you in August. Yours Tn Phale D. Hale enc.\n1 Washington, DC / PHALE D. HALE EDUCATION CONSULTING, INC. Los Angeles, CA \u0026gt;* 5S F 1 \u0026gt;iT  1 i ft V \\ ri? ' -J T.h\" 2300 M Street, NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20037 (202) 296-3500 (202) 296-5910 FAX Web: www.phalehale.com MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT X! 'a* This memorandum documents the agreements under which the Little Rock School District (Arkansas) (hereinafter called District) will support and Phale D. Hale Education Consulting. Inc. (hereinafter called Contractor) will provide consulting services to develof^'- an application for the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). /  V CONTENTS This Memorandum of Agreement consists of two pages with the endorsements on the' second page. 1. EFFORT TO BE PERFORMED A The Contractor shall provide consulting services to assist the District in preparing an application for the MSAP. These services will include advice on program design, reviewing drafts of the application, workshops to facilitate the development of the application, and assistance with the proposed project budget. .t*- 2. CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT A. During the course of the development of the grant applications, the Contractor will be paid $1.200 a day plus expenses. Expenses shall include air fare, ground transportation, meals, and hotel. B. For grant applications that are funded, the Contractor will receive an additional payment equal to 2% of the amount of the grant award. This sum will be paid for each year of the grant (three years for MSAP). and billed by the Contractor in July of the year. O'. 'The'C'offtrWtor will invoice payments as the work is done. All payments will be made to the address indicated on the invoice. Payments are due and payable upon District's receipt of the invoice. Finance charges of 2% a month may be added at Contractor's option to invoices not paid within sixty (60) days of the invoice date. jtj Rock MSAP Contract 1 of 2 Washington, DC PHALE D. HALE EDUCATION CONSULTING, INC. Los Angeles, CA3. CHANGES No changes in the amount or terms of this agreement shall become effective until such change is reduced to writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both parties to this agreement. 4. EXECUTION In witness of their acceptance of the terms of this agreement, the parties have caused this Memorandum to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. Little Rock School District Signature Date Title Phale D. Ie Education Consulting, Inc. Phale D. Hale President July 12, 2000 Date Little Rock MSAP Contract 2 of 2Magnet Schools Assistance Program Courses for 2002-2003 (M 0^ '\u0026lt; Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Economics, Engineering, and Multi-Media Grade Six Students explore the strands with an introductory, 9-weeks course in each area. This will enable them to select a strand of concentration for the 7* and 8* grade years. Strand Course Grade Level Multimedia Multimedia Multimedia and Graphic Design Engineering Gateway to Technology I Gateway to Technology II Economics Economics II International Economics and the World of Business McClellan Magnet High School Engineering, Multimedia, Business Finance Cloverdale is the primary feeder school to McClellan. If a child wishes to continue in a strand selected at Cloverdale, the student can skip the introductory courses offered at the ninth grade level. They may select a new strand if they so desire. Strand Course Grade Level Engineering Engineering Design Digital Electronics 9 10 Multimedia Introduction to Art (Multimedia) Visual Design Intro Multimedia Production Introduction Digital Imaging \u0026amp; Graphics Introduction 9 9 10 10 Business Finance Strategies for Success Introduction to Financial Services I \u0026amp; II Economics and the World of Finance Securities and Insurance Financial Planning International Finance 9/10 9/10 10 11 12 12 7 8 7 8 7 8Mabelvale Magnet Middle School Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Information Communications Technology Grade Six Students explore the strands with an introductory, 9-weeks course in each area. This will enable them to select a strand of concentration for the 7* and 8* grade years. Strand Course Grade Level Environmental Science EARTHQUEST ECO-JOURNEYS Adventure Arkansas Medical Studies MEDICS M.A.S.H. Information Communications Technology BYTES PRISM J. A. Fair Magnet High School Environmental Science, Medical Sciences, Information Science and Systems Engineering Mabelvale is the primary feeder school to J. A. Fair. If a child wishes to continue in a strand selected at Mablevale, the student can skip the introductory courses offered at the ninth grade level. They may select a new strand if they so desire. Strand Course Grade Level Environmental Science Investigations of Environmental Sciences Environmental Science I 9 10 Medical Science Investigations of Medical Sciences Medical Sciences 9 10 Information Science Investigative Information Science and Systems Engineering 7 8 7 7 8 7 8 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: April 25, 2002 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy Grant Proposal - Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Grant Program I Backqround The U.S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Grant program. The purpose of the program is to implement rigorous evaluations of preschool curricula that will provide information to support informed choices of classroom curricula for early childhood programs. This competition focuses support on a new program of research that will determine, through randomized clinical trials, whether one or more curricula produce educationally meaningful effects on children. I The District has partnered with the Waterford Early Reading Program and the Dialogic Reading Preschool Program. Ten elementary schools will participate: Cloverdale, Rightsell, Franklin, Mitchell, Geyer Springs, King, Chicot, Jefferson, Forest Park, and Baseline. I i Dr. Bob Bradley, UALR, will serve as the principal investigator for this project. There are four research goals: 1) 2) 3) 4) to provide technically sound information regarding the impact of the treatment programs on childrens early reading competence, to provide useful information regarding the implementation of the program, to coordinate with the national evaluation contractor on matters pertaining to the sampling design and the core assessment strategy, and to provide scientifically sound data regarding the complementary research question specified in the application. The grant was submitted on February 18, 2002 in order to meet the February 19, 2002 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total four-year award request was $1,132,053. The request covers the cost of learning materials for each classroom as well as the related research costs. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. iGRAhfr AGREEMENT WITH THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONThe purpose of this PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT GRANT #88-131 agreement between the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, grantor, and Kiwanis Activities of Little Rock, Inc., grantee, is to establish the grantee's intentions and the grantors expectations of work to be^ccomplished under this grant. The purpose of the grant is to establish an alternative to out-of school suspension for the at-risk student who would benefit from intense academic remediation and counseling program. an SCOPE OF WORK Description of Program Design: Twenty-four students would be involved in the eight week residential program. During the first four weeks students would attend the alternative classroom at the camp and live with seven other students and During the second four a counselor. weeks, those same twenty-four students would remain  ---------------------------------- a A nvuiU lUIUOill in residence at the. camp but would attend their individual schools, returning to the camp in the afternoon. As the second phase begins for the first students, another twenty-four students would begin Phase I, making mflvimifn _1_ i _4'_i_______.j?  . \u0026gt; . ... maximum of forty-eight students residing in the camp, cycle a total of 216 students would be served for Using this rotation one year. a I I I I Counselors will emphasize principles of outdoor education by programming in the out-of-doors. Also, the counselor will act os mediator between teacher, student, and parent. ( Parenting Component: Twice monthly p.arents will attend workshops to include discussion of childs progression in the program, parenting skills, coping skills, and stress I management. environments. Each v/eekend the youth must return to their home This aspect of the program insures that the youth and parents v/i 1 have the opportunity to test the skills learned through the program in developing parent/child relationship in their home community. In this way, problems arising at home will be addressed upon the students return to camp a parent/child relationship in their home community. and a treatment plan will be devised to deal with those problems effectively. Also, the youth and parent are not immersed in a situation without a chance to develop the relationship with staff assistance. I I I EduentionaU Component: The principle of gradual mainstreaming to insure successful transference that was suggested above applies to the school situation as well. Classroom would be under the umbrella of the public school Students will be included in daily attendance records. The Alternative system, and the works as an alternative to out-of-school suspension In this way, the ACE ) ---------......... .... ..... .J. ov.opcii3,(jii. In addition, counselors will assist students in a daily program of organized study periods to reinforce I classroom requirements.1 r- Incentive Program: Students demonstrating , , , , - success in the program will toward a scholarship to attend r involves more indepth wilderness environment. receive points which go summer camp free, me summer camp program -J experiences in a less structured The Teacher Workshop: exoer-^ teachers will have the opportunity to learn experiential teaching techniques and how regular classroom. to utilize them successfully in the Evaluation and Follow Evaluation of student up: Siegel and Dr. Jim Sanders. progress will be conducted in cooperation with Dr. Bill . ------------- Followup will cover a period of three student completion of the program. Program Goals and Objectives: 1. years after ceotT such ^havior in institutional classroom setting uol.. BiolX? 1 T EP''*e\"'-ial Learning Techniques, Reality Therapy Biological Instructional Strategies (OBIS). * ' zmerapy, (ASE). concepts such using Outdoor and Action Socialization Experiences 2. Reciprocal Teaching Approaches, clasdPo ,etlig using three mein Concept Programs that emphasize D.__  . --- -------e uabiica, voncepi 1 rocess vs. Task, and Devslopine Thought Processes. '  and Peer Group Control. I .1 I TERMS AND CONDITIONS agreement Exnenlf accordance with the budget attached exceed Hoa purposes not itemized in the budget or which ?ran, f . amounts require prior written approval by the grantor Grant funds not spent by the grantee will be returned to the gJXr to this I, I, I i This performance grantor and granted*\"'\"*' ^\"ended by mutual written consent of the The grantor or provided may terminate this performance agreement at any time, in advance of ^e' eff termination be submitted at least 30 day 8 I All equipment and furniture ] to the foundation upon termination of the grant, or if- th^'Droffram*!., unless otht\" frXTmmts are purchased with foundation funds will revert back mutually agreed upon. The foundation programs goals secured. requires an amended budget that will demonstrate how will not be compromised if other foundation the funds are notkbpoi?tjng schedule Grantee will written outlined submit to reports of grantor, on progress toward the in the Scope of Work, organization, report due date, status of the on the or^before the following dates, detailed _ -- accomplishment of goals and objectives These reports should include the detailed I the report. report due dates grant number, contact name of the project. Any organizaUonal7han7e7\"'  \"''ative should be noted in December 1 iqft . , o (u   quarterly February 1, 1939 _ June 1, 1989 - quarterly October 30, 1989 quarterly- i final and evaluation form The first three reports shall be Une item, showing with prior expenditures to date, written approval of the accompanied by current budget Changes in program officer statements, by the budget may be made The final narrative report shall include the representing the grantor. include enclosed evaluation form, accomplished under this grant, accounting of funds received under this : signed by the summary of all work a complete accounting shall be chairman of the governing board. payment schedule The total amount to be paid to the exceed $30,000. Payments shall be made to grantee as well as a It shall also , . . ----- agreement. This grantee s chief executive officer grantee under this and the i I J agreement shall not I i submission of a letteT^In voice \"\"to following schedule, invoice must include the - ^.?*:-^ntor each f due date, and name amount due. -----. upon of  payment is due. rganization, the grant number, payment The I October 1, 1988 - $10,000 February 1, 1999 _ lune 1, 1989 _ $9,000 October 30, 1989 $10,000 - $1,000 S.\"  time as all due progress reports are receive payment of invoices The are received by the grantor. grantor acknowledges that year project. 1989 - $30,000 1990 - $30,000 D . grant applies to the first posed total budgets for additional years are as follows: additional year of a three- I Providing that the the grantor proposals for the -g Under thia 3 Doard of directors, \" amounts shown above. the board will grant is satisfactory to consider subsequent grant I iEFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this performance agreement shall be September 20, 1988. Money due and owed under this agreement must be transferred no later than December 15, 1989. to the grantee I \\ Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation Kiwanis Activities of Little Rock, Inc. f I I I i I I 1 I i i Carnegie Corporation Schools for a New Society Grant The Carnegie Corporation of New York awarded the Little Rock School District and New Futures for Youth a $250,000 urban high school reform-planning grant. All high schools within the district have begun activities that will help guide reform planning. The goal of the Carnegie initiative. Schools for a New Society, is to improve all high schools in the district through: 1. 2. 3. Identifying, analyzing and eliminating barriers to success for all students\nLearning and implementing strategies that create high performing students in high performing schools\nand Developing specific plans to create high schools that ensure success for all students. Little Rock is one of 10 sites in the country to receive the planning grant. It will give principals, teachers, parents, students and the community an opportunity to continue to create quality high school programs that will benefit large numbers of students and raise achievement within the district. Michele Cahill, senior program officer at Carnegie and creator of Schools for a New Society said, ... this initiative will encourage and support the development of high schools for all students where there is effective teaching and learning and where there are clear pathways to higher education, careers and community participation. Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corporation said, Every student in America is St entitled to attend a good high school in order to be prepared for the world of the 21 century. They are owed a high performance education where much is offered and much is expected. The planning grant provides a dynamic opportunity for the District high schools and community to commit time to focus on questions and issues that will shape a school culture of high achievement for all students. The project coordinator, Paulette Mabry, will coordinate community forums, community small group discussions, and support to the high school planning teams. Forums and small groups will focus on engaging the community around high school reform issues. A listing of dates and sites of all public forums and school planning meetings will be placed on the LRSD web site www.lrsd.org as they are scheduled. The community is encouraged to attend forums, participate in small group discussions, and be an active participant in the process. All planning efforts will culminate in the development of a strategic plan for high school reform. After completing comprehensive planning, all ten grant sites will submit strategic reform plans to Carnegie and five of the ten will be invited into the second phase of the initiative. The Carnegie Corporation anticipates committing $40 million over five years in direct grants, which will require a one-to-one match from public or private funds. Additional information about Schools for a New Society may be obtained by calling Paulette Mabry in the New Futures for Youth office at 374-1011.Catch the Spirit! AfiMMI CIrdo rrict - What can we do to make our high schools better? Explore this question and many more when they are discussed throughout the Little Rock community in January and February of 2001 in small group discussions called Study Circles. The Carnegie Corporation of New York awarded the Little Rock School District and New Futures for Youth a grant to plan reforms for urban high schools. The goal is to improve all high schools for all students. ...................... What are Study Circles? ....................... Study Circles are small, democratic, discussion groups of 10-12 people who come together to discuss an issue of common concern. Study Circles encourage people to respectfully consider issues from different viewpoints. Coming together in this way enables people to thoroughly examine the issues, develop new ideas, and find common ground for constructive action. ............................ Who Should participate in Study Circles? ................. EVERYONE: teachers, students, parents, grandparents, administrators, and community members. The more varied the points of view, the more productive and interesting the discussions will be. .............. What will Study Circle participants talk about? -.............. A trained facilitator will help each study circle talk about the critical issues, strengths, weaknesses and barriers our high schools face. Participants will share concerns, ideas, and recommendations about how to strengthen our high schools. Study Circles will identify what is expected of our high schools, how the community can get involved, and how schools can be responsive to the needs of the community. ................................ Why should I participate? ................................ Too often people feel that their opinions dont really matter or that there isnt an easy way to be heard by the people who make the decisions about our schools. When students, teachers, administrators, parents and other community members talk and listen to each other, everyone will gain a better understanding of what we all want from our schools. This shared understanding will help us focus and work together for better schools. Study Circles will give you an opportunity to be involved and to meet and make friends with other concerned people in your community. Because schools are at the very heart of economic prosperity and quality of life, it is important that the citizens of Little Rock work together to advance excellence in education. We need you! ............ How do I get involved or request more information? ............ The most important thing you can do is sign up to participate in a Study Circle. A Study Circle of 10-12 people will meet for two hours once a week for four weeks beginning in mid-January. There will be discussion groups located in different areas of Little Rock. Decide when and where you can attend these discussions and be willing to share with others your thoughts, concerns, and desires for Creating excellence in Little Rock high schools. Study Circles are open to the entire community. Check the schedule and locations for study circles to see which time/ location is best for you. Fill out the form on the opposite side, or you may contact Katherine Priest, New Futures, 374-1011, or email \u0026lt;kpriest@newfuturesforyouth.org\u0026gt;, or visit the LRSD website at www.lrsd.org.Registration Form Fraiact Individual Study Circle groups of 10-12 people will meet for two hours once a week for four weeks in January and February, 2001. Study Circles are open to the entire community and we encourage you to urge others to sign up. Return this form to: New Futures for Youth, 400 W. Markham, Suite 702, Little Rock, AR 72201 or through school mail to the ViPS office.  Mr. or  Ms. Name _ Address Phone Age:  14-18  19-30 e-mail address.  31-50  51 \u0026amp; above Please fill in the following information to help us plan for diversity within each of the study circle. (Optional) Ethnic origin:  African American  Latino/Hispanic American  Native American/American Indian  Asian American  Mixed Race/Multiracial  White/Caucasian  Other Please check all that apply:  Teacher  Parent  Employer  Student  Grandparent  Concerned citizen  Other_____________ Community locations: (Please indicate first (1) and second (2) choice.) ____Mondays, 6:30-8:30, Jan. 22, 29\nFeb. 5,12 - P.A.R.K., 6915 Geyer Springs Road ____Mondays, 5:30-7:30, Jan. 22, 29\nFeb. 5,12 - Williams Library, 1800 S. Chester Street ____Tuesdays, 5:30-7:30, Jan.l6,23,30\nFeb. 6 - Horace Mann Middle School, 1000 E. Roosevelt ____Tuesdays, 6:00-8:00, Jan. 16,23, 30\nFeb. 6 - Mablevale Middle School, 10811 Mablevale W. Rd ____Wednesdays, 12:00-2:00, Jan. 17, 24,31\nFeb. 7 - Little Rock Athletic Club, 4610 Sam Peck Rd. ____Wednesdays, 6:30-8:30, Jan. 17,24,31\nFeb. 7 - Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 W. 12* ____Wednesday. Tuesdays. 6:30-8:30, Wsd., Jan. 17, Jan. 23,30\nFeb. 6 - Otter Creek Clubhouse, 14000 Otter Creek Pkwy. (First night on Wednesday, remaining 3 nights will be Tuesdays.) ____Wednesdays, 6:30-8:30, Jan. 24,31\nFeb. 7,14 - St James United Methodist Church, 321 Pleasant Valley Drive ____Thursdays, 12:00-2:00, Jan. 18, 25\nFeb. 1, 8 - Downtown Library, 100 Rock Street, 3\"* floor Board Rm. ____Thursdays, 6:30-8:30, Jan. 18, 25\nFeb. 1, 8 - First Baptist Church Highland Park, 3800 W. IS* St. ____Thursdays, 6:00-8:00 Jan. 18,25\nFeb. 1,8 - Forest Heights Middle School, 5901 Evergreen Drive ____Thursdays, 6:30-8:30, Jan. 18,25\nFeb. 1,8 - Greater Friendship Baptist Church, 4640 Confederate Blvd. ____Thursdays, 6:30-8:80 p.m., Jan. 18,25\nFeb. 1,8 - Hoover United Methodist Church, 4000 W. 13* St. ____Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 p.m., Jan. 18,25\nFeb. 1,8 - Madison Heights, 1401 Madison Street ____Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 p.m., Jan. 18,25\nFeb. 1,8 - Mt. Zion Baptist Church, 906 S. Cross Thursdays, 6:30-8:30 p.m., Jan. 18, 25\nFeb. 1,8 - Parkview Magnet School, 2501 John Barrow RoadLittle Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 *********aIJT0**5-0IGIT 72205 ANDREW BROWN To the Parents of: 707 N SPRUCE ST little rock ar 72205-3751 Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1367 Little Rock, AR T8P1 UniliiUiilrlll'\" ... YOU ARE INVITED TO A PUBLIC EORUM Improving the Quality of Education: Raising Achievement and^fosing the Achievement Gap ^featuring Kari Haycock Direc|iF of TM^ducation Trust Febtrary 1, 6 p.m. P^j^iew High School Auditorium 2501 Barrow RoadArkansas Democrat ^(i^azctte |  THURSDAY, JUNE 18,'1998 -------------- \u0026lt;\u0026gt; . tMt, n-.., ... JX U.S. grant to help LR district expand after-school programs BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DE,MOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School District is slated to get about $1 million in federal grant money over the next three years for after- the U.S. Department of Educa- school and summer learning pro- tion from nearly 2,000 applica- grams for students and adults. \" _ . . - to worry ... or seeing these after Cool 4 School Summer Day Camp school hours as a time to fear, we for children 6 to 12 years old, free should see them instead as a win- clinics for economically disad- dow of opportunity, she said. vantaged students and their fami- Recipients were selected by lies, mental health services for at least 200 children and teen-agers, The money will be used to ex. . .. . conununity service and work tions. Little Rock is the only force readiness projects for 75 pand programs at McClellan grant Community High School and Arkansas district receiving a teen-agers, and training of litera- cy tutors who will work with Lit- The centers will provide tutor- tie Rock students. Cloverdale Jimior High. ing, performing arts programs. At Cloverdale, the grant will In all, 315 inner-city and rural summer camp for elementary provide a 25-station computer schools in 36 states will share $40 pupils, employment preparation laboratory and expansion of the million for after-school programs, training, medical assistance, and after-school program from 55 President Clinton announced parenting skills training. teens to 100 per year. Tutoring the awards Wednesday. The Partners joining with the and training in the nerformins programs, - Partners joining with the and training in the performing grants were made available school district to provide the ser- arts  including choir, drama through the federal 21st Century vices include University of dance and gymnastics  will be Community Learmng Centers Arkansas at Little Rock, Pulaski offered. Twelve additional teach- Program. The president said he Enterprise Community, Literacy ers will be used for the expanded hoped Congress would expand Action of Central Arkansas, Fam- activities. funding to as much as $200 mil- ily Service Agency, Philander Still other offerings lion in each of the next five years. Smith College, Arkansas Baptist Cloverdale will include These grants will give thou- College, the Martin Luther King evening tutorial program for 75 sands more children a safe place Jr. Commission and the Arkansas children in kindergarten through to go before and after school and Department of Health. sixth grades. College and high good things to do, Clinton said. At McClellan, the grant will al- school students will provide Statistics show that unsuper- low the addition of up to 20 training Additionally, vised children are more likely to teachers to offer courses for stu- ational activities and snacks will commit a crime or become a vic- dents and adults, nine high be provided to elementary stu- tim of a crime during those after- school teachers and six student dents during after-school hours, school hours, first lady Hillary tutors. An adult literacy program will be Rodham Clinton said. Other benefits of the grant will offered, as will mental health ser- Still at an recre- Instead of permitting parents include the expansion of the 2 vices. SUNDAY, APRIL'16, 2W e\u0026lt; LR schools grab shared SchooTs rif \u0026lt;C/I1 w^ilK. rv-M  Continued from Paai of $41 million in grants Clinton lauds 23 districts for safety initiatives BY KIMBERLY GILLESPIE during discussions about revising the districts strategic plan Md the districts revised desegrega-, tion and education plan. J, Both of those plans identify priorities and goals of which the I ------------------ district has taken the opportunity t  n - v  succe^ftil, comprehensive ap- to flilfiU some of the objectUfteJ goals, Supenntendent Les roaches to help, troubled young  that weve not been able to'fmfffi I famine said. Were very fortu- '\u0026gt;   fl^fore] through this grant oppbr- I grant Clinton announced a total of tunify, Austin said. I 1*^ three-year grant is from 341 million in grants, which vary The district also plans to lurti Department of Justice, :n amount, to school districts ftiU-time licensed clinicians^' l D.S. Department of Health ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE President Clinton announced grants for 23 school districts  including Uttle Rock, due to receive S2.2 million each of the next three years  that he said have found . Department program that helps  pay the costs of placing polite of- r,  ficers in schools to help flake -- Continued from Page 1B them safe for students and teach- lice Department, New Futures for ers. The money will be used to Youth and the Centers for Youth provide 452 officers in schools in and Families helped district offi- more than 220 communities, cials put together a proposal for  said the U.S. Department of Education has 2S! mental health services in middle million fnr local nmnncaic to cr\u0026lt;u schools. million for local proposals to,create or expand counseling tiro- This IS a very positive thing grams for elementary-agie'^.Sil- happening for us because its go- dren. ing to allow us to move forward in .. a , we nrenam ncvt tn a /oy^Srin?cnTn/it\"\n\"^-year annjversmy of the tragedy at Columbine JJ^igh School, our thoughts turn .to. jhe safety of our communities, schools country through the deal with mental-health issues at J Students each of the eight middle schools native^duri^ his weekly radio next year and to staff short-tenn Tddre^ Saturday. Little Rock is suspension centers to be set up in' he only school district in Arkan- neighborhoods  at churches, for ^2? example  for students suspend- The initiative supports urban, ed for less than 10 days. t ural and suburban schools that Grant money will allow the dis- ise community-based and public trict to expand a program de- chool services to prevent vio- signed to teach teens parenting ence in schools and provide op- skills and provide them with lortunities for healthy child de- strategies to stay in school. The elopmenL district will also start a program These districts are bringing to help parents communicate bet- chool nurses and counselors to- ter with their teen-agers. .ether to respond to warning signs A lot of times parents dont :ke depression or bullying, Clin- taow how to ask the right ques- n said. \"They are improving tions, nor do they know how to ask lassroom security and expanding the right questions if their chil- iter-school and mentoring pro- dren get into trouble, Austin rams. said. This program just helps Linda Young Austin, the Little them figure out what kinds of ock districts director of plan- questions to ask and how to ask\nng and development, said some them and get answers. f the money will be used to fill . The grant will also be used for ew positions for staff members violence-prevention and peer-me- ?sponsible for security on buses diation programs to help students d for substance abuse preven- learn to get aloi^ and communi- ou- ,\n.cate positively with one another. Austin said the need for those ositions was 1 '' as to receive one of the grants. \ns a Austin said the Little Rock Po- brotght up last year -vr-\" ----------- See SCHOOLS,' Page 3B i and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education. Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, Clinton announced $120 million in federal and children, Clinton said.,^11 of us  parents, schools, comjpu- nities and government  share responsibility to keep kids safe,' On April 20,1999, two students al Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., fatally shot 12 students pnd a teacher before killing themselves. ,, Clintons proposals drew^in- gTMts Saturday for a variety of things, including placing more po- . .  ------ lice officers in schools and help- comment from Republicans, ing even the youngest kids cope Republican critics said theied- with problems. ,... eral government is a clumsy nud- Besides the $41 million grants dleman in trying to cope .wjth for schools, Clinton: problems that should beSid-  Announced that he and first Messed locally. They cast .dhubt lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will  whether the teen confererice hold a White House Conference accomplish anything, aeon Teen-agers on May 2 to talk Clinton of ignoring .media through the challenges of raising shouifi^p- responsible children. P\" sentences for 'ai^e violence and said he shouli port stiff jail sentences fori carrying a firearm in a violei aiMn lle^o  Unveiled that school districts violeor across the country will receive tte ^^S'^^^ated crime. ..4 round of funding Information for this article was contribSed for COPS in School/ a Justice by 77je Associated Press .5 drug-related Arkansas Democrat ^(^zizette |  THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000 $250,000 to enable LR schools to plan reform of high schools Carnegie grant includes eligibility for $8 million to implement ideas BY CYNTHI.A HOWELL .ARK.ANS.AS DEMOt R-Xr-GAZETTE The Carnegie Corp, has awarded the Little Rock School District and New Futures for Youth a $250,000 grant to develop a plan on how it would reform the cifys high schools. The planning grant makes the Little Rock district and New Futures eligible for an even larger .award  up to $8 million to carryout the plan it would develop. Little Rock is one of 10 sites in the country to get the grant from the Carnegie Corp, of New- York. School districts and communitypartners in Boston, Chattanooga. Tenn.: Houston\nIndianapolis: Portland, Ore.\nProvidence. R.I.\nSacramento, Calif\nSan Diego\nand Worcester, Mass., also got planning grants. ' Last February-, the Carnegie Corp, invited 21 school districts and their community- partners to apply for Schools for a New Society planning grants. Only five of the 10 planning grant winners will ultimately be awarded implementation grants in the fall of 2001. The implementation grants are worth up to $8 million each to be paid over five years. We are excited about the op- portunity the Carnegie ^ant provides the community, Little Rock school Superintendent Les Car- nine said Wednesday. \"We are particularly pleased because it gives principals, teachers, parents, students and the community an opportunity to create a quality- futuristic high school program. The goal of the Carnegie initiative is to improve all high schools in a district through new ideas for secondary education and on new expectations for teachers, students, parents, administrators and school curricula. , , While most cities have a few- excellent, competitive and magnet\nhigh schools, too many students still attend large, impersonal, poorly performing comprehensive schools, where too little is offered arid too little is expected, said Michele Cahill, the senior program officer for Carnegie and the creator of the Schools for a New Society initiative. Cahill called districtwide re- fomi of urban high schools a daunting and urgent problem of public education. \"With this initiative, Carnegie Corp, will encourage and support the development of high schools for all students where there is effective teaching and learning ... and where there are clear pathways to higher education, careers and communitv' participation.\" she said. School districts and communitj' partnerships were selected for the grants on the basis of their potential to \"overcome entrenched barriers to change, ignore outdated assumptions and identify creative solutions to chronic problems. according to a Carnegie news release announcing the grants. Little Rock was noted in particular for a long-standing relationship behveen the school district and New Futures for Youth, a coalition of school district, city, judicial. religious. business. health, public assistance and higher education officials focused on improving the academic success of students, particularly black or impoverished students. New Futures was formed in 1988 as the result of a $7.5 million grant from the national Annie E. Casey Foundation. New Futures and the district have a long experience of workini together, and their work on middle schools offers a promise of success for high schools. Cahill said. One of the first steps in developing plans for each of Little Rocks five high schools will be to hire a project director, Don Crary, executive director of New Futures, said Wednesday. That person, who will be on the New Futures staff, will oversee efforts to go out and bring in whatever national expertise is available on how schools can raise achievement for students. Crary said the Carnegie Corp, has committed to help identify sources of information on successful schools and school districts. The planning grant will be used to send Little Rock people to see successful schools as well as bring experts in. \"I think there will be a plan for each school.\" Crary said. Some schools have already begun doing some things. Well look at what they are doing and help them build on that with the national expertise. Additionally, the coalition will look at how the community can be involved in the planning and otherwise make known what it wants from the citys high schools. \"In a lot of places there is a sense that what a community- wants is more options for kids at the high school level. Crary said. \"It seems people want a lot more options for students, so they can begin to specialize in areas of interest and even begin making connections with the business community, possibly through internships. Crary said the planning process is likely to look at staff development issues and the size and organization of the high schools. Planners. for example, are likely to ! consider whether alternate sizes ! for high schools might be beneficial. Cahill said the corporation is expecting from the districts a vari- oh nf rloftnitinnc pAr (JaaH hiah ' et\\ of definitions for good high schools, programs that will benefit large numbers of students in a school, strong new instructional focuses, bold changes at the ninthgrade levels because of large numbers of students repeating the grade, small learning communities and partnerships with higher education institutions. Districts that do not ultimately get the $8 million implementation grant are still expected to benefit J from the program because they will have developed strate^c plans and strengthened community partnerships, said Neil Grabois, vice president and director of strategic planning for Carnegie. The efforts wont be wasted, he said, adding that funding for implementation of the plans may be available from other sources. SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 2001  7 school distncts to get learning centers program money THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Seven school districts across Arkansas have been tagged to receive money under the U.S. Education Departments 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. The districts are: Little Rock, $640,939\nVan Buren, $474,097\nHamburg, $467,305\nMarked Tree, $372,053\nConway, $368,243\nWatson Chapel, $319,061\nGurdon, $155,920. The new program is designed to provide tutoring and homework help, academic enrichment opportunities, college preparatory assistance and enrichment through arts including chorus, band and drama. Technology education, drug and violence prevention counseling, supervised recreational opportunities and services for youth with disabilities are also provisions of the program. U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley said grants totaling nearly $213 million will be made to school districts in 46 states.July 2 5. 2 0 0 2 Grant to help schools combat energy costs ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Energy Unit of the Arkansas Department of Economic Development has been awarded an $80,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to continue Energy Smart Schools. The project, part of the Rebuild Arkansas program, helps make buildings more energy-eflficient, functional and cost-effective. School districts in the program include Altheimer, Altus-Denning, Caddo Hills, Dumas, Forrest City, Little Rock, Mammoth Spring, Marked Tree, Oark, Poyen, Shirley and Stuttgart. The project, which identifies communities and, school districts that have buildings to construct or buildings that have historic significance, transforms the facilities into Energy Smart Schools. The energy savings will be documented and reported to the community, the school district, the state and the Department of Entergy. Gov. Mike Huckabee has also awarded $25,000 to the Arkansas Department of Economic Development Energy Unit as a match for the federal grant The grant is part of a contract that the Energy Unit has with the Ozark Energy Group, which coordinates the Rebuild Arkansas program.  More information is available at (800) 275-2672. SATURDAY. SEPTEMBER 28. 2002  Teaching of histon focus of U.S. grant | The Little Rock School District learned this week that it sViVff  '\"\"I\"\" three-year. S995.953 Teaching American History Grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The money is to be used to provide ongoing professional development on US. history and teachmg practices to 123 American history teachers in grades five, eight and 11. The district will partner with I variety of institutions for the resources for the training, including Colonial WUliamsburg the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks department of history and Central High Historic\nNational Park Site. a The purpose of the grant is I to develop a cadre of K.CVC1OP a cadre of master teachers in American history and a collection of innovative lesson plans that will include the use of state of the art technol- ogy-o o \u0026lt;N co 6 schools in LR district get a boost from grant Funds to enhance advanced placement programs a. \u0026lt; BY ANDREW DeMILLO ARKANSAS hl'MOCRAT-GAZETIE The Little Rock School District was awarded a $1.3 million grant to increase the number of low- and middle-income students taking advanced placement courses, school and federal officials announced Monday. The two-year grant, distributed through the No Child Left Behind Act, will create the Accelerated Student Achievement Program at six district schools, interim superintendent Morris Holmes said at a news conference at Hall High School. This money is going somewhere. Holmes said. This energy and excitement is going somewhere. The schools participating in tlie program are Hall and Mc- Clellan high schools and Henderson, Cloverdale, Southwest and Mabelvale middle schools. Through the program, which begins May 1, advanced placement teachers will participate in conferences, workshops and other professional development opportunities. The program also includes online resources for high school students, tutoring and a college preparation awareness program for middle school students. Nina Rees, deputy undersecretary for innovation and improvement in the U.S. Department of Education, said the grant is intended to increase student participation in advanced placement. If you offer the coursework, the students will come, she said ,, See GRANT, Page 8B B fc*  / 1 I I I pi'!' r ^1- .4' I ! i i // lU  /1 I / Arkansas Democral-Gazetle/STEVE KEESEE Nina Rees, a deputy undersecretary for the U.S. Department of Education, presents a check to the Little Rock School District for $1.3 million on Monday. The grant will be used for the districts advanced placement program. Rees made tfie announcement during a ceremony al Hall High School. I Grant  Continued from Page 1B at the news conference. We have to make sure the funding comes available. In the 2002-03 school year, enrollment for advanced place- I ment course in the district was 3,287. Students taking more than one course may be counted multiple times in that figure. Preparing students for college is a moral issue, Holmes said. It is wrong for us to continue down this road and not have a significantly larger number of our children excel, he said. The grant is part of the federal advanced-placement incentives program. President Bushs 2005 budget includes a 119 percent increase for the incentives program, from $23.5 million to $51.5 million, Rees said. The goal of the grant is to in-struction, said he also hopes to increase the number of students who take the advanced placement exams. We have very few students proportionately who take the AP exam, Glasgow said. Thats something we need to change. The program also aims to increase awareness among parents of middle and high school students, Cleaver said, including regular parent meetings and district- wide parent conferences. A lot of times, theyre not aware of it, Cleaver said. Weve got to work with the counselors and the families to let them know about these courses and how they can help. April 3, 2 0 0 3 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Mann Middle School science teacher Jason Finney receives $5,000 from members of the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock who made a surprise visit to his class Wednesday. Finney applied for the grant to start a program allowing students to use computers to analyze the weather. LR foundation awards grants wortii $94,750 to24sdiools BY CHRISTOPHER SPENCER ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Like a sweepstakes prize patrol, members of the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock blitzed through 24 schools Wednesday morning, surprising teachers with money for school programs. This is ... you definitely surprised me, said Mann Middle School band director Lori Muis, who was flabbergasted as she received balloons and a check for $1,000 for a Music to Share program to buy musical instruments. Yeah, she is the best teacher ever, said student Chris Via, 14, who was playing bells in the front of the classroom. See GRANTS, Page 10B Thursday, April 8, 2004  Ajfcmsas Democrat (Gazette Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMtN KRAIN Yvette Goldmon, a fifth-grade teacher at David 0. Dodd Elementary School, is awarded $4,919 in grant money Wednesday by the Public Educa-tion Foundation of Uttle Rock. Members of the foundation visited 19 schoois in Little Rock to surprise and recognize outstanding teachers. Foundation enriches LR schooling Grants buy band instruments, pay for field trips, fund student studies BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE At Little Rocks Western Hills Elementary School, the fourth-and fifth-grade bands rendition of the Polly Waddle Doodle nursery rhyme is about to crescendo, thanks to a Public Ed-ucation Foundation of Little Rock grant to music teacher Cynthia Buehling. The $3,605 award will enable Buehling to expand her 35-mem-ber, after-school band to 46 members. Buehlings grant was one of 26 grants totaling about $85,000 distributed to unsuspecting teachers throughout Little Rock on Wednesday. Three separate school-bus loads of balloon-carrying community leaders  including Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey, Lt. Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller, Interim School District Superintendent Morris Holmes and Education Foundation President John Riggs IV  swept into 19 schools and assorted classrooms to present teachers with oversized checks, hugs and handshakes while sometimes puzzled students looked on. Im so excited! Buehling exclaimed repeatedly over the applause of adults and the music of her fourth-graders, who continued to blow into their recorders. We dont have as many band instruments as we have students who really want to participate, Buehling told visitors about the band program that stresses both music and good citizenship. I wrote this grant [request] to get more instruments and more inSee GRANTS, Page 10B 'tM L?..   Arkansas Democral-Gaiene/BENJAMIN KRAIN Cynthia Buehling, a music teacher at Western Hills Elementary School, is awarded $3,605 by Laura Dormus (left) and members of the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock on Wednesday The foundation surprised teachers In their classrooms all over the Little Rock School District with grants for the Innovative Ideas Grant Program. Grants  Continued from Page IB strument-repair equipment so more students can participate. Buehling, who volunteers her time after school to teach and conduct the band, said she had convinced herself that she probably wouldn't get a grant this year because she had heard the competition was stiff. I had no clue, no duel she said. At Wilson Elementary, the presentation of $1,956 to teachers Nancy Ivy of Wilson, Carolyn Gray of Franklin Elementary, and Anne Meazle of Rightsell Elementary brought tears to Grays eyes. \"This isnt good for an old womanl\" said Gray, a 38-year teaching veteran, as she quickly regained her composure. This is fantastic! The teachers, along with Michelle Kavanaugh from Cloverdale Elementary, coordinate gifted- and-talented education programs at their schools. The teachers will use the money to enhance their 3-year-old Landmarks social studies program in which pupils in grades three through five research  and sometimes visit  city, state and national landmarks lUte the Old State House in Little Rock, the Old Mill in North Little Rock and Hot Springs National Park. We didnt think children knew enough about where they live and they werent exposed to these landmarks, Taylor said about the motivation for the program. This money will allow us to do these field trips. It will allow us, possibly, to go on an out-of- state venture, maybe to St. Louis to see the Gateway Arch. The grants awarded Wednesday ranged in value from $325 for the development of a butterfly garden at Romine Elementary School to as much as Recipients of Public Education Foundation of Little Rock grants prepare pupils for the Arkansas A summer enhancement program to The Public Education Foundation Benchmark Exams. improve math, literacy and high-of Little Rock awarded Utile Rock Carver Elementary, $781, Su- schod survival skills will be offered School District educators more than san J. Daniel. Learning from School to all incoming ninth-graders. $85,000 in grants Wednesday. The to Home.\"Take-home packs of activ- Hall High, $4,390, Jane Meadgrants are intended to support Hies in math, science, language arts, ows F.O.C.U.S. (Forwarding Other teachers' innovative efforts to raise music and in motor skills are sent Cultures Under-Represented in Sci-student achievement. The recipients home each week with kindergarten ence).\" A science fair research lab include\nchildren to share with their parents, will be established to increase stu- Jefferson Elementary, $4,870, dent opportunities for science reARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Wilson, Franklin, Cloverdale ------------- . . . and Rightsell elementaries, Carmen Walker. Kinder Gardens.\" search and education. $1,956, Nancy Ivy. Landmarksa Children will learn basic math and Mann Magnet Middle, $5,000, collaborative social studies unit on science skills through agricultural Jamie McKenney. Fourche Creek city, slate and national landmarks for cultivation and production of pump- Service Learning Project.\" The proj-third-, fourth- and fifth-grade gifted kins, sunflowers and flowers. eel is a community-based study of education students. Volunteers in Public Schools, Ihe ecological, environmental, bio- Booker Elementary, $1,800, $4,000, Debbie Milam, Project Men- logical, geologicat, chemical and Marilyn Burruss, \"Malh-terpieces\"  tor\"  to expand the existing school- economic issues in the development the study of math, art, technology based mentoring program that of a nature center around Fourche and language arts by fifth grade matches adults with low-achieving Creek. special needs/resource students students in grades 4-7. Forest Heights Middle, $2,500, ...............  -------- Romine Elementary, $325, De- Margaret Wang. Integrating Uter-ation of a book. fores Banks. Butterfly Garden.\" Stu- acy Into Science\" This project will inWestern Hills Elementary, dents will research, design and es- tegrate literacy into the science $3,605, Cynthia Buehling, \"B.A.N.D.\" tablish a butterfly garden at Ihe en- classroom.  Behavior, Attitude, Notable, Disci- trance of Romine's Magnum Opus Mabefvale Middle, $2,158^Palsy pline provides instrumental music in- Park. Lewis Petals and Feathers.\" Stu-struction to fourth- and fifth-grade Meadowcliff Elementary, dents with special education needs students. ' \" '  ' \"* through the use of art and the ere* $4,021, Karen Carter. \"Project BAG- will establish and maintain gardens Watson Elementary, $4,500, IT (Books Are Great  Inspire To- that will include bird feeding stations, Sandra Hinson. \"Reading For Infor- gather)\"  to provide reading bag Henderson Middle, $1,000, mation.\" The school will update and for each child in the building to help Marvin Burton. Student Challenge\" diversify the science, geography and increase parenVehild interaction in \na three-semester long reward biography book collections and pur- literacy. The students will use the program4.to, .j^allenge students in chase Accelerated Reader Books bags to take home literacy activities, sixth through^ighth grades., to be-and Accelerated Reader Tests to . Hall High/Central High, $3,i75, come high awievers on standard-motivate student readers. Beverly Smiley. \"Computer-aided Bi- ized tests. Dodd Elementary, $4,919, ology Labs.\" The school will buy a Mann Ma.g net Middle,. $1,.000, Martha Lowe, Math At Work.\" Guest site license to Biology Labs On-Line Rick Washam. \"Rowher \u0026amp; Jerome speakers, field Irips and student and the appropriate CD applications Internment Camp Monument \u0026amp; Edu-economic projects will show pupils for dassroom use. cationaJ Garden Project The devel- how math concepts are essential in McClellan High, $1,500, Terrie opment of a visible, lasting tribute to the work world. Evans. G.A.M.E.S. {Growing And the Japanese Internment Camps by Baseline Elementary, $2,982, Maturing Educationally \u0026amp; Socially).\" students in the Environmental Spa- Rebekah Martin, Leap Into Learn- Students considering teaching as a tial and Technology program, ing. Eighteen Leap Pad Learning profession will work with students Central, Parkview, Hall, McClel- Systems with interactive activity and with special needs. Ian highs, $18,800, Vanessa game books will be purchas^ for Hall High/Central High, $3,169, Cleaver. \"S.M.A.R.T. (Summer Malh-pre- kindergarten pupils. Elizabeth Lucker. \"BOOKIN' IT ematics Advanced Readiness Train- Washlngton Elementary, Through My Life.\" Family and con- ing)  a two-week, half-day sum- $3,741, Reva Viswanathan, \"Write sumer sciences students will devel- mer program for rising eighth- and Washington With Might.\" Dictionaries and the- op keepsake scrapbooks. ninth-graders who will be enrolled in sauruses will be purchased f'o r the Parkview High, $5,000, Linda Algebra 1 in the 2004-2005 school school's Writing Guild program to G. Brown. Patriot All-Star Academy. year. student learning and improve includes parents, business and $5,000. The Parkview Magnet tte_a_ch_er qu_a_lit,y .a..n. d b.ring the community leaders, government High netted a top-dollar grant, community into the mix, said leaders, and school board mem-for its year-old All Star Academy, a summer program on high school survival and academics for all ninth-graders. Mann Magnet Middle School also got a $5,000 grant for its Fourche Creek Service Learning project that will enable students to conduct environmental and economic studies during the development of a nature center in the area. Cynthia East, a member of the bers. board of directors for the P~ ub- Financial donors to the'fqun-lie Education Foundation. \"These dation make the grants and oth-grants bring all of that togeth- er projects of the foundation poser. Its extremely exciting. sible. Major donors include En- East co-chaired the grant re- tergy Arkansas, Fifty for the Fu-view panel that evaluated more ture, Lt. Gov. and Mrs. Win Rock-than 90 applications for the efeller, Roy and Christine Stur-awards, given for the second con- gis Foundation, Merrill Lynch, secutive year. Regions Bank, GDI Construction, The foundation is a nonprof- Metropolitan National Bank, and it organization operated by a 27- Bird and Bear Medical Inc. Our goals are to improve memb er 'b oard' o'f di rectors th' at Another funding source for the foundation is the Honor A Teacher Program, through wliich parents and other school supporters can donate to the grant program. Riggs, the foundation's president, said the innovative grant program enables the community to recognize and support outstanding teachers and replicate their ideas in other classrooms. Today is a celebration of excellence in the classroom, Riggs said. Its one step in the journey of having the best school district in Arkansas and the best school district in this region. I 2B  THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005  .mJ' \u0026gt; Arkansas Democral-Gazelte/STATON BREIDENTHAL Media specialist Donna Clark (center) and counselor Lee Vanenk (right) react after receiving a $2,500 grant from Ginny Kurrus on Wednesday morning at Mabelvale Elementary School. Prize patrol delivers checks to 14 schools Public Education Foundation awards $58,447.98 in grants to educators in LR BY VAN JENSEN ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE lum. Thank you ail so much, Out- Shrieks, yells, laughter and ap- iaw said before leading her class plause could be heard in schools onward. Grants for Little Rock schools across Little Rock on Wednesday, At Chicot Elementary the as balloon-toting visitors burst crew surprised Marsha Hunter into classrooms to hand out over- and her class in a computer lab. sized checks to educators. Hunters $3,420 check will go The Public Education Foundation of about Chinese art, music, science, math LitSe Pock provided grants to pay for 21 and cultural, economic and religious as-educatjon programs Wednesday. peels of the Chinese way of life Here are the schools, program, grant  Central High  $3,967.41. Summer For the third year, the Public toward computer technology to Education Foundation of Little enrich students vocabulary, cre- Rock gave out Innovative Grants ative writing and technological to teachers and principals at 14 skills. schools in the Little Rock School Oh my gosh, one student District. In all, the foundation yelled. Is that real? contributed $58,447.98 to 21 programs at the schools. Members of the foundation said they hoped the program Its wonderful, said Larry would encourage teachers to Lichty, a foundation board mem- come up with new learning prober. Its just such a great way to grams. recognize teachers. And, they said, some teachers Foundation board members, have received continued funding Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey, through these grants because of Little Rock School District Su- the benefit of their program. perintendent Roy Brooks and Foundation board member others gathered at the founda- Virgil Miller said its exciting to tion office Wednesday morning give out the money. before boarding three y, ellow People get excited when you school buses  each taking part give out money, he said. Thats of the Prize Patrol to different my experience. schools. And, he said, the grants go to- A third of the crew went first ward a good cause. to Baseline Elementary, where Youre funding something in-they planned to surprise two novative, trying to improve stu-teachers with grants. Unfortu- dent achievement, Miller said, nately, their arrival was so unex- Everybody benefits. How could pected that the principal and one you not love that? of the teachers werent there. In ail, 31 major individual and But the group did come corporate donors put money into across Ashley Outlaw as she led the grants. In its three years, the her kindergarten class through a program has doled out $243,500. hallway. Brooks said its nice to be able Outlaw gave a startled shout, to help out some deserving edu-eyes wide, and her students be- cators. gan cheering. I cant tell you how excited The group handed over a we are about this day, he said, check for $2,131.39, to be spent We get to do some wonderful on books and educational games things for some wonderful teach-to supplement the basic curricu- ers. amount and desaipbon of the Mathematics Bridge. Incoming ninthgraders work on Pro-Algebra strategies  Baseline Elementary $5,000. to help prepare them for Algebra I. Fundamental Fiction. The money will be  Central High  $4,000. With Liberty used to purchase fiction books. and Justice for All: CMi Rights Memory  Baseline Elementary  $2,131.39. Project and Virtual Museum. Helps Monday Backpacks, A collection of ninth-graders adjust to high school and books, poems, songs and games used prepares them for critical thinking and to supplement the basic curriculum. writing.  Chicot Elementary$3,420. Visual  Hail High  $3,035.50. Stop, Drop Reality. Uses visual technology to enrich and Read. Provides books and free vocabulary, creative writing arid techno- time for student to read for pleasure in logical skills. several classes.  Mabelvale Elementary  $2,500.  Hall High  $2,508.70. A Picture Character is the Key. A program that Paints a Thousand Words. Students in a teaches kindergartners through sec- Spanish for Native Speakers class study ond-graders aixiut honesty, integrity Spanish literature and produce a work and respect. of art to serve as an interpretation of one  David 0. Dodd Elementary$3,500. of the pieces of literature read. Just the Facts, Please. A project that IHallHigh$3,142.50. Analyze This teaches nonfiction reading strategies to and Thal Uses software to improve per-third- and fourth-graders. formance in several Advanced Place-  J.A. Fair  $2,300. C.A.M.R (Chai- merit courses. lenging Adventures Mean Progress),  Southwest Middle  $670. Mustang Teachers provide experiential education Horticultural Club. Students will learn activities to students in a camp setting, horticultural and marketing skills.  Washington Elementary  $1,000.  Meadowcliff Elementary  $2,000. Centers of Achievement. Establishes a Project DREAM. Students take online literacy program for a special education quizzes on books they have read. '^assroom.  Geyer Springs Elementary  Washington Elementary  $550. $4,864.13. Childrens Book Bag Recipes for Success. Cooking projects Challenge. Kindergarten through fifth-for special na^ds students. grade students will receive a bag of Washington Elementary $2,000. non-fiction material. Living and Learning Museum. Shows  Parkview High -$5,000. Parkview the relationship between math and his- All-Star Academy, Summer enhance-tory, science and language arts, men! program for all incoming ninth-fl Rightsell Elementary  $750. graders. STOMP (Striving Toward Our Musical fl Parkview High$5,000. Smart Mu- Potential) Out Loud. Integrates musical sic: Developing Musicianship through skills and helps reinforce literacy and Technology. A computer-based practice math skills at all grade levels. program used to improve the curricula fl Dunbar Middle $1,100. Bringing for woodwind, brass, string and vocal China to Arkansas. Includes leaminq students.  WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006  Balloons bear news of 21 LR School District grants dation of Little Rock to finance ports the 26,000-student Little the winning- scHnnls. two education initiatives at the Rock school system, the states This has really made my BY HEATHER WECSLER schools. Winning projects included greenhouse, butterfly garden and ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAzjii\"it system Educators across the district a new vocabulary curriculum bird sanrtnary. Lyles, Srogging As soon as she saw the bal- Little Rock campus. largest. had applied for funding for 41 at Carver Magnet Elementary and Tracey Montgomery-Wilson loon-toting visitors waiting for For the fourth year, the foun- projects, said Laurie Baehr, the School and a program at Hail also received a $3,048.90 grant her in the Washington Magnet day, Lyles said after the an- dation delivered the awards foundations grants manager. A High School that uses algebra to for a computerized, interactive Elementary School library, Pau- nouncement. Publishers Clearing House-style, 14-member panel of foundation teach students such real world Smart Board to teach special letta Lyles knew what was com- Similar reactions could be presenting the educators who board members, former teach- skills as managing a budget and education students. ing. She pumped the air with her seen Tuesday at schools across won the grants with balloons ers and foundation volunteers applying to college. We want to do everything fists and ran to hug her fellow the Little Rock School District and oversized checks. Little selected the grant recipients. At Washington Elementary, we can to incorporate different teachers. as the foundation distributed Rocks version of the Prize Pa- The projects have to im- Lyles and her colleagues Phillip learning styles, said Lyles, a Lyles, along with some of her $70,833 in Innovative Idea Grants trol included foimdation board prove student achievement, and HaJlum Lou Ross and Ann Scog- special education teacher. And colleagues, soon learned that to fund 21 education projects, members, city and district offi- we also wanted grants to help gins successfully applied for a these projects will make sure they had received two grants The foundation is an indepen- cials, and community volunteers increase parental involvement, $4,500 grant to let students build our kids are part of the full cur- from the Public Education Foun- dent nonprofit group that sup- who traveled by school bus to Baehr said. an outdoor classroom including a riculum.2006 Innovative Idea Winning Grant recipients ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Forest Park Elementary and Wil- therapists to plan and provide expert- for the grant to their teachers. The Public Education liams Elementary  HOPE Helping ential activities that will enhance the -   Foundation of Little Rock on gross and fine motor skills, eye and tions' Award: $3,296.70 hand coordination, agility, communi- _______________Laughlin, Teresa cation, and endurance of students ects in the Little Rock School Carpenter District Helping Other People through The 2006 Innovative Idea children about Winning Grants went to the nrepreneurship and philanthropy - by providing them with small loans Tuesday awarded $70,833 in grants to 21 education proj- following schools and teachers: Other People through Enterprise with disabilities. Otter Creek Elementary  Expedi- Award: $4,804.06 Staff: Teddi Cole Expeditions is an interactive Jefferson Elementary  Reading study of world geography based on to Learn Award: $4,999.28 The Amazing Race television show. Students will integrate technology, to start their own businesses. Profits from the sale of student-created Staff: Beverly Hendrix. Nathalie social studies, language arts and Massanelli, Amber Matthews mathematics as teams compete to Bale Elementary  Backpack products will be donated to charity. S^JCidies Fulbright Elementary  Text Talk Award: 2,452.50 Reading to Learn will integrate fill their treasure chests with items science books into the current first- from various countries. Award: $3,264.62 Staff: Ramona Geurin, Laura Shiver, Ashley Andrews grade guided-reading curriculum to Parkview Magnet High School enable students to read nonfiction as   Parkview All-Star Academy Award: $5,000 Staff: Celestine Piggee, Leigh Staff: Beth Johnson, Gay Wyatt  , - Text Talk is a vocabulary instruc-  . , , _ . , ,, . Backpack Buddies are back- tion program to develop understand- Mabelvale Middle School Using _ ucii.j ...ix,. ------^. x,------ .. . . - Games to Increase Student Achieve- Cole, Judy Warren, Jeremy Owoh well as fiction books. packs filled with literacy-building ac- ing among kindergarteners through tivities to encourage at-home read- third-graders of word meanings ing between the students and their through oral language activities. buddies.\" Brady Elementary  Reading without Barriers Award: $1,498.85 Staff: Beverty Cook, Melissa Hannah parental involvement and direct instruction. Hall High School The Real World Project Award: $3,176.68 Staff: Coniell Bursae, Yolanda ment Award: $4,154 The Patriot All-Star Academy is a summer enhancement program to Staff: Nancy Harris, Annita Paul, improve the math and literacy skills Paula Smith of all incoming ninth-graders. This project will enable the math Washington Magnet Elementary coach to purchase or make games  Living and Learning for use in teaching and reinforcing . _.. sixth-grade math concepts. Award: $4,500 Staff: Phillip Hallum, Lou Ross, Reading without Barriers will use Bush, Tiffany Jackson, Felicia Wil- Mabelyale Middle School  Dig- B**!** l-yl' Ann Scoggins technology to scan books onto disks s**, Tonya Johnson, Louisa Rook, 9''*9  Heritage Garden Studerits will build and use an  ............................ - -  . Award: $3,897.44 outdoor classroom consisting of a so that computers can read to stu- Kimberly Van Meter, Demar Sand__________ ............. Campbell, Kathey greenhouse, butterfly garden, and develop spelling, word recognition Bladmall, Bemestein Rhodes^, Carla . bird sanctuary to explore wildlife pop- | and comprehension skills. Harris .. Digging a Heritage Garden will ulations, habitats, ecosystems and i Carver Magnet Elementary  Extending Vocabulary through Read- Alouds Award: $1,230 Staff: Laurie Yarbrough, Kathy Dober All primary-grade teachers at Carver will be trained to use Text Talk, a supplementary vocabulary program. They will then host parent nights to provide Text Talk tools lor use at home. Chicot Elementary  TechKnow Award: $3,815 Staff: Leola Reids, Marsha Hunt- dents with disabilities to help them Midiael Clark, Betty Larry, Reva The Real World Project will teach ooh, hands-on learning expert- interactions among living things, ninth-graders the uses for Algebra I, eoces using the JunWr Master Gar- Washington Magnet Elementary as well as how to manage a bud- dener program curriculum to develop Touching the Future get, create a resume and apply to od grow a heritage garden that will college. The project will be capped serve as a scientific learning labora- with visits to central Arkansas col- *'Y- lege campuses. The project goal is Mann Magnet Middle School  to bridge the gap between the stu- Outdoor Learning Center dents'idea of success and the reality -------- of achieving it. Award: $5,000 Award: $3,048.90 Staff: Ann Scoggins, Pauletta Lyles, Tracey Montgomery-Wilson This project will use a computerized, interactive white board to integrate functional reading, writing and math skills Staff: Rick Washam, Jamie McK- with computer literacy for the schools Hall High School  Graphic Novels enney, Stephanie Jones special education population. for Literacy The Outdoor Learning Center Western Hills Elementary  Books Awarded: $3,900 will enable teachers and students far B.A,N.D, Staff: Trina Bright, Jennifer Diggs, to research and explore ecological, Mary Casto environmental, biological, geological. Award: $635.85 Staff: Cynthia Buehling Graphic Novels for Literacy will chemical and economic issues con- Grant money will be used to pur- provide a variety of classroom sets cerning the future development of an chase instruction books and CDs, interactive Smart Boards and of graphic novels to encourage vol- area near the school. along with materials to build a music faUMChfaacomDuteTm?t^aS?dT ac*''' student Mann Magnet Middle School storage cabinet, for the Behavior, At- era^Si ccT'oulum. _ Explore the Worldl The Global rtuP. Notability, Discipline program, _ . ... .. . J-A. Fair High School  CAMP Explorers Experience a once-a-week instrumental music ............ Award: $2,675 program far students. er Forest Heights Middle SchooF FUN Challenging Adventures iramily:Night Science Project - - i . - ' Mean-ProgressFfastering Unique Award: $2,483.79 Needs Stafft, Margaret Wang, Wends^' Staff: Jason Rnney. Robin Zim- Wilson Elementary  Books for  mer, Barbara Gilbert-Wise Foundations of Reading Award: $2,000 Wendyf' Award: $5,000 Twenty-five seventh-grade ge- Staff: Ruth Eyres, Tamara Baker, ography students and three social Five parent/student science. Denise Nesbitt, Jennifer Jimenez Staff\nKelly Calkins r AMD CUM 'll UI r, studios teachets will attend a two- SpanishZ\u0026amp;glish fiction and nonfic- f  Il u 'u rUN Will enable Commu- day cultural immersion program at Son books will be added to the schools ?m7 JhLiM nity-Based InstmeSon teachers and Heifer Ranch, a nonprofit facility in permanent library collecSon far Se by the 2006-2007 school year. occupational, physical, and speech Perryville. Students brought the idea students, parents and staff: * nights, featuring inquiry-based sci-Grants  Continued from Page IB In all, the foundation gave 32 grants, totaling $94,750. The money will be used to for programs to enrich school curriculums and give teachers a chance to use creative approaches to learning, said foundation executive director Vicki Saviers. \"These are innovative ideas and you have to give teachers an opportunity to try new ideas even when sometimes they dont have the money, Saviers said. The projects are diverse. Mann Middle School students will use computers to analyze weather as part of its School Weathernet Program. Washington Elementary will use its grant to diversify and expand its library offerings. And Gibbs Elementary students will design a quilt that illustrates the experience of Japanese children imprisoned in Arkansas two internment camps during World War n. This is just excellent, said Mary Thompson, the presidentelect of Pulaski Heights Middle Schools Parent-Teacher Association and mother of two children in the district. The foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving schools in the Little Rock School District. That goal  along with the grants  is something the community can only benefit from, Thompson said. Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey agreed. Obviously, creating a better school system is something that helps the community, but even more important than that, is the symbolic act of recognizing these teachers ... of going out to the schools and personally say- ing 'thank you and good work, he said. Little Rock schools receiving grants Read to Jfie Public Education Foundation of Little Pock awarded $94,750 to the following Little Rock School District schools Wednesday. The teachers who applied for the grants will use the money to start creative programs.  Central High, ^,900, Stage A  Carver Elementary, $965, digital imaging program.  Washington Elementary, $5,000, Reading On Up.  Mann Middle, $1,000, Music To Share.  Mann Middle, $5,000, Using computers to analyze weather.  Gibbs Elementary: $1,627, Life Interrupted: The Japanese Internment.  King Magnet, $4,725, Lion Club Camp.  Watson Elementaiy, $4,000, Cultural and Physical Diversity Awareness.  Chicot Elementary, $4,700, literacy program with a parenting component.  Otter Creek Elementary, $2,300, Otter Pockets reading program.  Dodd Elementary, $3,944, Dodd Mini-Mall economics program.  J,A. Fair High, $1,000, multidisciplinary study of The Crucible.  J.A. Fair High, $5,000, Powerful Presentations by Kids.  J.A. Fair High, $2,000, Outdoor Learning Center.  Wilson Elementary, $3,994, drama program.  Central High, $1,490, Literacy in Physics.  Fair Park Elementary, $1,000, Fair Park Band Program.  Fair Park Elementary, $724, Fair Park Stock Market Team.  Fair Park Elementary, $5,000, Story Characters writing program.  Fair Park Elementary, $3,000, Fair Park Family Readers.  Forest Heights Middle, $2,000, Multimedia in the Classroom.  Forest Heights Middle, $776, Seventh Grade Literacy Fair.  Hall High, $4,000, Celebrating Diversity.  Southwest Middle, $1,500, Urban 4-H.  Southwest Middle, $1,500, Business Theories/Application.  Parkview High, $4,850, Parkview All-Star Academy.  Brady Elementary, $2,215, Second grade science project.  McDermott Elementary, $5,000, Discovery Lab.  Fulbright Elementary, $1,770, Special Needs Advancements.  Fulbright Elementary, $4,750, Creating the Interactive Classroom.  Alternative Learning Center, $1,000, Great Books reading program.  Five elementary schools, $5,000, Art Bug project. 1 I ivl  dozen educational foundations exist, including ones in Pulaski County Special, Van Buren and El Dorado school districts. Nationwide, an estimated $1.5 billion has been raised by about 4,000 foundations, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Public Education Network, which tracks such organizations. Most of the grants will pay for programs that begin next fall. Once the programs are complete, the fouhdation will evaluate the grant program. We are going to be good stewards to our doriors. That is very iEppdrtarit to us, Saviers said-Thfe\ngrants all have an elertto bf accounta- have an bility. And some out- standing sufeqeSs iis a program, there is alwA^^e^ oppor- tunity to* trictwide. W'S!\" dis- Dailey, who rode along with the prize patrol, introduced the first award to a surprised teacher at Carver Elementary. Patricia Burns, a media specialist, was a bit speechless at first as Dailey announced the $985 grant in front of her class, but she quickly recovered and explained how the Candid Camera Kids program will teach students how to use digital cameras and manipulate digital images. I think it does mean a .lot. to these teachers to receive some validation from other adults who say, You are doing an excellent job. I think that means something, Saviers said. The foundation was formed last year and is administered by a 22-member board comprised of community leaders in business, education and city government. The foundation operates from funds and commit- ' ments of $500,000 raised over the past year. In Arkansas, at least three s:\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":22,"next_page":23,"prev_page":21,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":252,"total_count":4341,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4079},{"value":"StillImage","hits":389},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":106},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":824},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":615},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":575},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":507},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":7},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1644},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1603},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1212},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1146},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1728},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":504},{"value":"Florida","hits":375},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9},{"value":"","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":957},{"value":"1963","hits":664},{"value":"1965","hits":513},{"value":"1962","hits":472},{"value":"1957","hits":462},{"value":"1960","hits":456},{"value":"1966","hits":444},{"value":"1961","hits":440},{"value":"1967","hits":440},{"value":"1995","hits":429},{"value":"1959","hits":420},{"value":"1994","hits":409},{"value":"1958","hits":401},{"value":"1996","hits":397},{"value":"1993","hits":384},{"value":"1969","hits":383},{"value":"1968","hits":359},{"value":"1992","hits":357},{"value":"1991","hits":355},{"value":"1999","hits":347},{"value":"1997","hits":344},{"value":"2000","hits":333},{"value":"1998","hits":326},{"value":"2001","hits":323},{"value":"1970","hits":319},{"value":"1990","hits":308},{"value":"1971","hits":295},{"value":"2002","hits":292},{"value":"1956","hits":278},{"value":"2003","hits":278},{"value":"1989","hits":277},{"value":"1972","hits":268},{"value":"1955","hits":259},{"value":"2004","hits":256},{"value":"2005","hits":237},{"value":"1954","hits":230},{"value":"1981","hits":225},{"value":"1974","hits":221},{"value":"1987","hits":215},{"value":"1988","hits":214},{"value":"1975","hits":205},{"value":"1973","hits":203},{"value":"1984","hits":203},{"value":"1986","hits":202},{"value":"1985","hits":201},{"value":"2006","hits":201},{"value":"1977","hits":197},{"value":"1980","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":197},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1979","hits":195},{"value":"1976","hits":189},{"value":"1978","hits":189},{"value":"2007","hits":189},{"value":"1952","hits":158},{"value":"2010","hits":157},{"value":"1951","hits":156},{"value":"1953","hits":156},{"value":"2009","hits":154},{"value":"2008","hits":153},{"value":"2011","hits":153},{"value":"1950","hits":148},{"value":"2012","hits":144},{"value":"1948","hits":142},{"value":"2013","hits":142},{"value":"2014","hits":141},{"value":"1947","hits":139},{"value":"1945","hits":134},{"value":"1946","hits":134},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1949","hits":133},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1934","hits":120},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1932","hits":119},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1933","hits":118},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1930","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1924","hits":113},{"value":"1931","hits":113},{"value":"1929","hits":99},{"value":"1921","hits":96},{"value":"1928","hits":93},{"value":"1923","hits":92},{"value":"1926","hits":92},{"value":"1927","hits":92},{"value":"1922","hits":91},{"value":"1925","hits":91},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1918","hits":89},{"value":"1919","hits":89},{"value":"1920","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":27224,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4341},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":47},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1880},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":654},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":35},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":830},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1279},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49},{"value":"Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4326},{"value":"Collection","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4335},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}