{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_665","title":"Meeting schedules","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":["1996/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School boards","Meetings","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Meeting schedules"],"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/665"],"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":["193 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******************************************************************************************* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January, 1997 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS DATE-TIME MEEIIKG PLACE Wednesday- 1 Winter Vacation Schools \u0026amp; Administration Closed Thursday- 2 Winter Vacation Schools Closed (Administration Offices Open) Friday-3 Monday- 6 No Meeting Scheduled Classes Resume Tuesday-7 6:00 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday- 8 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. English Department Visitation Southwest Jr. 4:00 p.m. - Drug Free Schools Advisory Council Board Room 4:00 p.m. - Super Saturday Planning Session IRC 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Parents/Community on Your Side IRC *******************************************************************************************December DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 9 10:00 a.m. AR National Association of PIE Chamber 5:00 p.m. - Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-10 10:00 a.m. - Partners in Education Tri-District Committee Chamber Saturday-11 Super Saturday Parent Training IRC Monday- 13 11:30 a.m. - VIPS Executive Committee Board Room Tuesday- 14 9:00 a.m. - SAT-9 Test Interpretation Elementary Principals Board Room 2:00 p.m. - SAT-9 Test Interpretation Secondary Principals Board Room 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Bulletin Board Magic w/Printshop Deluxe Ensemble II IRC 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. I Think Im Having Stress 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Cooperative Team Learning IRC******ili** Wili**********ilt** A*** ******** ******* A******* ***********1^**** **************** A A A* December page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday-15 8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Paraprofessional Inservice 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. English Department Visitation Parkview Lecture Hall Mann Magnet 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Jr. High Science \u0026amp; Health Teachers IRC 1:00 p.m. - Secondary Counselors Inservice Metropolitan 4:00 p.m. - Super Saturday Planning Session IRC Thursday- 16 3:45- Transition/Annual Review IRC 4:00 p.m. - Student Assignment Appeals Committee SAO 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Foreign Languages Council IRC Friday-17 8:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Elementary Counselors Insen'ice King Elem. ***************************************************************************^*************** Monday- 20 No Meeting Scheduled Tuesday- 21 Wednesday- 22 No Meeting Scheduled 4:00 p.m. - Super Saturday Planning Session IRC *******************************************************************************************December page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 23 6:00 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 24 8:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Group D - Gifted and Talented Specialists IRC Saturday - 25 9:00 a.m. - Super Saturday Parent Training IRC ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 27 11:30 a.m - VIPS Chairpersons Appreciation Luncheon Adislt Center 1:30 p.m. - General Principals Meeting Board Room 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday- 28 Polaroid Workshop (Materials Fee is S15.00) IRC 2:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Positiye Parental Relations IRC 4:15 p.m. - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall Wednesday- 29 Thursday- 30 No Meeting Scheduled 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. TESA for New Teachers IRC r riday- 31 8:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Group E - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Specialists IRC ******************************************************************************************4 '01/06/97 13:56 Q301 324 2023 I.RSD COlBIfMCATl -\u0026gt; GDM @001 001 Little Rock School District Correction January 6, 1997 For more information: Zeomee Herts, 324-2020 Following is a correction for the Media Advisory released earlier today: Thursday. January 9. 5:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors holds its monthly agenda meeting Franklin Communications and Technology' Incentive Elementary, 1701 S. Harrison. n It Ji I I fir TT TTTr NOTE TO MEDLA: All LRSD Board members receive this advisory' and may choose to attend these events. A Special Board Meeting situation may occur if two board members are in attendance at an event. Some events listed above are subject to change. A !  si ' ' (23/97 14:14 'ifll 324 202.3  i.Rsn co'iMCMCATi onj 002/002 I5f Little Rock School District Special Board Meering ?- k?'r  For immediate Release Jamiary 23,1996 hi'- For more information: Suelicu Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rook School District (LRSD) Board of Di_'.ctors will visit icforTnally with area legislators at a reception this aftemooDi prior to the Boards monthly meeting. H If: k  I?  z I The reception for legislators will be held at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. The monthly Board meeting will begin at 6\n00p,ra. .L \u0026lt; 1w/ TTr rrr T 1 1 IB7r' r I- 'J L 810 West Markham Street  Uttle Roch, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 5 la III 31 '97 10:11 501 324 2023 i.Rsn coMMi \\ic vri - , Ol)i| @002/002 Si r I *****************************************************************************************J,* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVE' March, 1997 FES 3 - 1997 DATE-TIME SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MEETING office OF PLACE Monday- 3 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. PET 3:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Managing the Aggressive Student IRC Tuesday- 4 4:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Secondary Social Studies Council IRC 6:00 p.m. - Biracial Advisory Committee Board Room Wednesday- 5 8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Special Education Paraprofessionals Board Room Thursday- 6 4:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Children w/Asthma IRC Friday- 7 No Meetings Scheduled Saturday-8 2:00 p.m. - Parent Involvement Day 1st. Comm. Bank/ Capitol \u0026amp; BroadwayMarch page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 10 11:30 a.m. - VIPS Board of Directors Board Room Tuesday- 11 8:00 a.m. - (Tentative date) Partners Idea Exchange TBA 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. School Nurse StafCTnservice How to Plan A Health Fair TBA 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Bulletin Board Magic IRC 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Grant Writing IRC Wednesday-12 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 13 5:00 p.m. Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 14 Teachers Workday (Students Out) 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Pre-K Instructional Aides CD A Training IRC 1 t******************************************************************************************* March page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 17 Spring Break Tuesday- 18 Spring Break Wednesday-19 Spring Break Thursday- 20 Spring Break Friday- 21 Spring Break Administration Offices Closed Monday- 24 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 25 3:15 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Pre-K Teachers Early Childhood Education IRC 4:15 p.m. - Gifted and Talented Council Hall High Wednesday- 26 No Meetings Scheduled* * * * ** * itik * it ** W.* it-it * tk *** *if'it 'k is ** * * 4t icit it */( * ile it * 'k :if 'k * * is 'k * 'k * 'it 'k'k -k -k * * it -k * -it it * it tfe /( -it * \"it * -k it * * * * * March page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 27 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Early Childhood Education Parent Workshops King 6:00 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 28 Parent Conference Day (Students Out) Monday- 31 4:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Secondary Social Studies Council IRC5 ' ' J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEfl'BP February, 1997 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS OmCEOF it iHr A ifc A A ifc A W A ilr A :j\u0026lt;r A * ilr it A A A A A A A A A W A A ilc it it A A A i\u0026gt;r A A A A A ilr A ilr A A A A it ilr ilr A i\u0026lt;e ilr A A PATE-TIME MEETING PLACE '\"\"fB 5 - 1937 Monday- 3 t/ 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. PET IRC 1:00 p.m. -3:30 p.m. School Nurse Staff /Inservice How to Deal with Behavior Disorders in Children, Anger Centered TBA Tuesday- 4 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Pre-K Instructional Aides CDA Training IRC 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Cluster A- Kindergarten Teachers Behavior Management King 1:45 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. Reading Dept. Writing and the Young Child 1st. Grade TeachersfTargeted Schools) Chicot Media 2:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Secondary English Teachers TBA 2:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Foreign Languages Teachers TBA 4:00 p.m. - Secondary Special Education Issues Hall High Media Cntr. 6:00 p.m. - Biracial Advisory Committee Board RoomV  February page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING ELACE Wednesday- 5 12:30 p.m, - 3:30 p.m. UALR Pre Pros Early Childhood Education IRC Thursday- 6 2:00 p.m. - Parent Involvement Admin. Team HIPPY 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. ESL Tutors IRC 4:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Seeondary Social Studies Council IRC Friday- 7 8:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Gifted Specialists Group F IRC Rm. 19 10:00 a.m. - Tri-District Partners Meeting Chamber of Commerce Saturday- 8 9:00 a.m. - Super Saturday Parent Training IRC it *  * W * it * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4e * * is 4c -it it it -k * Jr it it it * it it it it -k  -k it -it Tk * * * * * it it it * * k  * -k -it * * * * it -k ik * it -k -k ik 'it ick-it Monday- 10 11:30 a.m. - VIPS Executive Committee Board Room Tuesday-11 11:30 a.m. - PTA Founders Day Luncheon Pul. Hgts. Methodist Church)  ' February pageJ DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday-12 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 13 5:00 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-14 No Meetings Scheduled Monday-17 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m PET IRC 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Secondary English council IRC Tuesday- 18 3:15 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Pre-K Teachers Agenda for Fire Safety Education Activities IRC 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Positive Discipline IRC Wednesday-19 8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Special Education Paraprofessionals Parkview Media Cntr. 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. AGATE Conference DoubleTree Hotel Thursday- 20 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. AGATE Conference 8:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Elementary Librarians (B-K schools) DoubleTree Hotel IRCFebruary page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE 12:30 p.m. -3:30 p.m. Elementary Librarians (M-W schools) IRC 3:45 p.m. - Special Education Discipline Separate Prog. Issues IRC 4:00 p.m. - Student Assignment Appeals Committee SAO 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Foreign Languages Council IRC Friday- 21 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. AGATE Conference DoubleTree Hotel Saturday- 22 9:00 a.m. - Super Saturday Parent Training IRC Monday- 24 1:30 p.m. General Principals Meeting Board Room Tuesday-25 4:15 p.m. - Gifted and Talented Council Hall High Wednesday- 26 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 27 6:00 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 28 No Meetings Scheduled********************************************************************J^J^*J^******J^************ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April, 1997 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS **************************************************************************j.**j^************* DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday - 1 Early Dismissal 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Development Program IRC 6:00 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Meeting Board Room Wednesday - 2 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. SAFAK Training Thursday - 3 St. Paul U. Methodist 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. SAFAK Training St. Paul U. Methodist 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. ESL Tutors IRC 4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. SECME Steering Committee Board Room 6:30 p.m. - LRAEOP Bosses Night Gibbs Cafetorium Friday - 4 8:00 a.m. - Saturday - 5 Strategy 7 Stair Development IRC 9:00 a.m. - Super Saturday Parent Training IRCApril, 1997 page! DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday - 7 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday - 8 Custodians Appreciation Day 8:15 a.ni. - 3:00 p.m. Australian Mathematics Workshop IRC 11:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Secondary Counselors Meeting PARK Cntr. Gey.Spgs. Rd. 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Deyelopment Program IRC Wednesday - 9 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday -10 5:00 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday -11 8:00 a.m. - Strategy 7 Staff Deyelopment IRC 8:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Elementary Counselors Meeting Geyer Spgs. Elementary Monday - 14 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. PET IRC * * ** * *  *** * * * it-it * * ** * * ** * A * ** -k * *  ie it it -k ** -k -k * * it * ifrit * /( * irir k-k * ** -k * * ik * * * * * -it * * * it -k * * -it * * * ie * * *April, 1997 page 3 DATE - TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday -15 1:00 p.m. - Strategy 3 Board Room 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Bulletin Board Magic w/Printshop Deluxe IRC 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Development Program IRC 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. SECME Multicultural Extravaganza Ricks Armory Wednesday -16 Bus Drivers Appreciation Day Thursday- 17 3:45 p.m. - Residential/Day Treatment Referrals IRC 4:00 p.m. - Appeals Committee Meeting SAO 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 Foreign Languages Council IRC Friday- 18 Saturday-19 No Meetings Scheduled 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Development Program IRC *************************************************************************j^***j^***j[****j^****April, 1997 page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday - 21 Beginning of National Secretaries Week 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation for Nurses (Each nurse will attend 4 hrs.) TBA 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. English Council IRC Tuesday- 22 8:00 a.m. - 2:15 p.m. Quiz Bowl - Elem. Diy. I (Preliminary Round) Western Hills 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation for Nurses (Each nurse will attend 4 hrs.) TBA 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. PET IRC 4:15 p.m. - G/T Council Hall 4:15 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Math Council Meeting IRC 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Deyelopment Program IRC Wednesday- 23 National Secretaries Day 8:00 a.m. - 2:15 p.m. Quiz Bowl - Elem. Diy. II (Preliminary Round) Western Hills 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Title I Meeting IRC 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation for Nurses (Each nurse will attend 4 hrs.) TBA 8:30 a.m. - 3:45 p.m. Project Alert Training MetropolitanApril, 1997 page 5 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 24 8:00 a.m. - 2:15 p.m. Quiz Bowl - Jr. High (Preliminary Round) Western Hills 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. TESA IRC 6:00 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 25 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Connected Math Project IRC Saturday- 26 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Connected Math Project IRC Monday- 28 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. General Principals Meeting Board Room Tuesday - 29 9:00 a.m. -1:00 p.m. Job Fair-12' Grade Woodys Sher. Forest 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon Title I Para- Professionals IRC 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Deyelopment Program IRC****j**j\u0026lt;2*j**j**\u0026lt;2^***j2'2t***i^^ April, 1997 page 6 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday - 30 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Truancy Review Board Board Room 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. HIV- AIDS in Elem. School Setting TBA 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Secondary Textbook Adoption Committee IRCRECBVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MAY 81997 May, 1997 OFFICE OF DATE-TIME SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MEETING PLACE Thursday- 1 2:00p.m. - ESL Tutors IRC 4:00p.m, - 5:00p.m. SECME Steering Committee Board Room 4:30p.m - LRAEOP Meeting IRC-Room 19 Friday- 2 8:00 a,m - 4:00p.m Word Workshop IRC Lab 8:30 a.m - 2:30 p.m Elementary Counselors Inservice Romine Saturday- 3 9:00 a.m - 4:00p.m Mahlon Martin Professional Development Program McClellan 11:00 a.m -1:00p.m Parent Advisory Awards Picnic McArthur Park Monday- 5 4:00p.m - 9:00p.m PET IRC 6:30p.m - 8:30p.m SECME Awards Banquet UALRMay page 2 Tuesday- 6 Early Dismissal 8:00 a.m. - 3:30p.m. Elementary Quiz Bowl Finals Hall High 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Pre-K Instructional A ides CDA Class IRC 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Kindergarten Teachers Inservice IRC Cluster C 5:00p.m. - 9:00p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Development Program IRC 6:0 0 p.m. - Bi-Racial Committee Board Room Wednesday- 7 8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Elementary Bowl Finals Hall High Thursday- 8 8:00 a.m. - 3:30p.m. Jr. High Quiz Bowl Finals Hall High 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Excel Workshop IRC Lab 5:00 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 9 No Meetings Scheduled ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 12 4:00p.m. - 7:00p.m. Grant Writing IRC******************************************************************************************* A/iflj paged Tuesday- 13 No Meetings Scheduled Wednesday- 14 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday-15 4:00 p.m. - Student Assignment Appeals Committee SAO 4:15p.m. - 5:15p.m Foreign Languages Council IRC Friday- 16 No Meetings Scheduled Saturday- 17 9:00 a.m -11:00 a.m Super Saturday Parent Advisory Committee IRC Monday-19 1:30 p.m - General Principals Meeting Board Room 4:00p.m - 9:00p.m PET IRC 4:15p.m - 5:15p.m English Council IRC Tuesday- 20 8:00 a.m - 4:00p.m Access Workshop IRC Lab 3:15p.m - 4:30p.m Pre-K Teachers Inservice IRCMay paged Wednesday- 21 8:30 a.m, -1:45p.m. \u0026lt;/* Grade Challenge Parkview Thursday- 22 8:00 a.m. - 4:00p.m. PowerPoint Workshop IRC Lab 8:30 a.m. -1:45p.m. Grade Challenge Parkview 2:00 p.m, - Annual Reports TBA 4:00p.m. - 9:00 p.m. TESA IRC Lab 6:00 p.m. - Regular Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 23 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 26 Memorial Holiday Schools and Administration Closed Tuesday-27 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Wednesday- 28 Mahlon Martin Professional Development Program IRC Thursday- 29 Friday- 30 10:00 a.m. -1:00 p.m. No Meetings Scheduled No Meetings Scheduled VIPS Mentor Picnic Murray Park*********************************************************************** * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUN 4 _ iggy June, 1997 OFFICE OF desegregation MONITOflINQ SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ******************************************************************************************* DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 2 4:00p.m. - VIPS Board of Directors Board Room Tuesday- 3 6:00 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday- 4 Last Day for Students Thursday - 5 8:00 a.m. - Noon School Nurses Annex Friday- 6 Last Day for Teachers 7:45 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Soc. Studies Textbook Inservice (Cluster ASchools) Philander Smith College (Titus Acad. Center) 8:30 a.m. - Math Council Parkview 9:45 a.m. -11:30 a.m. Soc. Studies Textbook Inservice (Cluster BSchools) Philander Smith College (Titus Acad. Center) 11:30 a.m. - S'' Grade Calculator Training IRC ******************************************************* *W**Wilf**W*T^r*WW******** June page! DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 9 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday-lO 8:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Summer School Registration Forest Hgts., Hall High 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Mahlon Martin Professional Dev. Program IRC Wednesday-11 8:00 a.m. - 3:00p.m. Summer School Registration Forest Hgts., Hall High Thursday-12 10:00 a.m. - Tri-District Partners Meeting Chamber 5:00 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Admin. Bldg. Friday-13 8:30 a.m. - 3:30p.m. K-3 Summer School Teachers Inservice IRC 9:00 a.m. - 4:00p.m Mahlon Martin Professional Dev. Program M.L.King it it it it it it it it It it'k it it it-k-k Ie \"k-it-k it it it it it it it Ie \"it it-it ie Ie it it it it It it Ie-k it It it it it'it it'k it it it it it it it ie ie ie if ie ie it-it it it it it it it ieie-it it-ie \"it-k-kieie it it it it it ie Ie if it it Ie Monday- 16 7:45 a.m -1:00p.m 1 Day of Summer School Forest Hgts., Hall High 8:30 a.m - Noon Vital Link Internships Tuesday-17 8:30 a.m - Noon Vital Link Internships\u0026lt; ******************************************************************************************* June page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday-18 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships Thursday-19 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships 4:00 p.m. - Student Assignment Appeab Committee SAO Friday- 20 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 23 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships Tuesday- 24 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships Wednesday- 25 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships Thursday- 26 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships 6:00p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Admin. Bldg. Friday-27 8:30 a.m. - Noon Vital Link Internships *******************************************************************************************\u0026gt; ******************************************************************************************* June paee 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 30 No Meetings Scheduled 07 Ma''?!\" 10: 32 SOJ 524 2023 LRSt) COMMOICATI ODM 002'002 I Llttk^ Kock School District Special Board M.eerinf For (mraediak- Release  i|-- I For more mformation: Snellen Vann, 324-2020 I be Lirtle kock School kistrict (LRSD) Bo\nTd of Duectors will bold a special a -Ct tag tomorrow afternoon m conjur.'Ttiun with its regular agenda msehaE. The special M to di: :uss the sup^sriutcndents conmaci xid the proposed bcdger for Oon. ' 'ii I ke meetings will oegin :n. 5\nCCt p.m. on Inursday. Jtily 10. T^qp Ll:e iscorn ot tbe LRSD Administra: r B ildi . ti vVe.si Matkhar'. J MEDL-\\ \u0026gt;OT: 1 ohciwiijg i,L XDj'kS r- \"T-inbers aqd .Dr, Leshe Cami.ne have been in med to Lciaid m- -jcr J L_  :\nss diane 708 FLT.l Dnve) A special meeting Sit'j.-jon e :r. tn-7 \u0026lt;^ii? Board member anends h:\n?. tjoii. sto West Majurtairt Street  Lierle Rock, Aikansas 72j\nui  (501)324-2000 ******************************************************************************************* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July, 1997 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday-1 No Meetings Scheduled Wednesday-2 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 3 No Meetings Scheduled Friday- 4 INDEPENDENCE DA Y HOLIDA Y Administration Offices Closed ****************************************************************************************** Monday- 7 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 8 9:00 a.m. - 4:00p.m. Excel Computer Class IRC Wednesday- 9 9:00 a.m. - 4:00p.m. Windows 95 IRC\u0026lt; ******************************************************************************************* July page? Thursday-10 9:00 o-m. - 4:00 p.m. PowerPoint IRC 5:00 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-11 No Meetings Scheduled ****************************************************************************************** Monday-14 8:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Principals Meeting Adult Cntr. Tuesday-15 No Meetings Scheduled Wednesday- 16 2:30p,m. - 4:00p.m. Principals Retreat Clarion Resort Hot Springs Thursday-17 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m. - (Registration begins at 2:30 p.m.) Principals  Retreat Clarion Resort Hot Springs Student Assignment Appeals Committee SAO Friday- 18 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. Principals  Retreat Clarion Resort Hot Springs (Institute ends at 3:00p.m.) *******************************************************************************************1 kititititititititititititititititititititiritititititititirititititititititititititititititititititieititiritieitititititititittititititititititieititititititititititieitititieieit JuTv pagej Monday- 21 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 22 No Meetings Scheduled Wednesday- 23 8:30 a.m. -12:00 Noon School Start-Up Information Board Room 12:00 - 3:00p.m. New Principals  Meeting Board Room Thursday- 24 6:00p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 25 No Meetings Scheduled it it it it it it it it it it it it It it it it it it-it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it \"it it it it it-k it it it it it it it 1t it It It It it it it it it It it it \"it it it it it it-kit It it-it it it It-it it it it'k'it it it it \"kit-kit it it-k-kit Monday- 28 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 29 No Meetings Scheduled Wednesday- 30 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 31 No Meetings ScheduledJ**  13:40 'S-'OI 324 2023 I..RSI' COMltl'MCATI ODM 002 002 R Scboo) uistiik \u0026gt;\u0026lt;: vrni ,1 O:-- T Th 2c\nini 1,51  i'. Disnict (LRSD) Boar-J / 'ors will hoi . ilie mee^iEg mil be held to di-,^uL\u0026gt;., a resolution J.CV .1 elecho'i , uder state law, it'only one candidate petiti ho o' b'-ord position, the elecnon commission may be asked to limit the number 1 A I. Tr:'! le school noara seats up forelection next month are 2 Wl-: :OCt p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Fill' s' m ' )! ******************************************************************************************* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August, 1997 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ******************************************************************************************* DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday-1 No Meetings Scheduled ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 4 8:30-4:30 Pre-School Conference- Leadership at the Middle Level Principals/Asst Principals PHJH,CJH, FHJH, SW, Mabelvale Jr. PH United Methodist Church Tuesday- 5 8:00-4:00 School Legal Institute AU Principals St James Methodist Church 8:30-3:30 Pre-School Conference- Leadership at the Middle Level Team Leaders, Steering Comm. Chairs, Dept ChairsFHJH, CJH, PHJH, SW, Mabelvale Jr. Board Room Wednesday- 6 8:30-3:30 Pre-School Conference - New Teacher Middle Level Orientation University Park Adult Center 10:00- 7:00 School Check - In (Registration) AU Schools Thursday- 7 10:00- 7:00 School Check - In (Registration) AU Schools******************************************************************************************* August page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- S through Aue. 14 8:30-4:00 Summer Institute - Middle Level Cloverdale, Forest Heights Local Schools 9:00-11:00 Junior High Word Processing Teachers Metro ******************************************************************************************* Monday-11, through Wednesday 13 8:00-4:00 AR Vocational Association State Conference Excelsior 8:30- New Futures Middle Level Summer Institute Mabelvale Jr. 8:30- New Futures Middle Level Summer Institute SouthwestJr. 8:30- New Futures Middle Level Summer Institute PHJH 8:30-12:00 New Librarians Winnebago Training IRC 1:00-3:30 Elementary LibrariatK IRC 8:00-11:30 Substitute Teachers Board Room Tuesday-12 8:00-4:00 AR Vocational Association State Conference Excelsior 8:30-11:30 New Teachers - Elementary IRC 12:30-3:30 New Teachers - Secondary IRC Wednesday- 13 8:30-3:00 Adult Education Teachers Adult Ed. Center 8:30-3:00 HIPPY Coordinators IRC******************************************************************************************* Aueust page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE 11:30-12:30 DriU Team, Cheerleaders, Dance Team Pep Club Sponsors/Coaches McClellan 12:00-3:30 PreSchool Gifted and Talented Facilitators Hall High 12:30-2:00 All Junior High Language Arts Plus Teachers IRC,Rm.l8 1:00-2:30 Volleyball Coaches Conf. Room 1:00 -3:00 All Theme/Curr. And Subject Area IRCfiin.19 1:00-3:00 Title I Spec. King 1:00-3:30 Sec. Counselors Ins. Workshop Board Room 2:15-3:45 AU Sr. High Language Arts Plus Teachers IRCJlm.18 3:30- Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Comm. Advisory Council Board Room Thursday -14 8:00-9:30 Social Studies Inservice - Grade 6 Cluster A Teachers, Resource Teachers Romine 8:00-10:00 Social Studies Insevice - K-5 Cluster 1 Teachers, Resource Teachers K-1 WiUiams 2-3 Washington 4-5 King 8:00 -12:00 Elem. Counselors Ins. Workshop Board Room 8:30-3:00 Adult Education Teachers Adult Ed. Center******************************************************************************************* Aueust paee 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE 8:30-3:00 Title I SFA New Schools/Mitchell,Brady, Fair Park), 2^ Year Schools w/newK-3 teachers\nteachers moved to new grades, Teachers/schools adding grade 3-6 Wakefield 8:30-3:30 Elementary Speech Teachers/ All Self-Contained J^. Fair 8:30-11:00 Secondary Science Teachers Parkview Science Wing 8:30-3:30 Jr. High Social Studies Teachers All Resource Teachers Henderson 8:30-3:30 Sr. High Social Studies Teachers All Resource Teachers Parkview S:30 -3:00 Pre-School- Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Facilitator Western HOk 10:00-11:30 Social Studies Inservice, Grade 6 Cluster B Teachers, Resource Teachers Romine 10:00-3:00 Pre-K Teachers and HIPPY Staff Jacksonville Comm. Center 10:15-12:15 Social Studies Inservice, K-5 Cluster 2 Teachers, Resource Teachers K-1 Williams 2-3 Washington 4-5 King 11:30-1:00 Key Communicators (PR Coordinators) University Park Adult Center 12:30-3:00 7-12 math Teachers 1:00-3:00 Secondary Librarians Parkview Math Wing IRC******************************************************************************************* August page 5 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE 1:15-3:15 Social Studies Inservice K-5 Cluster 3 Teachers, Resources Teachers K-1 WiUiams 2-3 Washington 4-5 King 5:00 - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-15 8:00-12:00 All Vocational Education Teachers Metro 8:30-3:00 SFA New Schools- 2^ year schools w/new teachers\nteachers moved to new grades, Teachers/schools adding grades 3-6 Wakefield 8:30-3:00 CCC Lab Attendants Rightsell ******************************************************************************************* Monday-18 8:30-11:30 New Instructional Aides IRC 8:30-3:00 SFA Tutors/facilitators :til new schools\n2^ year schools - new tutors/facilitators Romine 12:00- CTA Luncheon for New Teachers AEA Bldg. Tuesday-19 8:30-11:30 New Supervision Aides IRC Wednesday- 20 First Day of School************ W*WW*W**WWWWW4r*4r**irirWirir**Wir\u0026lt;r1lrir1lrir\u0026lt;rWW*1lr*****irWirirW***ir**4r*******4r*******irW**W**W*ir August page 6 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 21 Friday- 22 No Meetings Scheduled 11:30- VIPS Chairpersons Orientation Board Room ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 25 1:30 p.m. - Principals Meeting Board Room Tuesday- 26 5:00 - 8:00 Wednesday- 27 Fall Semester Registration Evening High School Metro 9:00- VIPS Chairpersons Orientation Board Room 4:00- PAC Executive Board IRC Thursday- 28 6:00- Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 29 No Meetings Scheduled September- 2 5:00-9:15 Classes Begin Evening High School Metro******************************************************************************************* Received 1 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLEROCK, ARKANSAS OFFICE OF December, 1997 DESEGHESATIQUmiTORINS SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS it'kiiit'ltiiiticitie'k'ifkifkie-ifie'k'k-le-ieifififk-k'k'it'lcieieie-kifitififkieiiii-ie-itie-kifkifttififlt'ie'k'k-kitic'k'ie-kifieitieitifk-itifk-ififit'ifkit'ie'k'kie-kisieitie'ie-kit'k DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 1 3:30 - 6:30p.m. Technology Trainer Testing IRC Tuesday- 2 All Day- School -Wide Discipline NLR Community Center 12:00- Strategy 5 Team VIPS Office 3:30 - 6:30p.m. Technology Trainer Testing IRC 4:00 - 7:00 p.m Conversational Spanish (Contd. from November) IRC 4:00 - 7:00p.m Polaroid Workshop IRC 6:00 p.m - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday- 3 8:00 - 4:00p.m Windows 95 Workshop (Principals) IRC 4:00p.m - PAC Planning Session IRC Thursday- 4 All Day - IDEA IRC 9:00 - Noon SECMA Team Training McClellan 2:00p.m - ESL Tutors IRCDecember page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday fcontd.) 5:00p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 5 8:30 - 3:00p.m. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Specialist Inservice IRC Saturday- 6 9:00 a.m. - Super Saturday Parent Training IRC Monday- 8 9:00 - 3:00 p.m. Portfolio Technical Assistance Training ( SECME Coordinators) TBA 4:00 - 7:00p.m. Conversational Spanish (Continued) IRC Tuesday- 9 12:30- Vocational Coordinators Metro 3:00 - 4:30p.m. Pre-K Inservice IRC-Rm.18 Wednesday- 10 All Day- IDEA Board Room 1:30 - 4:00p.m. School Nurse Staff Meeting TBA Thursday-11 8:30-11:30 a.m. Drug Education Curriculum Inservice (Civics Teachers) IRC 12:30 - 3:30p.m. Drug Education Curriculum Inservice (American History Teachers) IRCDecember pane 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE 4:00 - 7:00p.m. Domestic/Dating Violence IRC 6:30- LRAEOP Holiday Celebration ML. King Friday-12 8:30 - Noon Elementary Counselors Inservice Booker Elem. Monday-15 11:30- VIPS Board Board Room 1:30 - 5:00p.m. General Principals  Meeting Board Room 3:30 - 6:30p.m. Technology Trainer Testing IRC 4:15-5:15 p.m. English Council IRC Tuesday- 16 4:00 - 7:00p.m. Conversational Spanish (Continued) IRC 4:00 - 7:00p.m. Surf the Internet for Thematic Units IRC 4:30p.m. - Student Assignment Appeals Committee SAO Wednesday-17 All Day - IDEA IRC 1:00 - 3:45p.m. Secondary Counselors Inservice Metro Thursday- 18 6:00 p.m.- Board Meeting Board RoomDecember pane 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday-19 Last Day of School (Winter Vacation Begins) Monday- 22 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Tuesday- 23 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Wednesday- 24 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Thursday- 25 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Friday- 26 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Monday- 29 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Tuesday- 30 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Office Closed) Wednesday- 31 Winter Vacation/Christmas (Schools and Administrative Offices Closed) Schools and Administrative Offices will reopen on January 5,1998LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED February, 1998 2 1998 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS OFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 2 Pilot - Grade 4 Benchmark Elent. Schools 4:00  7:00 p.m. Surf the Net for Thematic Units IRC Tuesday- 3 Pilot-Grade 4 Benchmark Elem. Schools 8:30 a.m.- Elementary Library Media Specialists IRC r 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. Cooperative Team Learning (second night of course) IRC 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday-4 Pilot - Grade 4 Benchmark Field Test - Grade 8 Benchmark Elem. Schools Jr. High Schools Thursday- 5 Pilot - Grade 4 Benchmark Elem. Schools 12:00- Reading Initiative (LR Alliance Meeting) Board Room 2:00p.m. - ESL Tutors IRC 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Elementary Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee IRCFebruary Pase 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 6 Pilot - Grade 4 Benchmark Elem. Schools 9:00 - Noon SECME Martin Luther King Essay Contest (Oral Presentations) Board Room Saturday- 7 9:00 -12:00 p.m. OM Judges Training Office for Deaf/ Hearing Impaired (212 South Palm) ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 9 Pilot - Grade 4 Benchmark Elem. Schools Tuesday-10 4:15 - 5:30p.m. Secondary Social Studies Council IRC Wednesday-11 No Meeting Scheduled Thursday- 12 8:30 - Noon Elem. Counselors Inservice Board Room 1:00-3:00 p.m. School Nurse Staff/Inservice Assessment of the Ear and Implants (Dr. Charles M. Bower) King Magnet 1:00 - 3:45 p.m. Secondary Counselors Inservice Board Room 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 13 8:00 - 5:00 p.m. Mini AGATE Conference St. Fincent******************************************************************************************* February Pase 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Saturday- 14 8:00-12:00 MiniAAGEA Conference (Gifted Learners at Middle Level) St Vincent Monday- 16 11:30-1:00p.m. VIPS Executive Committee Board Room 4:15 - 5:15p.m. English Council IRC Tuesday- 17 8:00 - 3:00 p.m. 3'* Grade Calculator Training IRC 12:00- Strategy 5 Committee VIPS Office 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. National Staff Development Standards IRC 4:30p.m. - Student Assignment Appeals Committee SAO Wednesday-18 8:30 - 3:00 p.m. National Faculty Henderson 12:15 - 3:30 p.m. Special Education on lEPs Board Room Thursday- 19 8:00 - 3:00 p.m. 3^ Grade Calculator Training IRC 8:30 - 3:00 p.m. National Faculty Henderson 4:15 - 5:15 p.m. Foreign Languages Council IRCFebruary Pase 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 20 6:30p.m, - Pulaski County Volunteer Summit Hall High Saturday- 21 8:30 p.m. - Pulaski County Volunteer Summit Hall High Monday- 23 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. Polaroid Workshop IRC Tuesday- 24 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. HIPPY Paraprofessionals Inservice IRC 3:00 - 4:30p.m. Pre-K Teachers Inservice IRC 4:15 p.m. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall High Wednesday- 25 No Meeting Scheduled Thursday- 26 8:30 - 3:00 p.m. Vertical Teaming Workshop (Math) IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Special Education on lEPs Board Room 4:00- 7:00 p.m. Domestic/Dating Violence IRC 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. SECME Multicultural Extravaganza Ricks ArmoryFebruary Pase 5 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 27 8:30 - 3:30p.m. Pre- K Instructional Aides CDA Class IRC 1:00p.m. - English Vertical Teams Saturday- 28 N.L.R. Hilton Riyerfront 8:00 - 3:00 p.m. English Vertical Teams N.L.R. Hilton Riverfront\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\w^^ R 7 1338 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OFFiCECF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ^przY, 1998 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS niiiiHinninnHnnninnniiiiiiiHiinununiHiiniinniiiiiiiHiimiuHniHHimiiiiiinmHuumnmniimnumiimmmminnumimu DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday- 1 Spring Break (Students Out) Thursday- 2 Spring Break (Students Out) Friday- 3 Spring Break (Students Out) Monday- 6 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 7 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday- 8 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 9 8 - 3:30 p.m. - Computer lEP Training Rockefeller 3-5 p.m. Elem. Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee IRC 5p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Roomuummummmmmunnmuumummmuunmmuuumnmummmmuuuuunummmuuuuumnuuuununmmmnnmuu April Pase 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday-10 Staff Deyelopment (Students Out) Monday- 13 All Day CPR Training for Nurses (Everyone must, attend A day) TBA Tuesday- 14 4-7 p.m. Polaroid Workshop IRC All Day CPR Training for Nurses (Eyeryone must attend A day) TBA Wednesday- 15 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 16 8-4 p.m. K-3 Summer School Training IRC 4-7 p.m Domestic/Dating Violence IRC 4:15 - 5:30 p.m Foreign Languages Council IRC 6:30p.m - LRAEOP Bosses  Night Metro Friday- 17 8-4 p.m K-3 Summer School Training IRC 8:30 a.m - Elementary Librarians Terry ElemuuuiHunninuuunuuuuuunuuumuummuuuumunuumnmmuunummuunuuuummnmmnnmmuuummuummm April Pase 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Saturday-18 All Day State OM Competition Sheridan Monday- 20 ACTAP Retest - Grade II 8-4 p.m. K-3 Summer School Training IRC 4:15 - 5:30 p.m. English Council IRC Tuesday- 21 ACTAPRetest- Grade 11 8 - 3:30 p.m. Secondary Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee IRC 8:30 - 3:00 p.m. LRSD Quiz Bowl Preliminary W. Hills 4:30 p.m. - Appeals Committee SAO Wednesday- 22 ACTAP Retest - Grade 11 8-4 p.m. K-3 Summer School Training IRC 8:30 - 3:00 p.m. LRSD Quiz Bowl Preliminary W. Hills\\uuuumummmuuumummuiunuunnuiuiuuuununmnnnnunnumimmmHinnmmuuuunnmnmmuumnnmmmm April Pase 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 23 ACTAP Retest Make - Up Day 8-4 p.m. K-3 Summer School Training IRC 8:30 - 3:00 p.m. LRSD Quiz Bowl Preliminary W. Hills 6p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Eriday- 24 Monday- 27 ACTAP Retest Make - Up Day (SOMETIME DURING THIS WEEK) COE/COE Addendum Survey - Grade 10-12 (Replaces School Climate/Human Relation Survey) (All junior high schools except Dunbar, Henderson \u0026amp; Southwest) 1:30p.m. - General Principals  Meeting Board Room 2-3 p.m. School Nurse Staff Meeting TBA Tuesday- 28 4-7 p.m. National Staff Development Standards IRC 4:15 p.m. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall Wednesday- 29 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 30 No Meetings Scheduled V .k: 'I RECEJVEO ?\u0026lt;: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May, 1998 OmCEOF l^^SEGREGAnOfiMOmOlilfiQ -'2.S . SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS lUUUUUHUUUlUUUHHHUUUHllHUUlHUUlUHUUUllUnUllUlUUHUlUniUUlHUHnUUlUUUlHUUllUUUHUUHlUUUUUHlUUUUUn DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday-1 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 4 8:30-3:30p.m. Secondary Counselors Inservice Metro 6:30-9 p.m. SECMEAwards Banquet UALR Tuesday- S 8:30-3:30 p.m. Service Learning Coordinators Board Room 6p.m. - LRSD Biracial Meeting Board Room Wednesday-6 8:30 - 3 p.m. Quiz Bowl Finals - Div. I Hall High 9-2 p.m. Tri District Job Fair Woodys Sherwood Forest Thursday- 7 8:30 - 3 p.m. Quiz Bowl Finals - Div. H Hall High 10-Noon Supts. Student Cabinet HendersonW' VI* ****** May Page 2 5 '^ DATE-TIME MEETING . PLACE Friday- 8 8:30-3 p.m. Quiz Bowl FinaE - Jr. High Hall High 8:30-Noon Elementary Counselors Inservice Garland Monday- Il No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday-12 4:30p.m. - Middle School Steering Committee Board Room Wednesday- 13 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday-14 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-15 No Meetings Scheduled Monday-18 4- 7p.m. Test Taking Strategies IRC 1:30p.m. - PrincipaE  Meeting Board Room 7p.m. - Graduation (Central) Barton ColEeumI May Page 3 J. : DATE-TIME MEETING. PLACE ' ' ll' Tuesday-19 4:30p.nt. - Appeals Committee SAO 6p.m. - Graduation (Parkview) Barton Coliseum 8:30p.m. -  t. Graduation (McClellan) Barton Coliseum Wednesday- 20 8:30 -1:45p.m. 6^ Grade Challenge Parkview 6p.m. - Graduation (J.A. Fair) Barton Coliseum 8:30 p.m. - Graduation (Hall) Thursday- 21 Barton Coliseum 8:30-1:45p.m. Grade Challenge Parkview Friday- 22 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 25 Memorial Day (Observed) Students Out/Administrative Offices Closed Tuesday- 26 No Meetings ScheduledMay Pase 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday- 27 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday 28 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 29 No Meetings Scheduled . i 3 J. .-I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^^^^ received LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May, 1998 OFFICE OF ^^S^GATIOfiMONITORIHQ SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS uuunnuuuuuniuuuuuuuunuunuuuuuuuuunuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnuuuunuunnuunuuuuuiuunuuuuuuuuuuuu DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 1 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 4 8:30 - 3:30p.m. Secondary Counselors Inservice Metro 6:30 - 9 p.m. SECMEAwards Banquet UALR Tuesday- 5 8:30 - 3:30p.m. Service Learning Coordinators Board Room 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Meeting Board Room Wednesday-6 8:30-3 p.m. Quiz Bowl Finals - Div. I Hall High 9-2 p.m. Tri District Job Fair Woodys Sherwood Forest Thursday- 7 8:30 - 3 p.m. Quiz Bowl Finals-Div. H Hall High 10 - Noon Supts. Student Cabinet HendersonMay Page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 8 8:30 - 3 p.m. Quiz Bowl Finals - Jr. High Hall High 8:30 - Noon Elementary Counselors Inservice Garland Monday- Il No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday-12 4:30 p.m. - Middle School Steering Committee Board Room Wednesday- 13 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday-14 5p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-15 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 18 4- 7p.m. Test Taking Strategies IRC 1:30p.m. - Principal * Meeting Board Room 7p.m. - Graduation (Central) Barton Coliseum**************************************************************jj********************^******* May Page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday- 19 4:30 p.m. - Appeals Committee SAO 6 p.m - Graduation (Parkview) Barton Coliseum 8:30 p.m - Graduation (McClellan) Barton Coliseum Wednesday- 20 8:30 1:45p.m 6\"* Grade Challenge Parkview 6 p.m - Graduation (J.A. Fair) Barton Coliseum 8:30 p.m - Graduation (Hall) Barton Coliseum Thursday- 21 8:30-1:45p.m Grade Challenge Parkview Friday- 22 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 25 Memorial Day (Observed) Students Out/Administrative Offices Closed Tuesday- 26 No Meetings ScheduledMay Paged DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday- 27 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday 28 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 29 No Meetings Scheduledk^'k-k-k-itik-k-k-k'k'k'fctck-k'ick-k^ck-fcfckik'k^'kik-k-k^-k-k-k-k-kii-k-fck-kk-k-k-k'ifft^'it'/ck'ifk-ifkik-k-k-k'k'it-k-k-k-fe-k-k-k'k'k-k'ki F*' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 00^ 6 1998 October, 1998 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS -OSSWESATIOnMONITORINd DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 1 8:30-3:00 p.m. New Teachers Inseryice Reading Dept.(Grades 4,5,6) IRC 10-11:00 a.m. Superintendents Student Cabinet Central High 2 - 3:30 p.m. ESL Tutors IRC 3-5 p.m. Open House IRC 5-8:00 p.m E-mail IRC Friday- 2 8:30-3:45 p.m. Jr. High Counselors Inseryice IRC/Rm.l9 Saturday-3 9-10:30 a.m. Title I Parent Inyolyement Kick-Off IRC Monday- 5 4- 4:00 p.m. Basic Internet Bale Tuesday- 6 3:30-4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inseryice Grade 3 St. Vincent 4- 7:00 p.m. Surf the Net-Thematic Units IRC 4:30-6 p.m. Middle School CIA Committee IRCOctober Page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday- 7 8-3:30 p.m. Middle Sehool CIA Committee IRC 4- 7:00 p.m. Basie Into to Using the Internet IRC Thursday- 8 8-3:30 p.m. Middle Sehool CIA Committee IRC 8:30-3:00 p.m. New Teachers Inseryice Reading Dept.,( Grades 1,23) IRC 3:30-4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inservice Grade 3 St. Vincent Terrace Rm. 4-7:00 p.m. Middle School IRC 5 p.m. - Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 9 8-3:30 p.m. Middle School CIA Committee IRC 8-12:00 p.m. Winnebags Training (Beginners) IRC 8-2:30 p.m. Elementary Counselors Inseryice King. Elem. Monday- 12 8 - 3:30 p.m. Middle School CIA Committee IRC 11:30 a.m. - VIPs Board of Directors Board Room 3:30 - 4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inseryice TBA 4- 7:00 p.m. Basic Intro to Using the Internet IRCJjt***************************************************************************************** October Page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday-13 8- 3:30 p.m. Middle School CIA Committee IRC 3:30 - 4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inservice Grade 6 TBA 4 - 7:00 p.m. Cooperative Team Learning IRC 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. Middle School CIA Committee IRC Wednesday-14 8-3 p.m. EPSF Study Inservice for Teachers IRC/Rm.l7 Thursday- 15 ALL DAY AEDA Conference (AR Early Childhood Association) Riverfront Hilton 4:15-5:30 p.m. Foreign Languages Council IRC 4 - 7:00 p.m. Computer 101 IRC Friday- 16 ALL DAY AECA Conference (AR Early Childhood Association) Riverfront Hilton Saturday-17 8:30 -1 p.m. Youth Leadership Institute Water Treatment Plant (on Rocky Valley)October Page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 19 3:30 - 4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inservice Grade 3 TBA 4-7:00 p.m. Computer 101 IRC 4-7:00 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC 4:15 - 5:30 p.m. English Council IRC Tuesday- 20 3:30 - 4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inservice Grade 5 TBA 5-8:00 p.m. Basic Internet IRC Wednesday-21 4-7:00 p.m. Surf the Net-Thematic Units IRC Thursday- 22 8:30-11:30 a.m. Elementary Librarians Bale Elem. 1 p.m. - All Librarians Central AR Library (Main) 4 - 7:00 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 23 No Meeting Scheduled Saturday- 24 9-11:00 a.m. Title I Key Facilitators Training IRC******************************************************************************************* October Page 5 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 26 8-3:00 p.m. Pre-K Instruction! Aides Inservice IRC 12-3:00 p.m. School Nurse Staff Inservice TBA Tuesday- 27 4 - 7:00 p.m. Surf the Net-Thematic Units IRC 4-7:00 p.m. Cooperative Team Learning IRC 4 - 7:00 p.m. Basic Internet Bale Wednesday- 28 3:30 - 4:45 p.m. Language Arts Textbook Inservice Grade 1 TBA 4-7:00 p.m. Surf the Net-Thematic Units IRC Thursday- 29 4-7:00 p.m. Computer 101 IRC Friday- 30 No Meeting ScheduledREcir ************************************************************************* MOV 4 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November, 1998 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ************************************************************************jj********j^********* DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 2 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale Elem. 4-7 p.m. NatI. Staff Dev. Standards IRC 5-8 p.m. Basic Computer Tools IRC Tuesday-3 4-7 p.m. First Steps in Using the Internet IRC Wednesday- 4 9 a.m. - Lyceum High School Reception Thursday- 5 Philander Smith College 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 6 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 9 9-3 p.m. - Jr. High Quiz Bowl Final Hall High 4-7 p.m. Positive Discipline - Discipline w/Dignity IRC 5-8 p.m. Basic Computer Tools IRC 4 November Page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday- 10 9-3 p.m. - Elementary, Division I Hall High 4:15  5:30 p.m. Social Studies Council Meeting IRC 5-8 p.m. Excel 97, Module I Hall High 5-8 p.m. PowerPoint, Module I Rockefeller 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday-11 9-3 p.m. Elementary, Division H Hall High Thursday- 12 8-11 a.m. Winnebago Nonbook Cataloging (Session A) IRC 12 Noon Winnebago Nonbook Cataloging (Session B) IRC 10 a.m.-Noon Superintendents Student Cabinet Hall High 5:30-6:30 p.m. Early Childhood Education Task Force IRC Rm.l7 5-8 p.m. PowerPoint, Module I Rockefeller Friday- 13 No Meetings Scheduled Saturday- 14 8:30-12-30 p.m. Title I Annual Mandated Meeting ML KingNovember Page 3 DATE/TIME MEETING PLACE Monday-16 11:30-1 p.m. VIPS Executive Committee VIPS Office 4-7 p.m. Surf Net for Thematic Units IRC 4-7 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC Tuesday-17 VIPS READING DAY Elementary Schools 8- 3 p.m. Cluster A Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Specialists IRC Rm. 19 3-4 p.m. Pre-K Teacher Observation and Enrichment for Gifted Students IRC Rm.l9 4-7 p.m. Surf the Net for Thematic Units IRC 4-7 p.m. 5-8 p.m. Basic Internet Word 97, Module I Bale Rockefeller 5-8 p.m. PowerPoint 97, Module I Hall Wednesday- 18 8-3 p.m. Cluster B - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Specialists IRC Rm. 19 9 a.m. - Tri-District Partners in Education Chamber of Commerce 4 - 5:30 p.m. SAP Coordinators Meeting Hall High**A*iliiliili**AA*A*AAAA*****ili* *********************** A***AAAAAiliA******A*A**A***AA**A**A* ******* November Page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday- 19 8-3 p.m. Cluster C - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Specialists IRC Rm.l9 2:50-3:50 p.m. ECERS Inservice for Pre-K Teachers at Washington, Wilson, Franklin IRC Rm.21 4-7 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC 5-8 p.m. PowerPoint 97, Module I Hall High 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 20 No Meetings Scheduled Saturday- 21 8:30 -1 p.m. Youth Leadership Institute TBA Monday- 23 1-3:30 p.m. School Nurse StaffZInservice TBA 4-7 p.m. Multiple IntelUgences IRC Tuesday- 24 4:15 p.m. - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall HighNoyember Page 5 DATE/TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday- 25 Students Out Thursday- 26 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY Students Out Administration Offices Closed Friday-27 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY Students Out Administration Offices Closed Monday- 30 No Meeting Scheduled ***No Principals Meeting Scheduled for November***If******A**********A**A*************A*A*A***AAA**A***A*AAA*A**************************** LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February, 1999 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS *****************************************************************************:lrib***)t*******^ DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 1 6:30 p.m. - Magnificent Monday Wilson Elem. Tuesday- 2 9-Noon SECME Technical Assistance Workshop McClellan 4:30 p.m. - Career Orientation Teachers Metro 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Meeting Board Room Wednesday- 3 NO MEETING SCHEDULED Thursday- 4 10-Noon Superintendents Student Cabinet TBA Friday- 5 5 p.m. - PAC Workshop/Facilitators Meeting Excelsior Hotel Saturday- 6 9 a.m. - PAC Workshop/Facilitators Meeting Excelsior HotelFebruary Page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 8 NO MEETING SCHEDULED Tuesday- 9 8:30-3:30 p.m. Elementary Librarians IRC Wednesday- 10 NO MEETING SCHEDULED Thursday- 11 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-12 NO MEETING SCHEDULED Monday- 15 6:30 p.m. - Magnificent Monday Garland Elem. Tuesday- 16 4:30 p.m. - Middle School Steering Committee Board Room 4:30 p.m. - LRSD Appeals Meeting Student Registration Office 6:30 p.m. - Terrific Tuesday Fair Park\u0026lt; February Page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday-17 NO MEETING SCHEDULED Thursday- 18 8:30 - Noon Elementary Counselors Inseryice Board Room Friday-19 Oyernight- Secondary Peer Retreat 4-H Center Saturday-20 8:30 -12 Noon Youth Leadership Education Session TBA 9 a.m. - Super Saturday TBA Oyernight - Secondary Peer Retreat 4-H Center * 'it * * * ** A * it -it -fe -ie -k -k * \"k * * -it * * * -k -it'ft 'kit * * A * * it * 4e * * -k 'k'k -k-k * -ft -k -k * -k -ft rk ie -it -k -ft is tk ie is it * * -k * * -k * * * -k * * * -it Sunday- 21 Secondary Peer Retreat 4-H Center Monday- 22 NO MEETING SCHEDULED Tuesday- 23 AR Association of Partners in Education Holiday Inn Select 4:15-5:15 p.m. G/T Council Hall High**************************************************************^*********************^****^* February Page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday- 24 8 - 4:30 p.m. AGATE Pre-Conference Hot Springs 1:30 p.m. - Thursday- 25 8 a.m. - 9 p.m. 6 p.m. - 6-9 p.m. Friday- 26 8-4 p.m. AR Association of Partners in Education Principals Meeting AGATE Conference Board Meeting SECME Multicultural Extrayaganza AGATE Conference Holiday Inn Select TBA Hot Springs Board Room Ricks Armory Hot Springs************************************************* J^***********^*^J[*****^** r  a 23VEO \u0026gt;3KS NiAR 2 1 d LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OFFICE CF March, 1999 DESEGnEGQ?^i^G:^SM SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS *******************************************************************^*^^^*^^^ DATE-TIME MEETING *************** PLACE Monday-1 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale 4-7 p.m. Action Research IRC Tuesday- 2 8:30 - 4 p.m. Project Alert Workshop Board Room 8:30-4 p.m. Peer Mediation Workshop Metro 4-7 p.m. Computer 101 IRC 4:30 p.m. - Middle School Steering Committee Lounge Wednesday- 3 8:30 - 4 p.m. Peer Mediation Workshop Metro 4-7 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC 6:30 p.m. - Terrific Tuesday Workshop Franklin Thursday- 4 8:30 - 4 p.m. Peer Mediation Workshop MetroMarch page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 5 No Meeting Scheduled Saturday- 6 8-6 p.m. SE Regional OM Monday- 8 4-7 p.m. Surf Net for Thematic Units IRC Tuesday- 9 10 a.m. - AR Association National School Public Relations Assoc. AR School Board Assoc. 4-7 p.m. Middle School IRC Wednesday- 10 4-7 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC Thursday- 11 4 -7 p. m. Positive Discipline/Instruction IRC 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 12 No Meeting Scheduled Saturday -13 8:30 -1 p.m. LRSD Biracial Retreat Board RoomMarch page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday-15 12:00- VIPS Board of Directors Board Room 4-7 p.m. Surf Net for Thematic Units IRC 6:30 p.m. Magnificent Monday Workshop Mitchell Tuesday- 16 Curriculum Reference Testing (Grades 2 -6) 9-11 a.m. Tri-District Patners in Education Idea Exchange Jacksonville Comm. Cntr. 4:30 p.m. - LRSD Appeals Committee SRO 4:30 p.m. - Middle School Steering Committee Board Room 6:30 p.m. - Terrific Tuesday Workshop Badgett Wednesday- 17 Thursday- 18 Curriculum Reference Testing (Grades 2-6) Friday- 19 Curriculum Reference Testing (Grades 2-6) Saturday - 20 No Meeting Scheduled 8:30-12:00 Youth Leadership Institute TBA 9 a.m. - Super Saturday Workshop IRCMarch page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 22 4-7 p.m. Surf Net for Thematic Units IRC Tuesday- 23 1 -3:30 p.m. School Nurse Staff/Inservice TBA 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale 4:15 p.m. - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall High Wednesday-24 1:30- Principals Meeting TBA Thursday- 25 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 26 No Meeting Scheduled received LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MAR 2 4 1999 April, 1999 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Thursday-1 SPRING BREAK No Meeting Scheduled Friday- 2 SPRING BREAK No Meeting Scheduled Monday- 5 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale Elem. 4-7 p.m. Action Research IRC 4-7 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC Tuesday- 6 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday-7 8:30-3:30 p.m. Elementary Librarians IRC Thursday- 8 10-Noon Superintendents Student Cabinet PuLHgts. Jr. 5p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board RoomApril Pase 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 9 No Meeting Scheduled Saturday-10 8-6 p.m. State Odyssey of the Mind Russellville, AR 9 a.m. - Cluster Saturday IRC Monday-12 4-7 p.m. Diversity in the Classroom IRC 11:30-1:30 p.m. VIPS Board Meeting Board Room Selected Times CPR for Nurses TBA Tuesday- 13 Selected Times CPR for Nurses TBA Wednesday-14 8:30-Noon Secondary Counselors IRC Thursday - 15 No Meeting Scheduled Friday-16 8:30-2:30 p.m. Elementary Counselors Washington Magnet Elem. Saturday- 17 8-5 p.m. Paint Your Heart Out******************************************************************************************* April page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 19 No Meeting Scheduled Tuesday- 20 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale Elem. 4:30 p.m. - LRSD Appeals Committee SRO Conf. Room 5:30 - 7:30p.m. An Evening for the Stars Volunteer/Staff Reception Ricks Armory Wednesday- 21 1:30 p.m. - Principals Meeting TBA Thursday- 22 4-7 p.m. Middle School IRC 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday - 23 No Meeting Scheduled Saturday-24 8-5 p.m. Rain Date - Paint Your Heart Out Sunday- 25 AR Volunteer Directions Conference Hot SpringsMonday- 26 i AR Volunteer Directions Conference Hot Springs Tuesday- 27 4:15 p.m. - Gifted and Talented Council Hall High Wednesday- 28 AR Volunteer Directions Conference Hot Springs 1:30 - 3:00p.m. School Nurse Staff Meeting TBA Thursday- 29 7 a.nt. - National Coalition of Title I Parents Region VI - Training Conference Excelsior Hotel/ Statehouse Convention Center Friday- 30 Meeting ScheduledLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May, 1999 my 4 1999' SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS ^SHESATIOfJ mTSBUi^ * W **** ilf A **** A tfc  A **** W ilf tte ******************** ******** A  st  ww DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 3 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale Tuesday- 4 4:30 p.m. - Appeals Committee SRO Conference Room Wednesday- 5 No Meeting Scheduled Thursday- 6 6:30 p.m. - LRAEOP Bosses Night McClellan High Friday- 7 No Meeting Scheduled Monday-10 No Meeting Scheduled Tuesday- 11 No Meeting Scheduled********************************** ********************************************************* May Calendar Page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Wednesday-12 No Meeting Scheduled Thursday-13 4-7 p.m. Diyersity in the Classroom IRC 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-14 No Meeting Scheduled ******************************************************************************************* Monday- 17 No Meeting Scheduled Tuesday-18 4-7 p.m. Basic Internet Bale 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Meeting Board Room Wednesday-19 8:30- 1:30 p.m. 6* Grade Challenge Parkyiew Thursday- 20 4-7 p.m. Diyersity in the Classroom IRC 8:30 -1:30 p.m. 6'*' Grade Challenge Parkyiew *******************************************************************************************May Calendar Page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 21 No Meeting Scheduled Monday- 24 No Meeting Scheduled Tuesday- 25 No Meeting Scheduled Wednesday- 26 8:30-11:30 a.m. Superintendents Quarterly Staff Meeting Quality Foods 1:30-4:30 p.m. General Principals Meeting Quality Foods Thursday- 27 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 28 No Meeting Scheduled Sunday- 30 2:30 p.m. - McClellan High Bacclaureate McClellan 4 p.m. - J.A. Fair High School J.A. Fair 4 p. m. - Parkyiew Magnet 9999 Parkyiew 5 p.m. - Hall High 9999 Hall High 6 p.m. - Central High School 9999 Central High****************************************************************************************** May Calendar Paee 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 31 MEMORIAL DAY SCHOOLS AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CLOSEDAUGUST, 1999 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Monday- 2 1:30 p.m. - Brokers Meeting Board Room Tuesday- 3 8:30-3 p.m. Inseryice/Secretaries Board Room 9 a.m. - Lab School Meeting Conference Room 9-4 p.m. Summer Technology Class Using Writing Processors in the Classroom IRC Wednesday- 4 8-4 p.m. 1999-2000 Diyision Meeting IRC 9-4 p.m. Summer Technology Class Using Writing Processors in the Classroom IRC 10-7 p.m. Student Check-In (Registration) All Schools Thursday- 5 10-7 p.m. Student Check-In (Registration) All Schools 6 p.m.- Orientation (J.A. Fair) August Calendar Page 2 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Friday- 6 7:30 a.m. - Tri-District Partners Immanuel Baptist Church Mondav-9 9-7 p.m. Lab School Meeting Board Room Tuesday- 10 No Meeting Scheduled Wednesday-11 8:30- 5 p.m. Planning Meeting Board Room Thursday- 12 Teachers Report to Work All Schools 9-3 p.m. Physical Education Teachers Inservice Board Room 2-5 p.m. Orientation (Central) 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-13 9-3 p.m. Physical Education Teachers Inseryice Board Room Monday- 16 8:30-3:30 p.m. G/T Specialists Inseryice PH Elem. 12:30-3:30 p.m. G/T Facilitators Inseryice PH Elem.August Calendar Page 3 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday- 17 8:30-3:30 p.m. Elem. Counselors Board Room 8:30-3:30 p.m. G/T Specialists Inservice PH Elem. 4:30-8 p.m. G/T Curriculum Development PH Elem. 4:30- Appeals Committee SRO Wednesday- 18 8 a.m. - Employee Convocation Statehouse Convention Center 1:30 p.m. - Principals Meeting Quality Foods Thursday- 19 10 a.m. - Orientation (Hall) Hall Friday- 20 9-11 a.m. 1-3 p.m. 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. - Orientation (6'*' Grade) Orientation (7*'' Grade) Orientation (Parkview - 9' Grade) Orientation (Parkview - 10\" Grade) All Middle Schools All Middle Schools Parkview Parkview Sunday- 22 2 p.m. - Orientation (McClellan) McClellan Monday- 23 9-4 p.m. Lab School Meeting Board RoomAu2ust Calendar Page 4 DATE-TIME MEETING PLACE Tuesday- 24 Student Report to Class Wednesday- 25 No Meeting Scheduled Thursday- 26 6 p.m. - Board of Directors Meeting Board Room Friday- 27 No Meeting Scheduled Monday- 30 4:30-8 p.m. G/T Curriculum Deyelopment PH Elem. Tuesday-31 8 a.m. - SAT-9 Inseryice Board Room Elementary Open House All Elementary SchoolsSEP 15 1999 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT SEPTEMBER, 1999 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Wednesday- 1 8-4 p.m. 1999-2000 Division Meetings IRC 8:30-4 p.m. Sr. High Counselors Metro Media Center 9:30 -12 noon Lab School Conf. Rm. (Admin. Bldg.) 11- 1:30 p.m. VIPS Board Room Thursday- 2 No Meeting Scheduled Friday- 3 8:30 - 3 p.m. New Counselors Orientation Board Room Monday- 6 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY (All Schools \u0026amp; Admin. OBices Closed) September Calendar Page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Tuesday- 7 8:30-10 a.m. 504 Training (Secondary Principals) Board Room 1- 2:30 p.m. 504 Training (Elementary Principals) Board Room Wednesday- 8 4 p.m. Drug Free Schools \u0026amp; Comm. Adyisory Council Board Room Thursday- 9 9:30-11:30 Smart Start Liye Forum IRC 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-10 No Meeting Scheduled Monday- 13 No Meeting Scheduled Tuesday- 14 SAT-9 Testing AU Schools 10 -11:30 a.m. Laidlaw Transportation Board Room Wednesday- 15 SAT-9 Testing All Schools 10-11:30 a.m. Laidlaw Transportation Board RoomSeptember Calendar page 3 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Thursday- 16 SAT-9 Testing All Schools 10-11:30 a.m. Laidlaw Transportation Board Room 4-7 p.m. Computer 101 IRC Friday- 17 No Meeting Scheduled Monday- 20 Tuesday- 21 No Meeting Schedule 4:30 p.m. - Appeals Committee Student Registration Wednesday- 22 1:30 p.m. Principals Meeting Quality Foods Thursday- 23 9-12:30 Lab Schools Board Room 9-4 p.m. SEDL CAT Training TBA 1 -2:30 p.m. Lab Schools Board Room 6 p.m. - Board of Directors Meeting Board Room Friday- 24 No Meeting Scheduled Monday- 27 4-7 p.m. Classroom Effectiyeness New Teachers (Middle \u0026amp; Secondary) IRC 11-1 p.m. VIPs Board Meeting Board RoomSeptember page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Tuesday- 28 8:30-4 p.m. Life Skills Training Middle School Health Teachers Metro Media Center 4:15-5:30 p.m. Social Studies Council IRC/Rm.l9 4:15- Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall High Wednesday- 29 8:30-4 p.m. Life Skills Training Middle School Health Teachers Metro Media Center Thursday- 30 8:30 - noon ACT Discoyer Workshop H.S. Teachers \u0026amp; Career Ed. Teachers Metro Media CenterDATE/TIME Monday-1 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. 4:00-8:00 p.m. Tuesday- 2 8:00 -3:00 p.m. 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 4:00- 6 p.m. - Wednesday- 3 8:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. - NOVEMBER, 1999 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MEETING Internet Basic Computer Toolbox K-4 Crusade ELLA Action Research Basic Computer Skills LRCPMSA Biracial Committee Diyision Meeting (Instruction) PRE/Computer Lab RECESVED NOV 03 1999 OFFICFOF 0ES6RE6An0N MONITORING LOCATION IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC Board Room IRC IRC Noyember Calendar Page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Thursday- 4 8:30-11:30 a.m. 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. - 5 p.m. - Basic Internet Supts. Student Cabinet Early Childhool Board Agenda Meeting IRC Parkyiew IRC Board Room Friday- 5 8 a.m. - Standards IRC Monday- 8 8:00 - 3:00 p.m. 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. 4:00 - 8:00 p.m. Effectiye Literacy Basic Computer Toolbox K-4 Crusade IRC IRC IRC Tuesday- 9 8:00 a.m. - 8:00-3:00 p.m. 8:00-3:30 p.m. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Charter Schools ELLA G/T Computer Class Windows 95 Middle Schools Networking IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC Wednesday-10 8:00-3:00 p.m. 12:00-2:00 p.m. Effectiye Literacy Smart Start IRC IRC Thursday- 11 8:30-4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. - 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Diyersity Early Childhood Printshop IRC IRC IRC AEA Teachers Conyention (Students Out)Noyember Calendar Page 3 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Friday- 12 8:30-4:00 p.m. 8:30-4:00 p.m. Diyersity Character Education IRC IRC Monday- 15 AEA Teachers Conyention (Students Out) 12:30-3:00 p.m. 4:00-8:00 p.m. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Printshop K-4 Crusade Basic Computer Toolbox IRC IRC IRC Tuesday-16 8:00-3:00 p.m. 8:00-3:00 p.m. 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. - 6th Grade-CMP ELLA MVT Appeals Committee 4:30-7:30 p.m. Word Processors in Classroom IRC IRC IRC SRO Conf. Room IRC Wednesday- 17 8:00-3:00 p.m. 8:00-3:00 p.m. 6* Grade-CMP ELLA Elementary Peer Retreat IRC IRC Femdale 4-H Center Thursday- 18 4:00 p.m. - 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. 6 p.m. - Elementary Peer Retreat Early Childhood Word Processing in Classrooms Board Meeting Ferndale 4-H Center IRC IRC Board Room Friday- 19 No Meetings ScheduledNovember Calendar Page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 22 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. 4:00 -8:00 p.m. Character Education Basic Computer Toolbox K-4 Crusade IRC IRC IRC Tuesday- 23 4:15 p.m. - Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Council Hall High Wednesday- 24 8:30-3:30 p.m. Diyersity IRC Thursday- 25 Staff Development Day (Students Out) THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY Friday- 26 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY Monday- 29 4:00 p.m. - 4:30-7:30 p.m. 4:00  8:00 p.m. Texthook Adoption Basic Computer Toolbox K-4 Crusade IRC IRC IRC Tuesday- 30 8:00-3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. - 4:15-5:30 p.m. ELLA Early Childhood Social Studies Council IRC IRC ParkviewRECEIVED FEB 4 2000 Office OF desegregation MONITORIMQ SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MONTHLY CALENDAR FEBRUARY, 2000 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Tuesday-1 10 a.m. - Tri-District PIE Steering Committee Chamber of Commerce 12:30-3:30 p.m. Printshop IRC 4-7 p.m. Surfing the Net IRC 4-7 p.m. Classroom Effectiyeness for 6-12 Teachers IRC 4:30-7:30 Basic Computer Toolbox Mabelvale Elem. 6 p.m. - Family Math/Science Terry Elem. Library Wednesday- 2 12 Noon - Education Committee Chamber of Commerce Thursday- 3 7:30 a.m. - Collaboratiye Action Team Uniyersity Park Adult Leisure Center 10-Noon Supt. Student Cabinet Mabelyale Middle 4-7 p.m. First Steps in Using Internet IRC February 2000 Page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Friday- 4 No Meetings Scheduled Saturday- 5 10 a.m. - Family Math/Science Terry Elem. Library Monday- 7 4-7 p.m. Cultural Diyersity Techniques IRC 4-7 p.m. Using Data, Analysis and Curriculum Alignment IRC 4-7 p.m. Classroom Effectiyeness for Elementary Teachers IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. PowerPoint 97 I Mabelyale Elem. 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Basic Windows 95 IRC Tuesday- 8 8:30-3:30 p.m. Word 97 II IRC 9:30-Noon SECME Technical Assistance Workshop McClellan 4 p.m. - LR CPMSA Goyerning Board Meeting Admin. Bldg. Conf. Rm. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Basic Computer Toolbox Mabelyale Elem. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Prinshop IRC 6 p.m. - Biracial Committee Meeting Board RoomFebruary 200Q Page 3 DATE/TIME meeting location Wednesday-9 3-6 p.m. CPR Class Admin. Bldg. Board Room 4-7 p.m. Accountability Skills IRC Thursday- IQ 8:30 - Noon Elem. Counselors Inservice IRC 8:30 - 3 p.m. Middle School Quiz Bowl Finals Hall 1 - 3:45 p.m. Secondary Counselors Inservice IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. PowerPoint 971 Mabelvale Elem. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into the Classroom IRC 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-11 No Meetings Scheduled Monday-14 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 15 8:30-3 p.m. Div. I Qui^ Bowl Finals HaU 8:30 -11:30 a.m. E-Mail IRC 12:30-3:30 p.m. Basic Internet IRC 4:30 p.m. - Appeals Committee SRO 4:30-7:30 p.m. Basic Computer Toolbox Mabelvale Elem. February 2000 Page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Wednesday-16 8:30-3 p.m. Div. II Quiz Bowl Finals Hall Thursday-17 4:30-7:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into the Classroom IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Windows 95 Mabelvale Elem. 6 - 8:30 p.m. SECME Multicultural Extravaganza Ricks Armory Friday-18 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 21 1-3:30 p.m. School Nurses Inservice AR Childrens Hospital 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Excel 971 IRC Tuesday- 22 4:15 p.m. - 4:30-7:30 p.m. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Parent Conference Day (Students Out) G/T Council Hall Basic Computer Toolbox Excel 971 Mabelvale Elem. IRCFebruary 2000 Page 5 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Wednesday- 23 ALL DAY AGATE Conference Hot Springs 8:30-3:30 p.m. Word 97 II IRC 1:30 p.m. Principals Meeting Greater Second Baptist Geyer Springs Road Thursday- 24 ALL DAY AGATE Conference Hot Springs 4-7 p.m. From Cartoons to Ekis Letters Teaching with Documents IRC 4:30-7:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into the Classroom IRC 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room 6:30 p.m. - AGATE Parent Night Hot Springs Friday- 25 ALL DAY AGATE Conference Hot Springs 9- 4:00 p.m. AP Conference Saturday- 26 9- 3:30 p.m. AP Conference 11 a.m.- Community Meeting LR CPMSA South End Alert CenterFebruary 2000 Page 6 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 28 4-7 p.m. Performance Assessment and Use of Rubrics IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. PowerPoint 97 II Mabelvale Elem. 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Inspiration IRC Tuesday- 29 4:30-7:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into the Classroom IRCC.' I RECSVED Off iCt Ct desegregaticmmonitoring SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MONTHLY CALENDAR MARCH, 2000 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Wednesday- 1 3-6 p.m. CPR-Adult Board Room Thursday- 2 10 a.m. - Noon Supt. Student Cabinet McClellan 2-4 p.m. Middle School Nurses Henderson 4-7 p.m. Surfing the Net IRC Friday- 3 No Meetings Scheduled Monday- 6 8:30-3:30 p.m. Excel 971 IRC 4-7 p.m. Performance Assessment in the Classroom IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Excel 971 Mabelyale Elementary Achieyement Leyel Test (ALT) Grades 2-11 All Schools March Calendar Page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Tuesday- 7 4-7 p.m. Focus on Thinking: Creating Thoughtful Learners IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Expand Your Outlook (E-Mail) Mabelvale Elem. 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. PowerPoint 97II IRC Achievement Level Test (ALT) Grades 2-11 All Sehools Wednesday- 8 Achievement Level Test (ALT) Grades 2 - 11 All Schools Thursday- 9 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Expand Your Outlook (E-Mail) Mabelvale Elem. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Powerpoint 97II IRC Achievement Level Test (ALT) Grades 2-11 All Schools 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 10 Achievement Level Test (ALT) Grades 2 -11 All Schools Saturday-11 All Day S.E. Regional Odyssey Of the Mind Competition Lakewood MiddleMarch Calendar Page 3 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 13 4-7 p.m. Performance Assessment and the Use of Rubrics IRC 4:30-7:30 p.m. Excel 971 Mabelvale Elem. 4:30-7:30 p.m. Expand Your Outlook (E -Mail) IRC Tuesday-14 9-4 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences IRC 4-7 p.m. Computers 101 IRC 4:30-7:30 p.m. Expand Your Outlook (E-Mail) Mabelvale Elem. 6 p.m. - LRSD Biracial Committee Board Room Wednesday- 15 9-4 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences IRC 2-4 p.m. Senior High Nurses Meeting Parkview Thursday- 16 4-7 p.m. First Steps in Using the Internet IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Expand Your Outlook (E-Mail) Mabelvale Elem. Friday- 17 No Meetings ScheduledMarch Calendar Page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 20 9 a.m. - Noon SECME (Bridge Bldg. \u0026amp; Portfolio Comp.) (Elementary Competition) Washington 9 a.m. SECME Secondary Competition Board Room 4-7 p.m. Cultural Diversity Techniques IRC 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Expand Your Outlook (E-Mail) IRC Tuesday- 21 9-2 p.m. SECME Olympiad UALR 4-7 p.m. Computers 101 IRC 4:30 p.m. - Student Registration Appeals Committee SRO Conf. Room Wednesday- 22 1:30 p.m. - Principals Meeting Quality Foods Thursday- 23 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 24 8:30 -11 a.m. School Nurses Meeting 12-4 p.m. CPR- Adult and Child IRCMarch Calendar Page 5 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 27 No Meetings Scheduled Tuesday- 28 No Meetings Scheduled Wednesday- 29 No Meetings Scheduled Thursday- 30 Friday- 31 No Meetings Scheduled No Meetings ScheduledC - Ci= SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MONTHLY CALENDAR f^MAY, 2000 D 2 4 2000 Off ICE OF desegregation MOHHORiHG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday-1 8:30-4 p.m. Smart Step Kickoff Summit Statehouse Conyention Cntr. Tuesday-2 8:30-4 p.m. Smart Step Kickoff Summit Statehouse Conyention Cntr. 6 p.m. - SECME Awards Banquet UALR Wednesday- 3 8:30 - Noon Diyision of Instruction Monthly Staff Meeting IRC Rm. 19 8:30-3 p.m. GT Teachers/lnyestigations IRC 8:30-4 p.m. Smart Step Kickoff Summit Statehouse Conyention Cntr. Thursday- 4 10 - Noon Supt. Student Cabinet Henderson Middle School Friday- 5 8-3 p.m. Elementary Counselors Board Room May, 2000 Page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 8 4-7 p.m. Putting All the Pieces Together IRC Tuesday-9 NO MEETINGS SCHEDULED Wednesday-10 8:30 - 3 p.m. Sp. Ed Teachers/STC IRC 8:30-4 p.m. High School Counselors Mtg. Pulaski Tech. Admin. Board Rm. Thursday-11 8:30-4 p.m. Middle School Counselors Metro Actiyity Center 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday-12 NO MEETINGS SCHEDULED Monday-15 4-7 p.m. What Matters Most\" Henderson Tuesday-16 3-4 p.m. Pre-K Teachers/Shared Reading IRC 4:30- Student Registration Appeals Committee SRO Conf. Rm. Wednesday-17 NO MEETINGS SCHEDULED Thursday-18 8:30 - 1:30 p.m. 5 Grade Challenge Parkyiew Magnetr 4 . \u0026gt; May, 2000 Page 3 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Friday-19 8:30-1:30 p.m. 5 Grade Challenge Parkview Magnet Monday- 22 NO MEETINGS SCHEDULED Tuesday- 23 9 - 3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences IRC Wednesday- 24 9 - 3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences IRC Thursday- 25 9 - 3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences IRC 2 - 3:30 p.m. Immunization Update (Dr. Richard Jacobs) Nurses, Secretaries, Principals AR Childrens Hospital Brandon Conf. Center 6 p.m. - Board Meeting Board Room Friday- 26 9 - 3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences IRC Sunday- 28 TBA Baccalaureate All High Schools World OM University of Tenn. Knoxville, Tenn. Lr May, 2000 Page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday- 29 NO MEETINGS SCHEDULED Tuesday- 30 9:30-11:30 a.m. Smart Start Quarterly Meeting IRC 6 p.m. - Parkyiew Graduation Barton Coliseum 8:30 p.m. McClellan Graduation Barton Coliseum Wednesday- 31 6 p.m. - J.A. Fair Graduation Barton Coliseum 8:30 p.m. - Hall Graduation Barton ColiseumCP SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS MONTHLY CALENDAR MAY, 2000 RECEiVED may 2 6 2000 DATE/TIME MEETING OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MOMING LOCATION Thursday-1 Last Day for Students 7 p.m. - Central Graduation Barton Coliseum Friday- 2 School Nurses Record Exchange/Turn in Equipment Monday- 5 Last Day for Teachers 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Professional Development School Level- Curriculum Mapping Individual Schools Tuesday-6 8:30-3:30 p.m. Social Studies Assessment Dev. IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. Planning for High School Math Preschool Conference IRC 9 - 3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences M.L. King Wednesday- 7 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Social Studies Assessment Dev. Secondary Social Studies Teachers IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Career Action Planning Greater Second Baptist Church June. 2000 page 2 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION 9-3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences M.L King 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Investigations-Coins, Coupons \u0026amp; Combinations (2\"'' Grade Teachers) IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Operation Primary Physical Science(OPPS) IRC Thursday- 8 8:30 - 3 p.m. Summer School Training M.L. King 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Social Studies Assessment Dev. IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Operation Primary Physical Science (OPPS) IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. End-of-Module Test Prep IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Investigations- From Paces to Feet IRC 9 - 3:30 p.m. Learning to Cope w/Differences M.L. King 10 - Noon T.I.P. Recognition Ceremony \u0026amp; Reception UALR 2-4 p.m. T.I.P. Recognition Ceremony \u0026amp; Reception UALR 5 p.m. - Board Agenda Meeting Board Room Friday- 9 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Social Studies Assessment Dev. Secondary Social Studies Teachers IRC TBA Principals/Brokers Picnic TBAJune, 2000 Page 3 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Monday-12 Summer School Starts 8:30-3:30 p.m. New Textbook Adoption German Teachers IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. New Textbook Adoption Latin Teachers (Or June 13) IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. ESL Summer Academy Parkview 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Computer Toolbox IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into Instruction 2 Cool 4 School Henderson Chicot Tuesday-13 8:30-3:30 p.m. ESL Summer Academy Parkview 8:30-3:30 p.m. Computer Toolbox IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into Instruction Henderson 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Investigations - From Paces to Feet IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. 2 Cool 4 School Chicot 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Investigations - Coins, Coupons and Combinations IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Graphing Calculators 7\u0026gt;h \u0026amp; 8th Grade Teachers IRC 4:30 p.m. Student Registration Appeals Committee SRO Conference Room Wednesday-14 8:30-11:30 a.m. ESL Summer Academy Parkview 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Computer IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. 2 Cool 4 School ChicotJune, 2000 page 4 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. STC - Land \u0026amp; Water 4\" Grade Teachers IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. STC - Animal Studies 4* Grade Teachers IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. End-of-Module Test Prep. 6th, ym, Qih Qpg^g IRC 12:30-3:30 p.m. ESL Summer Academy/B Parkview Thursday-15 8:30-11:30 a.m. New Textbook Adoption Spanish Teachers IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. 2 Cool 4 School Chicot 8:30-3:30 p.m. ESL Summer Academy/B Parkview 8:30-3:30 p.m. STC- Ecosystems S' Grade Teachers IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. STC- Floating and Sinking IRC Friday-16 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. 2 Cool 4 School Chicot 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. ESL Summer Academy/B Parkview Sunday-18 thur 23 Advanced Placement Summer Institute UALR/ Hot Springs Monday-19 8:30-3:30 p.m. Word 97 I IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. New Textbook Adoption French Teachers IRC 8 - 3:30 p.m. Child Nutrition Department Workshop- Sanitation Washington 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Middle School, Level II IRCJune, 2000 page 5 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Tuesday-20 8 - 3:30 p.m. Child Nutrition Department Workshop - Sanitation Washington 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Middle School, Leyel II Middle School Eng. Teachers IRC 8:30-3:30 p.m. Plant Growth and Deyelopment/Assessment IRC Room 19 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Plant Growth and Deyelopment/Assessment IRC Workroom 8:30-3:30 p.m. Excel 97 I IRC Computer Lab Wednesday- 21 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. 8:30-3:30 p.m. 8- 3:30 p.m. Thursday- 22 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. 8:30-3:30 p.m. 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. 8 - 3:30 p.m. 6 p.m. - Learning Eyerywhere - in and Out of School Pow/erPoint 97 I Middle School, Leyel II Middle School Eng. Teachers Child Nutrition Dept. Workshop-Child Nutrition II Middle School, Leyel II Middle School Eng. Teachers STC- Changes/Assessment STC-Changes/Assessment Child Nutrition Dept. Workshop - Main Dish Board Meeting Video Tape for check out IRC IRC Washington IRC IRC Room 19 IRC Work Room Washington Board RoomJune, 2000 page 6 DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Friday- 23 8-1:30 p.m. Child Nutrition Dept. Workshop- Main Dish Washington 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Middle School, Leyel 11 Middle School Eng. Teachers IRC Sunday- 25 - Wednesday- 28 8:30 - 4:30 p.m. AR Association of Superyision \u0026amp; Curriculum Arlington Hotel Hot Spring Sunday-25 - Friday- 30 Adyanced Placement Summer Institute- Math \u0026amp; Science UALR- Hot Springs Monday- 26 - Friday- 30 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Reading/Writing Workshop Leyel I IRC Monday- 26 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Word 97 II IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into Instruction Henderson Tuesday- 27 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Integrating Internet into Instruction Henderson 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Excel 97 II IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. STC- Plant Growth \u0026amp; Deyelopment Assessment IRC Rm. 19 8:30-11:30 a.m. 12:30-3:30 p.m. STC- Chemical Tests STC- Sound IRC IRC Wednesday- 28 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. PowerPoint 97 II IRCJune, 2000 page? DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION Thursday- 29 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. STC- Changes/Assessment IRC 8:30-11:30 a.m. 12:30- 3:30 p.m. STC-Butterflies STC- Soil IRC IRC 8:30 - 3:30 p.m. Inspiration IRC Friday- 30 No Meetings ScheduledArkansas Democrat vTz (Gazette TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 . LRSD announces 1996-97 schedules Democrat-Gazette Staff Elementary school starting and I closing times in the Little Rock School District have been altered slightly for the coming school year for more efficient use of school buses. The following elementary- schools will start at 7\n40 a.m. and dismiss at 2:25 p.m.\nBadgett, Cloverdale, Franklin. Geyer Springs. Otter Creek, Romine, Wakefield, Williams, Woodruff, Booker, Fair Park, Fulbright, King, Rightsell, Terry, Watson and Wilson. These schools will start at 7:50 a.m. and dismiss at 2:35 p.m.\nBale. Brady, Chicot, Forest Park, Gibbs, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Pulaski Heights, Washington. Baseline. Can-er, Dodd. Garland, Jefferson. McDermott, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Western Hills, Hours for the secondary' schools will not change. Junior highs start at 8:45 a.m. and dismiss at 3:45 p.m. High schools start at 8:50 a.m. and dismiss at 3:45 p.m. with the e.xception of Park^ew Magnet High, which starts at 8:40 a.m. and dismisses at 3:45 p.m. Parents and students should notify their school or the districts Student Assignment Office, 324- 2272, as soon as possible if their address has changed. Current addresses are needed' to ensure bus routes and bus stops are accurate. Jrkansas Democrat (j^HZcttc TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1997 LR School Board to meet at Franklin i The Little Rock School Board is taking its monthly agenda meeting on the road this week to Franklin Incentive Elementary, 1701S. Harrison St The meeting will be at 5 p.m. Thursday at the school. The board usually meets at the administration building at 810 W. Markham St., but occasionally conducts a meeting at a school to encourage community interest in the district.Arkansas Democrat CBazctte  FRIDAY, APRIL 11. 1997  School Board to hold 3 special meetings The Little Rock School Board plans three special meetings next week, two of them on the same night The board will meet at 6 p.m. Monday to select a company to help find a superintendent to replace Don Roberts, who wants to retire. At 7 p.m.. the board will play host to the Little Rock Board of Directors for a meeting on issues of mutual interest including a recent study of the district done by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and a new program. Vital Link, where 500 sixth-graders will spend a week working in local businesses and government agencies. The board will meet again at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the request of a group of parents from Hall High School. The parents are concerned about the administration of Hall and suspension statistics indicating that black students at Hall are more likely to be disciplined than white students. Hall parents called the special meeting by using a state law that allows school district patrons to call a meeting by presenting a petition signed by at least 25 patrons. All the board meetings will be in the board room of the districts administration building, 810 W. Markham St.\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_553","title":"Moratorium","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":["1996/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Moratorium"],"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/553"],"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":["183 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\n07x25/1996 0S:52 FROM. JOHN . U . WALKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WACKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUOTN PORTER. JR. July 22, 1996 Me. Hafeeza Majeed 2604 Brown Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Mark Cole 1306 Louisiana Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Majeed and Mr. Cole: Thank you for your inquiry about the moratorium on new litigation regarding desegregation issues which may be brought on behalf of the class which I represent against the Little Rock School District. Your concerns are noted with deference and respect. Let me hasten to try to address your concerns in a manner which you may feel free to publicize as you see fit. In order to put the matter into perspective, a bit of background is appropriate and necessary. When the Little Rock School District Board President appointed me to the Contingency Committee to plan for a superintendent replacement recommendation, I accepted that responsibility for three reasons: a) the Board president is able, conscientious, dedicated and committed to the creation of a high quality, nondiscriminatory, equal opportunity school system for all children\nb) the other appointees are individuals whom I believe to be capable of operating in good faith on this important issue/ and 107/25/1996 08:53 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.P. TO 3710100 P. 03 c) the district's present needs require an administrator who has experience, demonstrated success in bridging racial chasms, and unreserved commitment to the Little Rock School District and to the ideas contained in the settlement plan. I also weighed the possibility of my being in a conflict situation in the process. I resolved that concern in favor of participation because the Court is not obliged to accept our choices for school administrators\nthat clearly is a school board function. I became merely an advisor on an ad hoc basis. I now proceed to address the question of our choices and our processes. The first task of the committee was to deal with interim management between the date announced for the employment of Dr. williams by another district and the time that an interim superintendent could be employed here while the District considered its long term options. For your information, the choice of an interim management team was difficult. It is fair to say that each of us made suggestions of team members and that no one person's viewpoint dominated in the process. The team selected reflects a consensus judgment with which I am pleased. As you may suspect, I have had problems with some of the people on the management team, but by and large I believe that the team membership has competent, willing individuals who can work together. With respect to Dr. Roberts, my recollection is that Dr. Roosevelt Brown was familiar with his work and with that of Dr. 207/25/1996 08:54 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.O, TO 3710100 P . 04 Morris Holmes of New Orleans. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Holmes were on staff in Little Rock and recently worked together in Pt. Worth as well. Dr. Holmes, a Superintendent of the New Orleans highly respected African American, is now School District, and it was felt that he would not very likely be interested in an interim position in Little Rock, charge to be one to select permanent superintendent. Moreover, we did not understand or to recommend selection of Although Dr. Brown Roberts, as did several other committee other persons were suggested as well, some of whom were white, but a our recommended Dr. members, the names of some of whom were black and our view was unanimous that Dr. Roberts well met the qualifications that the committee established for interim superintendent. After we interviewed Dr. Roberts, I came to the conclusion that he is of strong and genuine interracial goodwill\nis committed to the education of all children, especially underpriviledged children\nis committed to the actions set forth in the settlement principles and leadership potential for bringing together agreement\nand has unique divisive forces in the Little Rock School District. volunteered to cooperate with him spirit of the settlement plan and Upon arriving at that opinion, 1 he is here on an interim basis. and to work with him in the to avoid litigation as long as I indicated that I would initiate any new litigation for that period (between not one to two years ^ijiq his tenure), as long as the Board of Education supports his recommendations and emphases regarding our children. 307/25x1996 08:55 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P,B. TO 3710100 P . 05 The \"no litigation\" promise relates solely to Dr. Roberts and not to the school board. If the board takes any action which is contrary to the desegregation plan and to Dr. Robert's judgments, this \"moratorium\" does not apply. Moreover, the \"no litigation\" pledge is consistent with the pledge contained in the original settlement agreement and with the very way I related to Dr. Henry Williams. The difference is that this pledge was publicized. while it was not publicized for Dr. Williams. Please be reminded that I took no action regarding the stewardship of Dr. Williams for a lengthy period. The moratorixjm does not apply to the three matters which are presently pending, at my initiative, before Judge Wright, namely\na) the motion we filed to implement the desegregation plan provisions regarding the Incentive Schools and to designate someone as an overseer for those schools\nb) a motion to enforce the findings, recommendations and suggestions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which have been made over a period of five years\nand c) the attorney fee motion which is scheduled to be heard on August 19, 1996. We are in the process of addressing the problem of disparate discipline and have advised the committee that this matter is not included in our promise except to the extent that before we file a motion regarding it we will afford Dr. Roberts an opportunity to address it. But the record on which we will proceed pertains to the previous administration rather than to that of Dr, 4 I I07/25/1996 08:56 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 06 ( 1 1 Roberts. Perhaps it would be more simple to say that I do not envisage initiating new litigation against the school district for acts undertaken by Dr. Roberts or his administration for a period of at least one and up to two years while he is here. me also say Let that the settlement has other enforcement provisions and provides the opportunity for plan revision, if necessary. in I expect to agree with some of the recommendations made by the Desegregation Revision Study Committee headed by Ms. Cora McHenry and Mr. Bill Bowen, which was appointed by the Board President several months ago, and also expect to join the school board in a motion to the Court for their adoption. The new objective that I have in mind at this time is to ensure that the goals of the settlement agreement are implemented within a framework of good will and racial cooperation which will extend beyond any final court judgment in this case. It should be made clear to people in our community that if anyone feels that his/her rights have been denied by either Dr. Roberts or the Little Rock School District, they will still have at least two options, i.e., a) enforcement through the settlement decree. or b) initiating a private legal action either in state or federal court. I am stating simply that I will not resort to new litigation regarding desegregation issues until we afford Dr. Roberts and his staff, which is expected to be biracial, an opportunity to comply with the settlement agreement. I suspect that-some are cautious about my public statement because of the expressions of support from conservative and white 5 1... 0J/25/1996 08:57 FROM JOHN U,WALKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 07 affluent sections of the community- because of their That is a normal reaction historic pursuit of favor for their children. Be assured that my commitment is total to our people. But also be assured that that segment of the community must come to understand that their children do not suffer because the educational needs of our children are given more consideration. It is now simply our in anticipation of a collective task to work together with them time when the Court ends its careful \u0026lt; ) i 1 scrutiny, i.e. jurisdiction. I implore you and others in the community, therefore, to reappraise our situation, meet Dr. Roberts, listen to his ideas and then hold him to the plan and to the other promises he makes as he enters this most difficult time and district. Thank you for your usual cooperation. Vj truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW\njs 1 i cc: t. MS. Lorene Joshua Ms. Daisy Bates Ms. Sarah Facen MS. Linda pondexter Dr. Michael Daughtery Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Dale Charles Rev. Robert Willingham Mr. Marcellus Person Rev. A.J. Allen Bishop Jessie Burris Rev. C.E. McAdoo Ms. Mr. Ms. Ms. Daisy Bates Delaney Fleming Teresa Young Alice Rowe r 6 1 I87x25/1996 08:58 from JOHN U.UfiLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P . 08 1 Dx  Roosevelt- Brown Ms. Marion Lacey Dr. Rufus Thrower Ms. Katherine Parham I I  I t! ,1 I 7 b i11/22/1906 12:41 FROM JOHN W.WnLKER P.-fl- TO 3710100 , P . 02 This document addresses the perspective from which Joshua's representatives approached the meeting of November 14, 1996\nthe content of that meeting\nand areas for possible agreements about the future of the litigation. earspegtXvLq The Joshua Intervenors' goal has been and is the elimination of racial discimination and segregation and their effects in the LRSD, root and branch. Fulfillment of this goal requires multiple steps. There must be among other things actions to promote and maintain desegregation and to address the achievement gap. system's desirable academic classes and programs, as well as extracurricular activities. Discipline and other harsh consequences must not be visited disproportionately on black students. African American persons must be involved in all departments in the LRSD, including in leadership positions. Individuals selected for leadership positions should be committed to the achievement of a genuinely nondiscriminatory system, competent to fill the positions for which they are selected, and selected in a fair manner. Tiic Cvjiiuu luLci vcjwia vleweu Lii apptoveu ayteenieiius In this case as ones which could, if properly implemented, lead to a genuinely nondiscriminatory system. Intervenors have been disappointed, as have the court and its monitoring arm, ODM, As a consequence, those representing the intervenors have been required to expend considerable time in mnoitoring compliance with the agreements and working for improved compliance. Lead counsel participated in the process which led to the selection of Dr. Don Roberts. Based upon his familiarity with Dr. Roberts, he viewed the interim superintendent as a person whose leadership, even on a temporary basis, could yield strengthened implementation of the plan, including its features addressing the achievement gap. Lead counsel, who had made a committment to reduce court activity, was, therefore, willing to listen when, he understood, Dr. Roberts sought to discuss approaches for improving attainment of the objectives of the approved agreements. -Trie-Msg,t\ning Dr. Roberts stated that the LRSD is graduating 1,500 ill- prepared students each year. He described a process utilized in the Fort Worth School District for strengthening the relevant knowledge and skills of high school graduates. It involved careful study of a wide variety of employment opportunities in the area to identify the knowledge and skills needed by employees\nstrengthening student enrollment in more rigorous areas of the curriculum, including algebra and geometry, with an1 1 / 2 2/19 9 6 12:42 FROM JOHN W.UALKER P.fl. TO '10100 I P . 03 emphasis on groups traditionally participating the region, strengthening elementary education, for examole bv increasing emphasis on the application of higher order skills^ during the course of instructional activihiel involve increased emphasis on teaching students to perfora a sinale lob. Tht^v :_ r periorm a . , - - * ---J bbosd supporting these students to enhance participate during the summer i single job. They were viewed by Or. courses Roberts as likely to to yield increased ooliege-gcing by graduates, for exaspie as a participating in rigorous elements Dr. Roberts expressed the need to We understood him to strengthening education prevent \"resegregation. argue, perhaps implicitly, that over a several year period, by h period, oy an White families in the \"?--????-' == some white youth. ' -- approach similar to the possibly, lead to the return of Lead counsel described a litany of problems segregated components of the administration- These included! -, - appointment of  , well as those opposed to assistant principals^ ^1. and people with no experience, desegregation\nclass members\nabsence of promotion of persons who have mistreatpd excessive and \"mean spirited\" disJiplTSr \"child advocates\" at each level\nthe police in the schools often in arbitrary ways\nwho act to justify their presence, ... armT-r- an determine whether as having a _____ a lack of assessment to programs are effective\ninadequate steps to gap, pushing students out of school same each year\naddress the achievement actions which communicate that thevareunwXZ+-X^^ scnooi oy for the incentive schools. -^wp-tementatioh of the program by Lead counsel emphasized that should be part of the ---- scholarships for participants ?un5rSch oou?d =chSoi/Kh:rL, suggested setting superintendent indicated some supoort for th4= f -x. the particular formulation offerSd^bJ Walks?? ' He Mr. Walker. At the conclusion of lead understood Dr. Rogers to state, of the type identified by lead consistent with his agenda. counsel's presentation, we tersely, that addressing problems counsel was either part of or Dr. Rogers discussed ideas for the school board, appearances on television appearances on television, and communityn-22/1996 12:44 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 meetings with prior steps taken to generate large attendance by persons from many constituencies. He emphasized the need to initiate such steps promptly. Dr. Rogers also identified the need for advocacy to generate a pool of funds to address facility needs, as well as strengthening access to techology. Ms. Ann Brown referred to the court's interest in modifications to the agreements. She mentioned some frustration on the part of ODM staff in finding recurring problems in the LRSD in successive monitoring cycles. Ms. Brown noted the substantive talents of her staff and their abilities to contribute to improved implementation of the agreements, or other steps, by more direct involvement. Dr. Rogers expressed receptivity to this concept, for example fay stating that ODM staff could work with LRSD staff to prepare the budget, rather than simply review LRSD's version. The possibility that ODM staff could be increased to allow completion of its monitoring responsibilities outside LRSD was viewed as conceivable. (Moreover, these intervenors have expressed the view that ODM monitoring in LRSD needs to reach down to the student level to identify the types of hostile conduct responsible for the achievement gap.) ODM The participants at the meeting discussed issues framed bv 1 T o4 Z-,____ .  submissions to the district court and the court of appeals This included the possibility of withdrawing the Joshua motion incentive schools and the ODM recommendations  LRSD s appeal of the denial of the motion for dismissal of the case, as well as the motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction. Lead counsel and LRSD representatives discussed system's paying some attorneys' fees. and the participants discussed a 6-9 month period in which Dr. Roberts and LRSD's administrators and employees under his Ife.yaa direction would get some breathing space to move forward with Dr Roberts' ideas regarding strengthened education and, implicitly.' the issues raised by lead counsel as described above It was ^BPaggPtJtoCing the meeting that Dr. Roberts sought semT^nae IP .the-SUCrent obligations for plan implementation during the 6-9 month period However. the nature of such changes was not clear tfiL..any .Joshua representative. based upon viie uxscussiun, IILJ understood the 6-9 month period to be one where a focuswould be developing plan modifications for submission to the court. Rather, we viewed the period as one in which to learn whether Roger's approach would better attain the objectives of the agreements. This \"track record\" could then provide a concrete basis for Joshua representatives to decide upon the propriety of identifying plan modifications. (The second and third sentences Dr. uu,J\n^iS set forth our independent thoughts about the pUtpUSC VX U.X U i --------------------- ,.X,4. 4.U______ e\u0026lt;7. was discussed in a way so that their would be \"** bat- -thft matter understanding of this.) a oonunon11/22/1996 12:45 FROM JOHN W.W fl L K E R P.fl. TO P J15. r 1010 0 (1.) We will consider a 6-9 month period for the superintendent to focus on his educational agenda and issues identified by lead counsel, once we understand fully what LRSD proposes with regard to the existing plan obligations during this period and we have some assurance that the problems identified by lead counsel will be addressed. (2.) we will consider requesting the court to treat as inactive during any agreed upon 6-9 month period our notions regarding the incentive schools and the ODM recommendations. There should be some reciprocal action by LRSD. (3.) Lead counsel could, consistent with his schedule, participate in efforts to disseminate information about any agreements and advocate for funds for facilities and improving the use of current technologies. This and any other agreements are dependent upon progress regarding attorneys' fees, see paragraph (7.) below. I (4.) We can not agree to discontinue on site monitoring at Little Rock schools in view of our perceptions about inadequate compliance in this sphere, views buttressed by the findings of the court and ODM. Such a step given the circumstances would be inconsistent with the obligation to provide vigorous representation to the class. We can consider directing our findings and contentions based upon such monitoring to a particular person or persons other than Dr. Rogers, if we have confidence based upon the identity of the dGsignee(s) that our material will receive the attention which it is due  and the designee has the ability to accomplish something. (5.) We can not, in view of the continuing problems which we have called to LRSD's attention, agree that Ms. Springer and lead counsel will cease involvement in discipline matters below the level of expulsion  if LRSD means to suggest this. We can agree to present our contentions regarding such discipline to child advocates designated jointly by LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, if these persons have the ability to take corrective steps and the responsibility to provide the interim superintendent an overview of any problematic patterns which come to their attention. (6.) Wg will consider carefully any proposals for a new stephens School and \"a school out west.\" We note however that the court has expressed the need to consider any such proposals in the light of overall facility needs. (7.) We seriously question whether we are in a position to make any agreements without progress on the matter of attorneys' fees. Lead counsel did not receive the entirety of the earlier LRSD payment, and the proceeds which he did receive were subject to taxation. Lead counsel and his associates each function as a private attorney general. Funds received form one civil rights! 1 IS 1996 12 47 FROM JOHN U.U A L K E R P.A. TO 710100 P . Ob other civil rights cases where clients are needed to support other civil rights cases are unable to pay the full costs, and success is uncertain and are unaoie w p i t-he denial of fees, should that be uneven. indeed, we will appeal the denial of fees, the court rules upon our motion for the situation after reconsideration. (8.) We will consider carefully specific proposals for ODM sta to be involved .-ore direotly in the operation of the ^SD. However, we also resources e need to know about steps to provide additional to ODM so that more micro level monitoring is possible. (9.) We will consider any particular proposed modifications to the agreements offered by LRSD. (10.) Me once we understand will work expeditiously on language for the court the full context and have the reaction of LRSD to this memorandum. need to have periodic briefings by 1 (11.) There would be a i--- ----- , that intervenors' representatives would the superintendent so understand the status of work under way. i*U HEReCHSk H. FBIDAT WikUAM H. SUrrOM, F.A. JAMES W . MOORE B*80h M. EI6EWAM, 4M., F.A JOE a EU. F-A. JOHM C. CHDk:i F.A. JAMES A MUfVRT, EUFQeWICX 5, URtSRV. F A H.T, kAK2LRC, F.A. DOAR E. OAVIV, jR.. P A. JAMFB C OlaR\u0026lt; 44.. P.A. IKOMAS P LS066TT, P.A. JQHM OEWEY WATdOM, F.A FawU a EEMHAM ill. F-A. iapxt w. auRxa. * a. A, WY$Xk\u0026gt;ES M8BET. JR,. F-A. JAMEi COWARD HARRIE. F A. J-. PK^kUF MAkOOM. F.A. JAMCf M EfWF^ON. P A MtPEOlTH F. OATUETT. P.A. 4AMED M. 9AVTON. P.A. 4. SHCFMERa RySftELL U(. F.A. OOMAkD M RACON, F.A. WlkklAM THOMAS RAXYCfl. F.A WAkTER A, PAUL80M \u0026lt;1. F.A RAMftT 6. DOPUW. F.A. RICHARO 0. TAFkOR. P.A 4QVEFH a. HUR9T. 4R , P A. EtllARETH HOaaEM MURRAV, F.A, OHRidTOFMCR HCUER. f -A. LAURA MENRiCy OMITH, F A. R09ERT 8 SKAFCR, F.A. Wtkk'AMM SRtFFlN (11. F\u0026gt; tMOUA\u0026lt; M Roae, P.A. MlOMACt e. MOORE, F A. OlANf a, MACtE*. F'A. waiter M. EFEk (H. F (EVIN A oaxts, R.A. WtUiAM A. WADOEkk. 4R.. F A. 'A .'It- ' 4'\"  FRinXY, ttDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP O* WOIVlDUAlS ANO PROFESaiONAt ASEOClAl IBNS ATTOftNCYR AT XAVil 2000 FtftST COMMEf^CIAL SUlL\u0026amp;}NQ 400 wesr CAFiroL IjYTue ROCK, ARKANSAS 72a0134t3 TElC^MOME S0V37S-2O11 FAX NO. 6O1-S5-81\u0026lt;! November 26, 1996 1. ,1 . JteOTTJ. kAMCADTjF\nF.A. M. OAYkI eORkt*.  A. z i ROSUt ft, EAC. 4S\\, F A ' 4. kCE ftROWH, \u0026gt;.X. - , 4AMe 0. iARER. 4R.. F.A  HARAT A, LI4MT. r A, ftCOTT H, TUO\u0026lt;. F.A 40hM DkRTTCIH RAMQOLFK. * fiWT AkTOW WAas. F-A FWret C QAHONEX. F A 4. MtCHAEl FtORCNS, P.A, TOMIA F. J0N8. F.A OAVIO 0. WlteON. F.A 4fPF|lCr M, MOCHt.^.A AMDREW T.TwANCX DAV^OM ONAF CAAUA 9  SPAINHOuR 4OHH e PCNOtev, iti. AL1,IOK QRAVES jorann c. nqqseveu 4. OHRiSrOFMER LAWtiOM OSEAOR* D. TAVLOX rOMV k. WILCOX AM G h\u0026lt;6KMAM ICTTV J OmOKT AaAaFA 4. 4AM\u0026gt; 4AME8W. SMITH CUFPOFD W. nUMXXT* DAHIEI. L. HEMNiNVTtrM AUkieON 4. C04MW|.k TODO A. 9nEE4 flISaUNIEi WfLMAM il. 9U1TH ..a. CLAfl\u0026lt; WIUlAM L. TCRftv, A-.. . WitLIAM t. FeTTO^, 44., \u0026gt;.* VAffli,'* cmte7 c. (601) 370'3323 . -i*! \u0026gt;,  VIX FACBTMILB TRANSMISSION .r 371'-0100 MS. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 '   ' li Re: Little RocX school District v. Pulaski county Special School District, et al. Dear Ann: Attached please find a copy of the draft Resolution which we have prepared for tonight's Board meeting. Also attached please find a copy of our response to Mr. Walker's fax from last Friday prepared by Bob Pressman, Please give ma a call after you have had a chance to review the Resolution. I looX forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, '^1 Jo)hhnn C. Fendiey, Jr. JCFjr/mln LI230-09O Attachments 2'd kjaij .r^ ,^W'3iaj .wdieiei 3t./ 3?  Jd A,  ..A jy I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Little Bock- School District (\"LRSD\") could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications\nWHEREAS, LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the District if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task\nWHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"OOM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within th District\nand WHEREAS, ODM is willing to support lrsd's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nstudent assignment and redeploying monitors to provide assistance to IjRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, assignm.ent resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Bock School District. e-d' WdlJ Mtn .widj VWTStQT 96, 9? {CBRTIFTGATB I, the undersigned Secretary of the Soard of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, th duly elected, qualified and seirving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows? Oireetor Vote (Aya, May, Abatain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat, to the extent required by law, due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the Jaw incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. day of CERTIFIED under ay hand and seal of the District this , 1996. [SEAL] Secretary 2 f' d i-jdij m '-.tfaidj wbse.-aT 96. 93 AC\u0026gt;r J a *1* HERSCHEL H. \u0026lt;\u0026gt;\u0026amp;AY WILLIAM h SUTTON. F A. JAMES W UO0A6 STRCN M EiSEMAN, P.A. \u0026gt;)0E O. BELL, F.A, JOHN fi eH0k$. F.A lAMES A BUTTPY. P.A, FREDERIC* S. USSSRT. A, H.T LAR7SLERC. P.A. OSOAR E DAVrS, 4R.. P A. JAMES C. CLARK. VR., f.A THOMAS F. LEGCeTl, F.A. JOHN OeweV WATSON. P.A. RAUL e BENHAM KI, F.A. LARRV W BURKS, P.A. A WVCKLIFP NiSBtT, jR . P.A- JAMES EDWARD HARRiS. P.A. J. PNlLLlP MALCOM. P.A- JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A UEBEOITfl P. CAnCTT. P.A JAMES M. SAKTON. P A. 4, SHEPHERD RUSSELL Hb P.^- OONALQ H WILMAM THOMAS BAXYB, P.A WALTER A PAULSON (b P,A. BaRRV E. COPLIN. P.A. NlCHARD 0. YATLCH. J.OSe^H E HURS T JR.4 9 .fi,. CLiMSETH ROSBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HfiLLER, P.A. tAURA NENSvEY smith, F.A, ROCftTfl. 6HAF6R. *.A WULtAM M. OBIFStN III, F.A. ruDMAfi N. ROSE. F.A. MiQHACL S MOD At, P.A OlANE S. MACKEY, P.A WALTER M. FSEL 111, P.A. KEY!N A. CRASS, P.A VrUb^AM 1 WAOOELL, jR.. B. A 6 ,1 \u0026amp; Sc  V FRIDAY, ELDRFDOE \u0026amp; CLARK A FARTNSRSKlP QF INOIVIDUAIS AMD PROF6SB1OSAL ABSOCIATIOMS ATTOHNEVB AT LAW 2000 FIRST COWMSROIAI SVltOIMO 400 WEST CAPITOL VITTIE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72JO1-3A93 tSlcphone goi.S7-seii FAX MO. so, .378.2147 November 22, 1996 SCOTT J. IAHCATCJ1. M. P A sOaCftT . BCftCH. ja . f a J UC t20WM. P A jAMh C. P.A HA#MV A. k.iHT. P.*. StOTT w. TVCttfl P.A. jOwH C^AVTCN ftAHOPtPM P.*. GUT A^TON P.A. FRiet . 0*eNfeA. P A J. MtCMACk PtCREAfi. F A TOM\u0026lt;A P. 40lQLe. P A. OAVe 0. W\u0026lt;(,80M, P A. 4SFFREY M. MOORB. P a  MOPIVT T. TURFireN OAWlO M. RAP CAAtA G. SPAINHOUH JOHN C PLNOlfT, JR AkkieON GRAYEfi jONANN 0 RODseweir 4 eHftiaTfiPHEA lAW\u0026amp;OM ORgOGRT 0 lAViOP TOHV V *IVCOX *RAN C. HICKMAN SCTTT J. OfcMOST BAKWAI^A J. *ANO JAbCS W *MkTH CLIPFORO \u0026lt;f/. OANtSi. L. HCMHINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWCLL TODO A. CREER BF ffOWMVEc MraUtAM 4. SM)t^ StC eUARK WKLUM L IgRAT, P.A WILLIAM L. PATTQM. . P. A 15011 3?0'2a33 1 .vl Mr. John W, Walker (Via Fax) Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County special School District, et al Dear Mr. Walker\nRoberts and I have reviewed your fax setting^ forth Joshua's perspective on the meeting of November 14, 1996. I7h\n.l\n.:z can see much common ground, we have two primary concerns, Dr. While we The first is your focus on solving current problems within the context of the current system. Dr. Roberts wants to change the entire system and needs six to nine months to develop, with your help, a plan to do so. If you will work with us, you can be assured that the new system will solve the \"litany of problems\" about which you continue to complain. This is not to say we are going to ignore the current problems There are some issues which must addressed be immediately. However, we want to change everyone's focus from trying to make a bad system work to developing a system which will ensure a first rate desegregated education for all LRSD students. Our second concern is your suggestion that an agreement cannot be reached without \"progress\" on the issue of attorneys' fees. As   ' this will have to wait until Chris returns from out of town. We hope you will reconsider so that an agreement can be reached before the board meeting on Tuesday. a practical matter out of town. Sd As ^1 i'WlJ wn AWiaj WUSE:0T 96. 92 .M3W .3 4 -5#11/26/96 11:06 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMI N I CAT 1 ODM @002/002 Little Rock School District Special Board Meeting For Immediate Release November 26, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this evening. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools, will provide to the Board his assessment of the LRSD and concerns about the present approach to education and desegregation within the district. Dr. Roberts will present to the Board a resolution authorizing the presentation of pleadings to federal court for interim relief from some aspects of the desegreaation plan. During this period of time the LRSD will develop modifications to the districts educational and desegregation plan. The special meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. M ###\u0026lt;1 ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION Little WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Rock School District (\"r^RSD) could benefit from ii 1 modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications\nstudents WHEREAS, LRSD Can improve its educational program for all and can enhance the prospects for the long terra desegregation of the District if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task\nWHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ('opM) in order to develop and pi'esent to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the District\nand WHEREAS, ODM could, with' court authorization, support LRSD^s efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nredeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. 1 IT IS HERESy RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Rock School District. Wd90\n{\"0 Sto. 9? ACHJ  . y 'I '4*7 lil |\\_ l-i TV CERTIFTCATg wt 1 -i-  .\".Pj I, the undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the 'I- Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution\nappears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, the duly elected, qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the ', 1 adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Rye, May, Abstain er Absent) I*- ' h-'' . h- 3^ r nz.' iC'i' 1 .V I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat, to the extent reguife\u0026lt;i by law, due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. fl day of CSRTiriED under wy hand and seal of the District this_____ , 1996. [SEAL] Secretary a V 1 f 2 ( *d I- \u0026lt;1 waij wn Ayaieij 9b. 92 aon t * SslTTLS ROOK SCSOOh DTSyRICi hOAS.3 OF D.IRBCTOag RBSODHTIOH Little Rock , ths court, has r\u0026amp;peats'aiy expressed rha visw that, ths School District (vP.SD\"'i could benefit from o\u0026lt;Sification to its de5prsgat.ion plan and has prcvidsd sxrpert testitiony in ordor to yv. .ide Li?..SD in ths a od 1 f i c a t i ait s / developtient c-f' plan stiidenta 5'?^SBEJ4S, ajid LRSD can iKiprovs car. enhsrscs rrs a its educational, pirogra. ^\n.i. pxospscts lor the long dssagragation of tn Dist.rict if given ths opportunity to davctii 'the rvsotisseary bias and resourcos to the t-sri?i UISO is preparod to work cocparativeiy wrth ths othr ..\n! and with the Office of iiesfe\u0026lt;jrg-at.ion MohX tor ing in de.v.'i.Cip and present to the court plan laodif.ication* to . -S education nd dtsegregation yithin the Oi??triot\nund COM could, 'with court euthorination, ouppoft tRSi-'s by consulting with tns x'^arties and participatij,q' in thd davR,.i.tpsont Ui a aodififed pltn for ^clucation and fusstBordgat.lt'.h -in LRgD\nredepieying laonitors :\u0026gt; prcv.!.da assistance to LRSD in 3 budget devslcpnenfe, staff development, student asss-igntient and sselutioxi of di3cipl.iri issuss, and to withhold a'ny further Qv '.x''..or\u0026lt;i\\.g of 'cha current LftSb plan (other than th c-oripist.'io'n of aor\n.xtc:?j.ng reports presently in process\nc the six to nine .nonth period ilur.tng which a siodltied education and ddsegregatior plan, vtll be developed. X':- IS S^:Ri!By RSSOLV^-a that LRSD Supe.rintsndsr.t br. Don Ro.fes'-'^? is author igsG to subKiit to rhe court appropriate pler^dir.gs ncs5.s3ry t's seevre the time and resources nafedsd to develop a modified evhjcatios's and desqrgafcron plan for the School D'Lstrict,-.. :-o * z* i S5srjl*AtiS certify\nri'\na.r y the  ^'-5 ro. hi: a^iy Adopts^^ ty J.U .1 f the \u0026amp;X1\u0026gt; CsSlV ! of r  of kc:  J iii X 4 j tr Ji At the tiiSft Ct 'ni5Mb25r\u0026amp; \u0026gt; t\nvj'i o-f the 4.'ii- br. *** W. furtbet' '.C H'itl d certify in 1 t B os VO i V Lv3 1 i'. ^. rd SGe^ .\nris? lii'itier Vigne p. i y''fk!i 'T nJ Cl'^\nSO U u il KCfyait'\u0026amp;Z. , Si?' ent t 4- i:i\u0026lt;' . . t levs -: i ? y s thh Vteiat i'SapeStii -5.C r* .O)-' hy rafeisbers x-r\u0026lt; OX d * 1 '^' I\"- 2\u0026lt;rsd. Bweirti t.\u0026lt;? ths j. t *\n/\nU^4r  {-i t X a i Q V th:* prrper 34' i thefc I tsstystic: i in e ~i -i^, \n1 .7 / d\nW js. \u0026gt;!  i. v^ 5?sas- c J ly C! -4 '7i: feif .Afe ,M.a. V? Xis V\nj X 3y\u0026lt;?, i ctvr I i r. '1 if .  V4 5Ui i. x J. tsC \u0026lt;- 1 \"hiit J ^biXy t\n,c '.ic\nil h^it '..e .'- *?. f. -.4 ,7. ? : rvfd i i'F X 4 ' . f'  I r * li' ie.' 1'996 11139 JOHN W, WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON mark BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. KIMBERLY R. DICKSON t. I KS i. ! FROn JOHN kl.. UALK6R P,n. TO 3?1010 P. 02 John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTTi.E Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile * 374-9537 November 26, 1996 Mr. Rett Tucker Flake, Tabor, Tucker, Wells \u0026amp; Kelly TCBY Tower, Suite 300 Little RocK, AR D\u0026amp;etr Retts 72201 This will acknowledge receipt of your notice of the Little Rock School Board meeting scheduled for this evening. I am currently in federal court before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes in Texarkana, I had previously intended to try and make the meeting this evening, however. Judge Barnes has indicated that we will continue this case this afternoon until it is completed. I remain committed to working with Dr. Roberts in trying to help move the District forward. You should know, however, that we have not reached an agreement regarding our further roles in making this possible. asked Ms. I hope to you at the meeting this evening, however, I have Springer to attend and restate oxir position. Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker JWW\njs cc\nDr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Don Roberts Clay Pendley Chris Heller Ann Brown Robert Pressman Z kHdiiaaii TOTAL P.02 ts 11 / Ci .a J l .'1 ':S i 3 * -J , :''T is '4V. i -( M J I fl 6 \u0026lt;4  'A 3\"^4 ' \u0026lt; . .11:06 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATl ODM 2 ^wubI Little Rock School District For Immediate Release November 26, 1996 002-002 Special Board Meeting For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this evening. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools, will provide to the Board his assessment of the LRSD and concerns about the present approach to education and desegregation within the district. Dr. Roberts will present to the Board a resolution authorizing the presentation of pleadings to federal court for interim relief from some aspects of the desegregation plan. During this period of time the LRSD will develop modifications to the districts :  f educational and desegregation plan. -'I. 1'j, The special meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD .4 Administration Building, 810 West Markham.  if.' ### '' ' j\ni -t 4 .5 J i 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (901)324-2000 * WWW JOHN W. WALKER, PA. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 rOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. KIMBERLY R. DICKSON December 5, 1996 Honorable Judge Susan W^ber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. RCSSD U.SD.C No. LR-C-S2-866 Judge Wright: In the first paragraph of my letter, it may appear to some that I am indicating there is some conflicts between my office and ODM. This is to clarify that the conflicts to which I referred are those between Joshua and the school district parties. ODM is not a party. Please accept this clarification. Thank you. .cerely, '1 John W. Walker JWW\nlp cc: Ms, Ann Brown 12/06.-1996 12:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 02 /OHN W. WALKER, PA.. 1723 Broadway Little Ruck, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHI^^GTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR KIMBERLYR. OICKSON December 5,1996 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD U.S.D.C No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright\ni 1 1 I i I } I As counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, I am persuaded that the interim superintendent, Dr. Don Roberts, will act in good faith to achieve the objectives of the desegregation plan and to otherwise address the educational needs of our class members. I am also persuaded that he will approach the matter as originally contemplated in a spirit of cooperation and mediation rather than one of antagonistic adversariness. I have met with him by telephone and in person at least a half dozen times in the last three weeks to get some understanding of how he will try to make things better in the District. During this time, I have described to him our concerns both in writing and verbally. Several of these meetings involved Ms. Ann Brown of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. He is aware of the conflicts which exist between us and he is aware that there are a number of people in the school district of both races who have reservations about an approach of cooperation rather than confrontation. The plan calls for cooperation, but the parties have been adversary due to different leaders and leadership styles of the District during a time which has seen the departure of every architect of the plan itself. Dr. Roberts has inherited a situation where there is literally no one on staff who was involved in a high level capacity with the creation and underlying justification of many of the plans' features and objectives. He is literally in a posture where he will have to recreate the wheel so to speak and where some degree of plan modification may well be needed if the educational needs and priorities of black school children are to be effectively addressed.12/06/1996 12:12 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P . 03 k' Page Two December 6, 1996 I i I ! i The ODM staff, through its monitoring experiences, may provide the nexus between the plan formulators and the present staff capable of advising and assisting Dr. Roberts as he seeks to bring a different character to this troubled school district. I share his view that he could profit from a different kind of association from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring than that of the last two administrations, one which gives respect to the roles and duties of the court as well as the commitment of the ODM staff to the achievement of the plan objectives. Although I have reservations about requesting that the court enlarge or modify OOM'S role, I believe that there is compelling urgency to such an approach, for a short period of time, if the educational needs of black children are to be met and given the priority required by law. I, therefore, request that you allow Ms. Brown and her staff to work closely, affirmatively and on a day to day basis with Dr. Roberts on operational activities such as the development of the budget. We also expect to work closely with Dr. Roberts but with the caveat that we will continue to monitor the situation and otherwise seek to protect the rights of our class members. Dr. Roberts has made these promises: 1) He will implement the plan as approved by the Court until it is modified with Court approval\n2) He will seek to lead the Board and the community to understand the necessity for genuine interracial cooperation and involvement in every level of school operation\n3) He will promote the retention and equal treatment of minority students and he will see to it that teachers actually engage in teaching them with the same fervor and commitment that is exhibited toward children of privilege\n4) He has pledged to integrate what has become, with but one or two exceptions, an all white administrative staff and he will take sensitive action to ensure that there are no one race staffed departments in the school system\n5) He commits to staff development which promotes interracial staff associations and cooperation rather than allowing proliferation of separatist activities within schools\n6) He commits to activity involvement of all children in something through which each may feel that he/she is an integral part of the school system, 7) He commits to more meaningtul parental involvement with black parents being given equal respect of their views and needs regarding their children\n8) He commits to a reduction of disciplinary punishments for insignificant and petty offenses and the substitution of an educational program which emphasizes that children should expect the school to teach them alternative ways for conflict resolution and for understanding the way the educational system is supposed to work\n12/06/1996 12 13 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 04 F  Page Three December 6,1996 9) He commits to continuing the District's practices to the develop and maintain a viable pool of qualified minority staff tlirough the binder program, a uniform salary schedule and identifiable nondiscriminatory criteria for the selection, placement and promotion of staff\n10) He commits to devoting serious and prompt attention to evaluation and assessment of prosrams and activities, as well as a program development and implementation by which achievement disparities may be eliminated and/or otherwise improved. Many of these concerns and commitments may be the subject of modification of the desegregation plan with our approval. To avoid later con\u0026amp;sion, I do note that we do not envision a direct role for ODM in the development or approval of any modifications. Dr. Roberts asks for our cooperation for what is a relatively brief period of time in the history of this case a six to nine month period of time. I am willing to give it to him provided the court sees fit to approve his request. In closing, I must say that the District is in the plight that it is, in large part, due to a number of feilures for which both we and the Court must take some responsibility. I must say that the court's oversight of this case has been essential, but it is our considered view that recalcitrant district officials challenged the court to force them to act and when the Court did not act, other than to issue words of condemnation, it set a tone for further inaction and dereliction which brings us to the point where we are today. The request here will allow all of us an opportunity for much needed redemption. Thank you for your cooperation truly yours, /'.John W. W^er JWWijs cc: All Coujsel Clerk ofthe Court Ms. Am Brown Dr. DofRobertsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82866 RECEP PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL Office of Desesregation MonitotuitiNTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL -- INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted. however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM'') in order to develop and present to the courtplan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval. support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development. staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline 2issues\nand by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nto redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues\nand, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. 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: (781083) J Christopher Hell John C. Fendley, Jr.' (#92182) r^hfTnr\\innfnfy*ihwriiig\u0026gt; phn (knf 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop mail on this aLe Joy deposBeang a copy of same in the United States day of , 1996. 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell 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 Cttflstopher Helle: John C. Fendley, Jr. 4t 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 REGESVE'.n Uu MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC 6 1996 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desesregafion Moniioring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOP! P PERIOD lylW The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard. the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the f:\\haijc\\fcndicy\\irtd\\bri-pbiuiev1 PCSSD.\" Id. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 'The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota. Inc, V. Wray. 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified modification. myriad of changed circumstances County School See. Board, e.g., 978 Jacksonville Branch, which justify NAACP V. Duval F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)(\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). a f:^ionK\\ieodlcy\\lndUjri-pUii.dev 2budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues\nand by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. 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: ristopher Hi John C. Fendley, e: (#81083) . (#92182) f:yxnc\\ieodley\\irtd\\bri-pliiulcv 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peopL^^ mail on this ly depositing a copy of same in the United States day of , 1996. 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell 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 opher Hell John C. Fendley, Jr., f:\\homB\\feadky\\bd^ri-pbux.dev 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 1 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. MCbonwmv.s bttKh WESTERN DIVISION gy. DEF CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC 1 7 1996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregalion Monitoring INTERVENORS EASTc^*^*' njQT-'*'~ - MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEADING For its motion, the Little Rock School District states: 1. On May 17, 1996 the Little Rock School District filed a Mtion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The motion was denied on September 23, 1996. LRSD filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1996. 2. On December 6, 1996, the Little Rock School District filed a Motion For Approval of Plan Development Period. In that motion, LRSD asked the court for a period of time within which to work with the parties to improve education and desegregation in LRSD and to develop necessary modif ications to the LRSD desegregation plan. That process, if successful, could result in the abandonment by LRSD of its motion for reconsideration. 3. LRSD would prefer to commit its resources to a cooperative education and desegregation reform effort than to litigate its Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction so long as the prospects are good for a cooperative and productive reform process. LRSD therefore asks the court for permission to withdraw its motion for reconsideration subject to refiling no later than September 30, 1997. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order withdrawing and removing from the docket its motion for reconsideration subject to its right to refile the motion no later than September 30, 1997. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By*v istopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw Pleading as been served on the following by in the United States mail on this ^day depositing copy of same of December, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 2Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 iristopher Hell 3   002 12'17'96 11:45 FRIDAY LAW FIRM FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL M. KBiDAY lieSX-IBVAl WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISIMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. USSERY. P.A. H.T. LARJELCRC. P-A. OSCAR E. OAVIB. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LCOCCTT. P-A. JOHN DEWEY WATBON. Paul B- BENHAM III, P.A. larry W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SiMPBON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P-A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A, J. BHEPHERO RUBSELL III, P-A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BAHRY . COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH . HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HCNBLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P-A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P,A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. OIANE a. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A partnership op inoividuals ano professional associations ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST commercial BUILDINO 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3483 TELEPHONE 601-378-2011 FAX NO, 601-378-2147 December 17, 1996 8COTTJ. LAWCA8TEII. R.A. M. OAYLC CQULCY, F-A. HQBCDT B. hack. JR.. r.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMEH C. BARER, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. UHT, P.a- BCQTT H. tucker, P.A- JOHN ciAVTaN Randolph, p.a. aUY ALTON WADS, P-A. PRICE C. CAHQNift. P A. J. UiCMAEk PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JCNEB. P.a. DAVID 0. WILSON, P. A, JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A. ANDREW T- TURNER DAVIO U. QRAF CARLA D. dPAINHQUR JOHN C. FENOLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONAHN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON onCOOBY 0. TAYLOR TONY U. WILCOX FRAN C, HICKMAN BETTY J. OCMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINCrOM ALLISON J. CORNWELL TODD A, CREEH e* eouwatL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S- CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A i60n 370-1608 VMlTIt'* AUfCT HO. FAX Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 722OS Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Ann and John: I have enclosed a draft of a stipulation which would approve the entry of an order containing the provisions of our original proposed stipulation and those items (discipline, good faith, Joshua and ODM monitoring reports, and staff development) suggested by John Walker at our last meeting. Please let me _ know if this document will provide a sufficient basis for discussions to make a meeting today worthwhile. 12-17-96 11:46 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM  003 If a meeting today will be helpful, it must be held from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. in order to accommodate everyone's schedule. I have asked everyone to reserve that time for a possible meeting at Ann Brown's office. Yours vj Christopher Heller CJH/k Enc. cc: Dr Don Roberts12 '1- -96 11:46 O FRIDAY LA\"' FIRM 004 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 / MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION The Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) will agree to the entry of an order which contains the following provisions and statements by the court: 1. The court grants LRSD's Motion For Approval of Plan Development Period, 2 This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 3 LRSD believes that it can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in order to develop and present to 12'17 '96 11:47 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @003  the court a plan to improve education and desegregation within the district. 4 The Joshua intervenors believe that certain components of the present LRSD desegregation plan have proved unsuccessful and that black students and parents within LRSD can benefit from a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD. The Joshua Intervenors are prepared to work cooperatively with LRSD in order to develop such a plan. 5 The Knight intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 6 PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a new education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this stipulation. 7 The parties expect that they can work cooperatively to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for the improvement of education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation plan. 8 In order to allow LRSD to commit the necessary effort to the cooperative development of an improved education and desegregation plan, LRSD and Joshua agree to withdraw all pending motions concerning compliance or lack of compliance with the 212'1'96 11:48 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM @006  present LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua also agrees to discontinue any on-site monitoring at LRSD schools and to refer any disciplinary issues, other than expulsion issues, to an ombudsman selected by LRSD with input from ODM and Joshua for resolution. 9 LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM is willing to support the effort described in this stipulation by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nredeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a new education and desegregation plan will be developed. 10. The parties agree to support LRSD's request for a court order approving this stipulation and to participate in a good faith effort to develop and present to the court within six to nine months an improved plan for education and desegregation in LRSD which will modify the plan under which LRSD presently operates. 11 The court understands that as a part of the process to improve desegregation and education within LRSD, LRSD will take 312 17/96 11:48 FRIDAY LA\"' FIRM @007  into account the recommendations made by Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in their monitoring reports. 12 The court expects the parties to work together in a good faith effort to improve education and desegregation within LRSD. 13 The court understands that the LRSD superintendent will work with administrators, teachers, counselors and staff to ensure that the student discipline system within LRSD provides fair, even handed and appropriate discipline in a non-discriminatory matter. 14 The court understands that during the time for development of an improved plan for education and desegregation in LRSD that LRSD will provide an appropriate staff development program for principals, teachers and counselors. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. John W, Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: John W. Walker Bar No. By 5------------------- Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 412 -17 '96 11:49  FRIDAY LA\"' FIRM @ DOS CERTIFICATE OF. SERVI-CE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation has served on the following by depositing copy of same in the Uni. in the United States mail on this 17th day of December, 1996. 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. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Christopher Heller 5FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 3 0 1996 Ofiice 01 Desegieijaii. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION jAMtS I-** -\u0026lt;'. 27 1996 fiMAGK, CLtni DEPT. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * * * * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful review of the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. A. On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modifications of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 290 1Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a si-\\ to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in a refl s such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the LRSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM not participate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content of such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members. See docket entry 2885. The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM, and for a hearing on those motions. In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 2878] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705, \u0026amp; 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this ^7 day of December 1996. \"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN A MPUANCE WITH RULE 5 AND^DR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 ri 1^0-27-96 FRl 16:07 ''V SUSAN WMRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. *  *  4c * No. LR-C-82-866 P. 02 FILED . us. DISTRICT COURT , , 4 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS S OEG 27 1996 .1' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL, , Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor.     * * * *  * * * * * * 45? lAMtS i^MAQK, OUrJ DEPT. CLERK w ( f ' /  . ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful t review of the motion, the Cotirt finds that the motion should be granted. A. ii' 4 On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modification.^ of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 1 \u0026lt;1 a IP. li til / V %[^EC-?7-96 FRI 16:08 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM\") to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the cunent LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the L,RSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the- Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM no ticipate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members, See docket entry 2885, The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2 i^C-27\n9e FRI 16:08 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX HO, 5013246576 P. 04  functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time, Tlie Court will not prevent the ODM from advising die LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM., and for a hearing on those motions, In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3 Mi ikiil ilT ^E0-27\n96 FRI 16:09. SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 -4 'i granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. .1 D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 28781 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Inter\u0026gt;enors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705. \u0026amp; 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this of December 1996. 1 I 7' (-  ijn\n4 JUDGE S. .1. 1 k' Tj.' 1  ''.J. Iriihi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION J . f 1 . .. clerk LITTLE V. rock school district, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS Lj\n.-. CLthk PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED INTERVENORS DfcC 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER INTERVENORS SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNEKbrtih' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Response Joshua Interv'enbfs to\" the LRSD' s plan ODM. Motion for the. of the Joshua intervenors co cue - Approval of A Plan Development Period The LRSD has filed a motion referring to a six to nine month development period. The relief sought in the motion relates to Motion, 12\\6\\96, at 3. That office would \"consult with the parties and participate\" in the development of a modified plan\nit would \"redeploy monitors\" to provide more direct forms of assistance to LRSD\nit would withhold additional monitoring of the LRSD for the six to nine month period. This memorandum sets forth Joshua Intervenors' reaction to the LRSD motion. It is appropriate to begin with some reference to the status of the case. These motions concerning intervenors filed a the incentive schools number of months ago two and ODM recommendations. These motions are grounded in the view of Joshua's representatives, and the repeated findings of the court and ODM, that LRSD officials and their agents have implemented the agreements in an inadequate 1manner. It remains the view of the Joshua intervenors that the central problem has been the unwillingness to implement the agreements, not the agreements themselves. a Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors are willing to respond in positive manner to the view of the interim superintendent that ways can be developed to achieve in a better manner the objectives of the agreements. As reflected by lead counsel's letter to the court of December 5, 1996, counsel views the interim superintendent as a person of ability and integrity. The Joshua Intervenors will respond in a prompt and good faith manner to proposals to modify the agreements with regard to the LRSD. These intervenors may well suggest provisions to address problems in the areas mentioned in lead counsel's letter to the court of December 5 (at 2-3). LRSD and Joshua representatives are in the process of discussing ways in which perceived problems of class members, in the area of discipline for example, can be addressed in a better fashion, but with lesser demands on the interim superintendent's time. The objective of this effort is to allow the superintendent to focus on his ideas for plan modifications and systemic efforts to address some of the problems surfaced by these intervenors. Our reactions to the specific proposals regarding ODM are as follows. First. ODM is, in substance, a part of the court's staff. It serves as the court's eyes and ears. It gathers facts and generates ideas for the court. It seems to serve as confidant for the court. This being the case, we believe that limits on ODM's participation 2in the process of developing and considering proposed plan modifications are necessary. Development by ODM of proposed modifications in areas identified by the parties should be welcomed, as well as party. However, ODM ODM reactions to proposals initiated by a should not participate in the parties* negotiations  unless it is agreed upon, unambiguously, that ODM will not report the content of negotiations to the court. The parties can present to the court any agreed upon changes in the plans, as well as periodic status reports on their progress. Second. The Joshua Intervenors are supportive of the notion of ODM staff playing different roles in the LRSD, subject to our recommendations, filed on December 13, 1996, that there be additional ODM staff to work on the matter of ill-treatment of class members. This ill-treatment prevents, in far too many cases. the achievement of the objectives of the agreements. Moreover, there are needs for monitoring in the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Third. The proposal concerning additional monitoring in the LRSD for the six to nine month period is acceptable. with the exception of the new form of monitoring, by additional staff. identified in intervenors' submission of December 13, 1996. Conclusion The Joshua Intervenors agree to the entry of an order 3consistent with the views set forth in this response. Respecfully submitted, abhn W. Walker, / 64046 Uohn V. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA # 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 copy of the Joshua Intervenors' I hereby certify that a foregoing response has been mailed to all counsel of record on this 18th day of December 1996. \"John W. Walker / 4RECEIVE JAN 2 4199? OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING HARVARD UNIVERSITY Graduate School of Education Gutman Library 442 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Gary Orfield Professor of Education and Social Policy phone: 617-496-4824 fax: 617-496-3095 January 21, 1997 TO: Ann Brown and associates FROM: Gary Orfield I was very happy to hear about the new court order and your expanded responsibilities. Best of luck in the important work in the coming months. I think that some substantial improvements should not be very difficult to identify.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 January 22, 1997 Dr. Mary Prentice Department of Teacher Education UALR 2801 So. University Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mary: Thanks so much for your message volunteering yourself to help during the coming year. I would welcome your assistance! Your skills, insights, and optimism and would be assets indeed. I promise to keep your generous offer in mind as Don Roberts and I are developing our initial plan of action in the next few weeks. Thank you so much for your kind offer, Mary. I'll keep you posted on developments. Sincerely yours, I \\ Ann S. BrownRECEIVED FEB 2 1 L/iQ St OmCEOF OESEGREGMIONMONITORUIG STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Listed below are the committees that are actively implementing the plan and completing the work designated for Year One, the meeting dates of the committees, and a brief  synopsis of the work accomplished. STRATEGY ONE: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. COMMIITeE: Gene Parker (W), lead administrator, Lillie Carter (B), Eleanor Cox (B), Gwen Ziegler (B), Cynthia Jefferson (B), Malinda Martin (B), Lisa Maxwell (W), Opal Rice (W), Nancy Swaty (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Kris Huffman (W), Judy Milam (W), Judy Teeter (W). MEETING DATES: Three, 3-hour work sessions were held in March/April 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISECED\nDefinitions for content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards have been developed and are ready for submission to the Superintendent for Board approval. In the areas of language arts/reading and math in grades K-5, the hierarchy of key skills/knowledge, rubrics, and skills mastery continuum have been completed and were piloted in the K-5 summer program. The first draft of the hierarchy, rubrics, and skills mastery continuum has been completed in social studies and science. This strategy is also addressing the integration of the SCANS skills into the standards process. The core committee of Gene Parker (W), Carol Green (B), Marie McNeal (B), Linda Young (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Vanessa Cleaver (B) has met on November 26 and December 20, 1996. An additional meeting was held with Gene Parker and Vic Anderson on Dec. 20 to discuss progress of committee.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TWO: We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives of the strategic plan. No implementation committee has been appointed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY THREE\nWe will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on the standardized tests or who are at risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  COMMITTEE\nVic Anderson, lead administrator (W), Leon Adams (B), Jo Evelyn Elston (B), Gene Parker (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Margaret Gremillion (W), Patty Kohler (W), Sadie Mitchell (B), Leon Modeste (B), Susan Merry (W), Ann Blaylock (W), Sammy Grandy (B), Rick Woole (W), Linda Young (W). The committee is slated to be expanded to include teachers, principals, parents, and community members. (A middle school committee functioned as a separate committee. This committee was convened with full approval of the Board of Directors and met regularly from December, 1994 through April, 1996. List available if needed.) MEETING DATES\nDec. 15, 1995\nJan. 11, Jan. 18, Jan.3O, Jan.31, Feb.6, March 3, March 4, March 11, March 15, May 31, July 23, July 24, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED\nA policy on retention and promotion was revised to include early intervention and approved by the Board in September, 1996. A policy to formalize intervention as a step in the educational process was developed and approved by the Board in September, 1996. The Reading Recovery program was expanded in four elementary schools. The middle school committee completed an extensive report and business case including a three year district wide transition work plan to implement middle schools (grades 6-8). The report and recommendations were presented to the board in April, 1996. The delivery system at the Alternative Learning Center was expanded to include the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. A business case was written, approved, a committee (list available if needed) appointed to develop curriculum, training provided to all staff on the new curriculum and implementation began in September, 1996. Training teachers interested in the Math/Science Crusade (K-12) was continued with 95 teachers participating in the 95-96 school year and an additional 29 participating in the 96-97 school year.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOUR: We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. COMMItieE: The Alliance marketing committee has been serving as the committee to support this strategy in the area of external communications issues. Internal issues have been handled by the communications department staff. MEETING DATES: Full committees and sub-committees met on Jan. 12, Feb. 27, March 12, March 27, April 10, May 1, May 22, June 10, June 12, July 11, July 17, July 22, July 24, Aug. 14, Sept. 17, Nov. 22, Dec. 4, Dec. 19, and Dec. 20, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: To achieve positive relationships with key members of the media, discussions have occurred with media representatives by the Superintendent, business leaders through the Little Rock Alliance for our Public Schools and the communications staff. To expand the available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents and other audiences, four new brochures have been produced aimed at various target audiences. New video equipment has been purchased and a new staff person hired for expanded video coverage of the district. Twenty-five public relations training sessions were held at the schools during the fall semester. Information provided will assist teachers, counselors and other school staff in incorporating positive public relations in their work with various audiences. To improve the existing system designed to direct media to the appropriate source, on-going training and communication continues between principals, key communicators and the Communications Office.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FIVE: We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations-to address external issues that are interfering with our students learning. COMMITTEE\nDebbie Milam (W), lead administrator, Sandy Becker (B), community chairman, Beverly Miller (W), Gail Nickerson (W), Charles Nickerson (W), Lou Miller (W), Bob Hightower (W), Loretta Alexander (B), Zenobia Harris (B), Johnnie Bradford (B), Richard Bell (B), Boyd Ward (W), Carol Scott (W), Helen Leigh (W), Mike Vogler (W), Charles Moore (B), Liz Lucker (W). MEETING DATES: May 29, June 22, August 13, September 9, October 14, November 19, and December 17, 1996\nJan. 28, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: Drafts of three proposed school board policies have been prepared and submitted to the Superintendent for Board approval. The committee prepared a business case to support their recommendations for additional resources needed to implement Strategy Five. A list of activity suggestions for partnerships between churches and schools was prepared by the committee for use in recruiting more churches to become Partners in Education. A $20,000 grant was received to begin the Community Mobilization Program with the local schools, neighborhood groups, community groups, youth serving groups in the various neighborhoods, and the citys alert centers. The committee has met with the grant writer to discuss district grant writing efforts and results. The Vital Link program will assist in meeting the goal of expanding the development of business and community partner coalitions with focus on job shadowing experiences. The committee has been reviewing the Beacons Initiative as a pilot program as the initial step in designing and ensuring availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SIX: We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to . ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. COMMITTEE\nBrady Gadberry, lead administrator. No implementation committee. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: All job descriptions are to be consistent and specific. Dr. Hurley surveyed administrative staff and is working to rewrite the job descriptions as needed. He reports that 25% of this task has been completed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SEVEN: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. COMMITTEE\nMarion Woods(B), lead administrator, Phil Burch (W), Beth Munson (W), Leon Modeste (B), Linda Joshua (B), Debbie Glasgow (W), Linda Young (W), Vicki Armstead (B), BUI Geiger (W), Lun McCall (B), Ann Mangan (W), Betty Mitchell (W), John Walker (B), Linda Pondexter (B), Richard Rochell (W), Sterling Ingram (B), Betty Raper (W), Rett Tucker (W), Dean Johnson (B), Patty Kohler (W), Ed Jackson (W), Pat Price (W). MEETING DATES: April 28, May 23, July 19, Aug, 2, Sept. 5, Sept. 23, Oct. 28, 1996, and February 24, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: The staff development council was reformulated and the membership expanded according to the recommendations. The council is to complete a district wide analysis of the staff development program. The council is in the process of developing a staff development evaluation form. The council suggested that 150 school districts around the United States be canvassed to gather forms and suggestions on this issue. The National Staff Development Council has also been providing support and ideas on this issue. The final form for LRSD will be designed specifically for this district.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY EIGHT: We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. COMMITieE: Patty Kohler (W), lead administrator, Sadie Mitchell (B), Gene Parker (W), Lillie Carter (B), Manan Shead (B), Darrall Paradis (W), Eleanor Coleman (B), Mary Menking (W), Doug Eaton (W), Margaret Leigh (W), Margaret Gremillion (W), Sharon Brooks (B), Cassandra Norman (B), CharUe Neal (W), Donna Stiles (W), JiU MeUroy (W), Rudolph Howard (B), Leon Adams (B), Mabie Donaldson (B), Faith Donovan (W), Anne Mangan (W), Junious Babbs (B), JuUe Davenport Paula Padilla (W), EUean Cleveland (B), Pat Boykin (B), Pat Higginbotham Marian Lacey (B), Vic Anderson (W), Cathy Collins (W), Gayle Bradford (W), Marcus Moore (B), Jackie Moore (W), .Stsphanic Walker (B), Morlin McCoy (B), Betty Raper (W), Diann Chase (B), Gail Shelton (B), Carol Green (B), Linda Johnson (B), Mildren Walker (B), Shirley Ferguson (B), Kristie Robinson (B), Leon Modeste (B), Linda Young (W) and Teresa Courtney (W). MEETING DATES: Dec. 15, 1995\nJan.ll, Jan.18, Jan.23, Jan.28, Feb. 19, March 11 April 8 Mav 6 Aug. 21, 1996.  '  WORK ACCOMPLISHED: A core committee began the primary work by focusing on developing a process and framework for the implemenution of site-based management to allow individual schools choice in terms of best meeting the needs of their students. Research, published articles and implementation efforts in other districts were provided to the core committee. The committee began the process of reflecting on and studying the issues involved, articulating how the district currently operates and discussing how this distnet could best operate in the future. The committee functioned as a study group so that ey could begin to operate from a common knowledge base, create conditions for thinking beyond the current state of operations, dare to dream of more effective ways for the system to function, frame the thinking specifically for the LRSD, share common language, and begin to forge shared thinking on what and how site-based management can be used to assist in meeting the districts mission. The committee developed initial responses to the following questions: 1) What results are expected from implementing a site-based decision making process in the district? 2) What has to be created at the district level for site-councils to be effective at reaching the anticipated results? 3) What support will be needed and how will it be provided? 4) What actions are needed to lead this change initiative? 5) What is a timeiy/reasonable time firame for successfill and effective implementation? A draft position paper defining the critical issues and the specific actions needed from the educational system of the LRSD to prepare and implement an effective model of site-based management for the LRSD included five major areas: 1) Articulation of policy, rationale and belief^ 2) Parameters for decision making and processes for evaluating decisions, 3) Definition of a model of a Good School to serve as a standard and guidelines for assessing progress toward the standard, 4) Skills and knowledge needed and training plan (district \u0026amp; local), 5) E.\\pectations and roles of personnel and guidelines for council membership. a A district wide invitation for participation was extended to all teachers and administrators across the district. The response is reflected in the total committee listed above. This expanded committee is now assigned to one of the five major issues/action areas. A plan of how these committees will function and produce the needed products has been completed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY NINE: We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. COMMITTEE: Mark Milhollen (W), lead administrator. Bob Beach (W), Keith Cox (W), J. Ralston Creswell (W), Ernie Davis (W), Hugh Earnest (W), John Gardner (B) Co- Chair, Dewayne Holmes (B), Betty Mitchell (^, Bob Morgan (V^, Rich Nagel Tim Scott (B), Steve Shults (W), Andy Terry (W), Mark McBryde (W), John Nimmer (B), Earl Weniger (W), Judy Magness (W). MEETING DATES: Nov. 16, Dec. 7, Dec. 14, Dec. 21, 1995\nJan. 4, Jan. 11, Jan. 18, Feb. 15, March 12, May 7, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: The committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the next two to three years are crucial transition years for the LRSD and that some fundamental changes must be made and communicated to the public in the way the LRSD conducts its business. This committee recommended that the LRSD Board of Directors utilize the following eight point process in developing its 96-97 budget and forecast: 1) Determine revenue projections, 2) Determine educational programs to be provided, 3) Determine the facilities to be utilized in delivering programs, 4) Consider non-school level program/personnel reductions, 5) Determine wages and benefits level, 6) Optimize student/stafF ratios, 7) Start Desegregation Plan modification process, if required, 8) Seek additional revenue, if required. The committee met with the board on several occasions during the budget process. The board failed to take any action on the recommendations of the committee.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TEN: We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. COMMIIteE: Jo Evelyn Elston (B), lead administrator, Vic Anderson (W), co-chair, Bobby Jones, (W), Frances Dedner (B), Minnie Thompson (B), Tim Fullerton (W), Kathy Wells (W), Jane Meadows (W), Steve Bradley (B), Wiley Branton (B), Neddie Nichols (B), Bettye Robinson (B), Linda Watson (B), W. W. Williams (W), Lillie Carter (B), Pat Gee (W), Rich Robbins (W), Cory Anderson (B), Ed Streeter (B), Patty Kohler (W) Steve Shults (W), Stella Watson (B), Bruce Moore (B), Janet Buford Nancy Rousseau (W), Mary Jane Cheatham (W), Valerie Hudson (B). mee ting DATES: April. 29, June 3, July 10, Oct. 2, Dec. 12, 1996. Next scheduled meetings dates are March 6, 1997 and June 5, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: Conflict resolution training and skill development for students as been implemented and commercial curriculum has been adopted for use in the secondary schools. Training was conducted for teachers October 16-19, 1996. All secondary buses have been equipped with 2-way radios\nadditional security has been assigned to monitor buses and bus stops. Additional cameras have been added to the buses. Training for bus drivers has been provided. Additional security equipment has been added to control access to school buildings, grounds, and events. A pilot program for evaluating security devices has begun at Central High and the Alternative Learning Center. A program to assist staff in full understanding safety policies and procedures has been implemented and is on-going. To enhance communications throughout the community regarding the safety and security issue, efforts to address this have occurred at Town Hall meetings, Superintendent Chat sessions, PTA council and PTA Board meetings. The Safety and Security Department is developing a manual on How to Establish a Parent Patrol for schools and transportation. In order to better inform the public about the control of drug activity, violence prevention, and safety issues, the student handbook was distributed August 10, 1996 to neighborhood associations, parents, businesses, and city government. 1,000 extra copies of the manual were printed for community distribution.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ELEVEN\nWe will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. COMMIITeE\nJohn Ruffin (B) lead administrator, Richard Kennedy (W) chairman, Sam Branch (B), Susan Schoessel (W), Kenyon Lowe (B), Carletta Burchett (B), Debby Herden (W), Tom Smith (W), Sandra Hoff (W), Tom Alstadt (W), Lucy Lyon (^, Barbara Kennedy (W), Richard Kirchmeier (W), Cesar Compadre (W), Manlynn Hendricks (W), Chuck Morse (W), Max Brantley (W), Scott Kristie Winthrop Rockefeller (Vf), John Riggs (W), Susan Beard (W), Charles Moore (B), Lou Ethel Nauden (B),Lynn Leidigh (W), Charles Moore (B), John Walker (B), Larry Berkley (W), Tom Malone (W). MEETING DATES\nJuly 24, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, Oct. 8, Oct. 29, Nov. 26, 1996, Feb. 20, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED\nA definition for technology in terms of the educational and administrative needs of the LRSD has been developed. A broad based technology advisory board for the LRSD has been established. The committee articulated three major areas of initial focus\n1) Procurement issues, 2) Technical support, 3) Training and staff development. The committee is working in sub-groups on these three issues. Also completed is the installation of a decision support system which is now in place and operational. This system addresses the issue of gathering, storing, and analyzing student data bases.02/28/97 16:27 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATI ODM @001/003 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT HIO WEST MARKHAM SI REE'l' LII TLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501)324-2032 DATE 57 TO Central Arkansas Media FROM Suellen Vann SENDERS PHONE# 324-2020 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial * 01 rOR COMMUNICATIONS OTl'ICE USE ONl.Y' Transmitted By Date Time02/28/97 16:28 501 324 2023 I.RSD COMMUNI CAT I ODM 002 003 J Little Rock School District Community Leaders, School Supporters Coming Together for Little Rocks Public Schools at Assembly for Success /^SEMBLY FOR February 28,1997 For Immediate Release Coiwfcw Tcaate for Iide ftiHc Sdnots For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Joy Wier, 374-4871 Gail Nickerson, 370-9300 Over one thousand supporters of the Little Rock School District are being invited to gather on Monday, March 10,1997, to demonstrate support for efforts toward reshaping the districts future. The Assembly for Success, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. in the Clinton Grand Ballroom of Arkansas Excelsior Hotei, will be a spirited rally by community and business leaders, parents, school staff, students and representatives of the work groups named at last nights school board meeting. 'The formation of work groups which will define the future of the Little Rock School District is a landmark occasion toward improving our schools, said Superintendent Don R. Roberts. This coming together of our community for a rally is (more) AAOJUaaMtailiii 02/28/97 16:29 QaOl 324 2023 LRSD COMMLMCATI ODM @003 003 LRSD Rally Page 2 of2 a Step toward a new optimism for the future of our public schools. The court-approved moratorium allows us a window of opportunity which has not existed previously to initiate significant educational changes. JJ The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools have partnered with the district to plan the Assembly for Success. 33 Entergy, which has always played a major role in supporting public education in Arkansas, is the events major corporate sponsor. Doug Buford, chairman of the board of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, said, This assembly on March 10 will demonstrate the optimism of the business community that the Little Rock public schools, under Dr. Roberts leadership. are on the threshold of making significant improvements. A lot of us have talked about what we can do, and now Dr. Roberts is giving us those opportunities to get involved. AU of us in the community are encouraged by recent events which impact the Little Rock School District, said Baker Kurrus, president of the Little Rock Alliance For Our PubUc Schools. This new sense of enthusiasm will drive the endeavors of the newly formed work groups which we believe will result in great strides for the district. The Assembly for Success will culminate with a roll call of community groups and educational organizations which are supportive of the Little Rock School District. Representatives of local organizations that have an interest in the future success of the district wiU be invited to the rally. II /I ff03/06/97 13:33 501 324 2023 LRSD COM'IVNICATI ODM @002. 003 Little Rock School District MEDIA ALERT March 6,1997 For Immediate Release For more information: Snellen Vann, 324-2020 Joy Wier, 374-4871 Gail Nickerson, 370-9300 WHAT: ASSEMBLY FOR SUCCESS Coming Together for Little Roch's Public Schools A national convention-style rally of support for Little Rocks public schools. This is a wonderful opportunity for a very visual Live at Five or Six broadcast with about 1,000 attendees. WHEN: Monday, March 10,1997 Reception, 4:30 p.m. Program, 5:00 p.m. WHERE: Clinton Grand Ballroom Arkansas Excelsior Hotel WHO: One thousand representatives of community organizations, businesses, parent groups and schools will gather to express their support of the public schools in Little Rock. The event is open to the public.Stand Up And Be Counted Monday Afterfioon! \u0026gt; o You are personally invited to attend the Assembly For Success, a major rally in support of Little Rocks public schools. Our community is coming together to pledge their support for our schools on Monday, March 10, in the Clinton Grand Ballroom of Arkansas Excelsior Hotel. The Assembly For Success begins at 4:30 p.m. with a reception, followed promptly at 5:00 p.m. with a special program you wont want to miss! Enclosed is your special ticket/name tag. Print your name in the space provided and wear it Monday to be admitted to the Assembly. Please come and show your support for Little Rocks public schools. Your attendance is very important! If unable to attend, send someone to represent you! Organizations from throughout Central Arkansas will be saluted for their role in support of our public schools. This is your chance to stand up and be counted as a participant in the positive momentum building for Little Rocks public schools. o C5 o 73 tn y-it -I  o FOROWnBUCSQUU unuRocx The Assembly For Success is a parmershil) project of the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. ASSEMBLY FOR SUCCESS The Assembly*s Major Corporate Sponsorship is provided by: Enlerfiv Coming Together for Little Rocks Public Schools MONDAY, MARCH 10  4:30 P.M. RECEPTION, 5:00 P.M. PROGRAM  CLINTON BALLROOM. ARKANSAS EXCELSIOR HOTEL O o o o 6 To: From: Date: Re: Ann Polly 5-2-97 QV u/iV dUMu^i \u0026amp; Joshuas involvement during the plan development period In an order filed 4-29-97, the Judge stated that, during the plan development period, the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD were discussing and working together in preparing proposed plan modifications. Horace, Margie, Melissa, and Skip said that no Joshua representatives were on their working teams, although Margie stated that her discipline team plans to include Joshua later. Gene was out of the office and, since he is the only associate on the incentive school team, we do not know if Joshua is represented on the incentive school working team. Redflag: If John doesnt agree with the final modifications, he might appeal on the basis that he was not involved during the development stages. Also, it seems that from some language listed below, that ODM is to advi^ and consult with him during the development period. 'i For your review, I have both attached the following documents and restated, with emphasis, the relevant statements from:  LRSDs 12-6-96 motion and brief  Joshuas response  Courts 12-27-96 order  Courts 4-29-97 order In the 12-6-96 motion, LRSD stated: LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. ...in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD ODM could...support LRSDs efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD... ...prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan...In the brief that supports the 12-6-96 motion, LRSD restates: ODM could...support LRSDs efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan... In Joshuas response to the 12-6-96 motion, Joshua states: That office [0DM1 would consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan. The Joshua Intervenors will respond in a prompt and good faith manner to proposals to modify the agreements with regard to the LRSD. These intervenors may well suggest provisions to address problems in the areas mentioned in lead counsels letter to the court of December 5 (at 2-3). LRSD and Joshua representatives are in the process of discussing ways in which perceived problems of class members, in the area of discipline for example, can be address in a better fashion, but with lesser demand on the interim superintendents time. The objective of this effort is to allow the superintendent to focus on his ideas for plan modifications and systemic efforts to address some of the problems surfaced by these intervenors. The parties can present to the court any agreed upon changes in the plans, as well as periodic status reports on their progress. In Judge Wrights 12-27-96 order, she states: . ..the Court finds that the motion should be granted. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. ...the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODMT to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. ...the parties...will benefit from...the expertise of ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. . . The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. In the order fded 4-29-97, the court states: [T]he LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The Court is mindful that the parties are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans...i I 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 filed EASTERN'D?s^ra?CT ARKANSAS APR 2 9 1997 JAMES By\n w. McCormack, clerk \u0026lt; cumt ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorneys fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSDs motion. The ' Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorneys fees. The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Courts September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors motion for attorneys fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorneys fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSDs requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorneys fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to . .J -----  withdraw its motion for reconsideration ofthe Courts Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSDs motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors motion for attorneys fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that the parties are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modification^ the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorneys fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time (doc. 2837) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorneys fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order.  SO ORDERED this day of April 1997. JNIIED STATES DISTRICT jfiDGE UNITED GE ON IN 'The resolution of the issue of attorneys fees will not defeat the LRSDs right to refile its\" motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Courts Order of December 27, 1996. 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL Ofiics of DeseSfSgsSon ^'oniisfint^NTERVEuoRS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL  INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expeirt testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational progreim for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the courtplan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively^ with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD eind Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval. support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plaui for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline 2issues\nand by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nto redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development. staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues\nand, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. 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: Christopher Helli (/81083)^ John C. Fendley, Jr.' (#92182) 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop^^\nmail on this ly depositing a copy of same in the United States day of , 1996. 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell 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 Markhcim Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle\nJohn C. Fendley, Jr. 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-S'66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL CtC G DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL J996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Ofrice of Dese^rocsiicn Woni'Cfirxj INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN D' LOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jaril, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard. If the the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from thePCSSD.\" Id? Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month pleui development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development. staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD\nby redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. V. Wray. 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified modification. myriad of changed circumstances which justify County School See. Board. e.g., 978 Jacksonville Branch, F.2d 1574, 1582 NAACP V. Duval (11th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitadaly tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). a ^^hniTW^ftwrihT*liTil*hTi piw ijrr 2budget development, staff development, student assignment and resol\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_p15728coll3_429403","title":"National Dunbar Alumni Association newsletters","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":["1996/2001"],"dcterms_description":["Newsletters from the National Dunbar Alumni Association.","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":["National Dunbar Alumni Association newsletters"],"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/429403"],"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_p15728coll3_424617","title":"Ozell Sutton individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Sutton, Ozell"],"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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Ozell Sutton.","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"],"dcterms_title":["Ozell Sutton individual file"],"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/424617"],"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_706","title":"Reading recovery","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":["1996/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Literacy","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Reading recovery"],"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/706"],"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":["143 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\nTUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996  SB Reading teachers hit the books in LR f BY LINDA S. CAILLOUET  Democrat-Gazelte Staff Writer Schools out for students, but for teachers interested in improving elementary reading skills, its back to the classroom for the next two weeks. About 60 Reading Recovery teachers from across the country are at the Little Rock Hilton to learn about a program Anne Allen and Linda Dorn began at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Later this summer, another group will arrive for a second session, Reading Recovery is a program for children with reading problems that was founded in New Zealand during the 1960s and is now used successfully internationally. From it, Allen and Dorn developed their Early Literacy program. Its sort of like a dance, Allen said, summing up the relationship behveen the Reading Recovery and Early Literacy programs. The child leads: the teacher follows. But the teacher is able to take every step the child takes and teach him along the way. Gradually, theyre waltzing out the door. Reading Recovery is a pro-am for first-graders with reading problems. In it, specially trained teachers work one-on-one with pupils for 30 minutes a day. In Arkansas, about 170 teachers work with about 6,500 students in the local Reading Recovery program established six years ago. Early Literacy was created as a way to make the most of the specialized Reading Recovery teachers who were only working with four students a half a day, said Allen, a Reading Recovery trainer at UALR. Early Literacy also reaches out to more children with reading difficulties. When Allen and Dorn created Early Literacy, they included kindergarten, second-and third- graders, as well as first-graders. Instead of working one-on-one, teachers work with a group of four or five.   Early Literacy uses some Reading Recovery techniques  such as teaching children how to solve problems. ' '~ When a child gets stuck with a word, the teacher doesn't tell him the word but instead asks him questions about it, Allen said. Both Reading Recovery and Early Literacy are funded by the state Legislature through the state Department of Education, Allen said. Its an intervention program, not a remedial program, one participant, Grace Sims of Riverside,- Calif,, said of Reading Recov-\" ery.^Ve identify the students who are going to need help in the future and begin interveni^, she said. - Sims, a Reading Recovery teacher, wants to do the same' with Early Literacy techniques, by reaching out to more students,. Sandra Dennison of Hannibal, Mo,, agreed. I came to better the way I represent the first-graders in my district. FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1999  Arkansas Democrat (Gazette District plans B shift gears on reading ii.'.T The group began its work last September but based much of it on goals established in the districts five-year strategic plan and its desegregation plan. Still other resources included the recommenda- LRe^Iy-grades proposal I tions of a district reading and mathematics work group established in 1996 and the results of a district ftKls social promotion .*4^:3Y CYNTHIA HOWELL -f' ARK.ANS.AS DEMOCRAT-G.AZETTE ^a' Ajjroposai to change the way the ypungest children in Uie Little Rock District are taught to read ambrite calls for an end to social fhpmotions, or advancing pupils to thevnext grade before they are reS\u0026amp;y. ^Other pronsions in the draft lit- e\n^ plan presented to the district Sdmbl Board for the first time i Mufsday call for B-9eservuig and treating as sa- eced. 27rhours each day for Ian- I guage arts instruction in prekindergarten through third grade.  Abandoning numerous reading programs currently used in various schools in the district unless proven successful in terms of student achievement  Providing as many as 400 prima- ly-grade teachers with training in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELL.A) program, which is designed to help teachers incorporate the best-known strategies for  teaching reading in their classrooms.  A redesigned elementary school report card to provide more specific . Information to parents about Lhetr-childs academic progress.  The development of after-school anijfjsummer-school clinics and oth- erl^teiventions to prevent pupils from failing reading before the end of^ch school year. \u0026gt;the' literacy pn Jthe' program for pre- ! kinjiergarten through third grade ' wSs-developed by a district commit- tee of teachers, school district administrators and others with expertise in early childhood education. The committee was chaired by Pat Price, the districts director of early childhood education. reading summit held at that time.  The board did not act on the drafLThursday. Superintendent Les Gamine saiathe proposal now will be circu- la^sdjor comment among district facpl^ for comments and reaction. Components of the plan could be pijl-ihto place by next fall. Some tegchers have already undergone literacy training and more than 70 ( are signed up for a summer session.\n'The literacy plans goals are to eliminate the practice of social promotions and to put into place an instructional program and support necessary to ensure that all children can read independently by the time they complete third grade. 'The proposal does not include statistics on how many students are socially promoted each year, but it does include information showing that 70 percent of district fourth- graders scored at or below basic levels on the states new Grade Four Benchmark exam in the spring of 1998. Only 28 percent of , theistudents scored at a proficient level, which is considered passing, and 2 percent scored at an ad- vanced level. The Literacy Committee called the^cores unacceptable. 'Ihe committee also expressed concerns about the proliferation of reading programs throughout the distinct and the lack of understanding-on how the programs can or should fit together. 'Die committee listed more than 20 different literacy-related programs that are in use in the elementary schools. i'\"fS 2 2 1999 OlfICEOF FINAL REPORT LRSD EARLY LITERACY INITIATIVE FEBRUARY 18, 1999COMMITTEE MEMBERS Pat Price, Early Childhood Gene Parker, Jr., Reading Dr. Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Judy Teeter, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Ann Freeman, Smart Start Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation \u0026amp; Monitoring Dr. Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2LRSD EARLY LITERACY INITIATIVE In accordance with the goals and strategies of the Districts Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court- approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades pre-k through two is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish this committee, which has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices within the reading education arena nation-wide,  and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the Districts 1998-99 identified priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above, this committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: Review current District curriculum and assessment and determine current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. Review the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identify possible gaps or discrepancies between the initiative components and the District curricular focus. Identify all supplemental reading programs currently in use in District primary level classrooms and note compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. Also, determine whether supplemental efforts strengthen or hinder continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. Draw conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarize key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Recommend key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. Recommend key resources and necessary collaborations. 3Current District Curriculum In April 1998 the LRSD Board for kindergarten and Assessment of Directors approved through grade 6, which new Distripf ' o. wnich now serve to Standards istnct-wide multicultural reading/language arts crrip i student to refine these guiding standards to ensurelhat tLv a Additional work has been done Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with^the intend Initiative. intent of the new statewide Smart Start mastery of the thXls grade level benchmarks that will serve as process i ce,a,o a riy  aahool due fcTSr'- '.\"Prehensive .eacher .Snhe \u0026gt; pull-out reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing L^esstent T ^district-adopted at achieving continuity of effort from traX? .  of sufficient funding aimed school to school within the District. ^ch school and from training, lack of staff to programs, lack of consistent monitor and assist all use of District-adopted to Additional curriculum transition from literacy education efforts coordination is needed to ensure experiential learning to skill across the District. . . . continuity of effort and acquisition among PreK K appropriate and primary level The Arkansas State-Wide Smart Start Initiative The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas. expected levels will P'-omotePthe'missfon o?Smart^ administrators, all activities matter content, curriculum alignment with fop assessment results, the utihzaln\"o^\"Xfogv topics related to subject gy and distance learning. Student Assessment - Will be clearlv ,i\n j . classroom instruction. Frameworks and _Accu,abili,y _ After standards are clearly con.nnicared --------available\nand reliable, valid activities have been made staff development assessments have been 4developed and administered\nschools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs will be conducted during 1998-99 to include training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2, Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to Frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams will be continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4 during the interim period in which the state will be developing additional assessment components. Various departments within the Districts Instructional Resource Center have been working with state department employees on the development of components of the Smart Start Initiative. Also several District employees assisted the state in the initial Smart Start State Training sessions. This collaboration has helped to ensure that the District is in sync with the overall state focus. As a result no gaps or discrepancies exist between the District and state efforts. Supplemental Reading Programs Currently in Use A variety of supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs: Jostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining programs/methods are: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metra Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. As many as six supplemental programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, and four schools are implementing six programs. The program descriptions are as follows\nJostens, New Century, and (CCC) Computer Curriculum Corporation Programs - are computer-based instructional programs used in elementary schools. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons, practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. 5support. process that Primary features include\nI. Literacy support groups Une-to-one tutoring 3. Individualized instruction 4. Home/school reading connection Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) - i 5. Ongoing assessment is a three-year staff The staff development topics include: support emergent learners. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing Reading process instruction Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding Phonemic awareness Letter discrimination/recognition Letter/sound relationship Recognizing high frequency words 0. Decoding/word attack skills/word 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies analysis 13. Classroom 14. Parent involvement management and organization 15. Authentic assessment/standardized tests Success For All provides specific curricula and i\nteaching reading with teacher scripts. instructional strategies for Primary features include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. School-wide reading curriculum Cooperative learning Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessmenl Tutonng fo, ude,s in need of extra assistance Family support team assistance every 8 weeks) *- is individualized to move at his or her own  Primaiv f' 7 1 i i'' of Sy\"\" Primary features include\n1 Student choice of books from a list of carefully selected books 61. 3. 4. Individualized reading that allows students to move at his or her own pace Computerized testing that measures student comprehension Parental involvement Open Court - a phonics program that centers on student drill using a wall sound card chart. Shurley Method - a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions by jingles. Metra Phonics Program - a phonics program that uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction - presents prescriptive lessons to small groups in the lower grades. Primary features include: 1. Field-tested reading, language arts, and math curricula 1. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training Carbo Reading Styles - is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the students preferred style of reading. Primary features include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work Hosts (Help One Student to Succeed) - is a structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts. Primary features include: 1. Database and software programs aligned with the schools curriculum 2. Students matched with trained parents, businesses, and community 3. volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and high order thinking skills Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate and support individual students 7P '\u0026gt; teachers infuse The content of the staff development includes: I. Instruction focused on four high order thinking skills - analvsis comparison inference, and evaluation that students  2. academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations. can use in all 3. 4. Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based on pre and post writing assignments. Portfolios used techniques with emphasis tn nan systcmatic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth m skill development. Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 - is a two-year staff development designed to train teachers in i become process The intent of the staff development incl udes: 1. 2. A balanced literary program Planned reading/writing instruction based evaluation on assessment and 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading process Phonetic skills and strategi es Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/work attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11 Assessment 12. Parental involvement 8Conclusions and Recommendations A series of interrelated events over the last two years has provided the LRSD with a greater opportunity than, perhaps, at any other single time in its history to impact student learning dramatically and positively. The revised desegregation plan, the strategic plan, the campus leadership initiative, and the Smart Start initiative collectively mandate bold action in setting a singular direction across the District for reading/language arts education to ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of grade three. Many of the ingredients for success are already in place. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all student with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Unfortunately, no matter how appropriate these ingredients are, success remains elusive when they are ignored or superficially treated. This committee believes after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in use - some of which are used in place of the Districts curriculum - that the bold action necessary requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of too much stuff. Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality regardless of which school their children attend. This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4, 1997, which provided direction for writing the revised desegregation plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education (see attached). The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently: 1. Limit the primary teaching focus to reading/language arts and mathematics instruction at grades PreK-3, and direct teachers at these grade levels to teach any other relevant content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences that engage all students in active learning. 92. 3. 4. Design a mandatory two-and-one-half hour uninterrupted language arts block composed of the following key reading experiences:  Teacher reads good literature aloud - 20 minutes per day  Phonics and word study - 20 minutes per day  Shared reading - 20 minutes per day  Independent reading at fluency level - 30 minutes per day  Writing - 20 minutes per day  Guided reading instruction - 40 minutes per day These key experiences are foundational components of any research based approach to successful reading education. They do not, however, represent the sum total of expected reading/language arts activities in PreK-3 classrooms. Additionally, teachers should be expected to integrate reading and writing experiences throughout the entire school day, providing all of their students with ample, content-based, thematically organized opportunities to develop and use their language skills. Furthermore, each grade level, PreK-3, must be expected to strategically adhere to an action plan for providing each of the above experiences in a way that is developmentally and age appropriate, as well as in proper sequence. If reading independence is to occur for all students by the end of grade three, comprehensive effort must be made, beginning with a developmental PreK and a kindergarten program that aims for reading readiness in students and followed by a commitment at grades one, two, and three to use the time necessary to provide students with adequate opportunity to develop as readers. Finally, such commitment does not mean lots of different reading programs or approaches into which select students are placed incrementally in disjointed efforts to meet the overall requirements. The effort must be classroom-based, standards-focused, teacher-managed, and student-centered\nand every effort must be made to ensure the integrity of the human factor - the teacher must be adequately trained and supported to ensure that the student is motivated and engaged. Minimize pullouts from the classroom to ensure that primary learning experiences remain intact for all students. Do not allow necessary pullouts to interrupt reading/ language arts instruction and ensure that reading/language arts instruction occurs at times during the school day when student capacity for learning is at its best. In other words, build the school day schedule around the primary learning experiences and do not allow other experiences to encroach upon or interfere with the designated time blocks. Design and implement a district-wide process to determine and monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials for use in achieving the reading/ language arts standards and for ensuring that all PreK-3 classrooms are equipped with sufficient, appropriate materials to facilitate and enhance learning for all students. Include with the monitoring process a timeline and ongoing budgetary commitment for placing in every PreK-3 classroom an up-to-date age and developmentally appropriate library of sets of books appropriate for individual and small group reading experiences and complementary to the thematic choices that drive and integrate instruction. Tie the materials monitoring process to 10delivery standards and develop classroom profile rubrics to ensure that all classrooms meet or exceed the standards. Consider adding an appropriate indicator to the district accountability index to validate the importance of appropriate materials and classroom environment to learning success. 5. Design/identify and require the use of appropriate assessment inventories and pre/post tests to regularly monitor student progress in reading, including but not limited to quarterly CRTs where appropriate. Design and put into place in every PreK-3 classroom a portfolio management plan that assists teachers in making appropriate instructional decisions and that demonstrates individual student progress toward achieving the benchmarks and standards so that appropriate help can be provided immediately when any students falls behind. Design new report cards/rubric-based progress reports to provide teachers, parents/guardians, and other appropriate individuals with information that makes sense about a students real learning achievements or deficits. 6. Develop, implement, and manage a comprehensive, ongoing professional development program for PreK-3 teachers that focuses on important instructional components, including reading and writing processes, primary cueing systems, integrated phonics instruction, introduction to English grammar, vocabulary development, and spelling instruction. Provide training to all teachers on how to develop and manage thematic units, evaluate and assess student progress, create and maintain a student-centered classroom, and maintain instructional management in a diverse, mainstreamed classroom. Tie the PreK-3 professional development program to appropriate delivery standards to ensure quality and continuity. Develop teacher behavior rubrics to assist teachers and principals in determining specific professional development needs and to be used by central office to manage an appropriate, relevant, and focused menu of professional development opportunities. In addition to recommending the above actions which are linked to the revised desegregation plan via the Work Team Final Report, this committee also recommends the following additional actions to ensure continuity of focus on the standards at grades K-3: 1. Continue, support, and expand Reading Recovery, ELLA, and Effective Literacy, all of which directly support the reading/language arts curriculum and Smart Start. Provide teachers with classroom materials needed to fully implement these efforts. 2. Identify specific criteria for approving all supplemental reading programs acquired by individual schools with Title One funds or other funds. Develop and continually update a master list of such programs that meet the criteria. Base the selection criteria on the following universally accepted characteristics of reading best practices: - Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. - Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. - Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. 11Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of a basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics, keeping in mind that phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. In effective reading programs, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. Reading assessment should match classroom practices. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports reading. Also, ensure that approved programs are used in a supplementary capacity and add safeguards to prevent their use in supplanting district curriculum. Under no circumstances should such programs diminish the focus of the two-and-one- half hour language arts block. The components of and time frame for that block must be considered sacred. 3. 4. 5. Design and establish a minimum of four after school reading clinics and strategically locate them in elementary school buildings throughout the District. Employ trained teachers to oversee tutorial sessions, testing, and record keeping and employ trained tutors to provide prescriptive tutorials. Use a sliding pay scale to accommodate students and their families and provide District scholarships on a most-in-need-of-service basis for students on free or reduced lunch plans. Ensure that students classroom portfolios (see #5, p. 9) are accessible and that clinic assessments become part of them for those students receiving services. Develop a District-wide grades K-2 intensive reading summer program designed to serve no fewer than 800 students patterned after the clinic approach used in the after-school program described above. Provide developmental experiences for students at the K level and skills prescriptive experiences for students in grades 1 and 2. Ensure that students classroom portfolios (see #5, p. 9) are accessible and that summer program assessments become part of them for those students receiving services. Develop a District-wide plan for reducing class size at grades PreK through 3 and ensure the lowest possible student/teacher ratios at grades 1 and 2. Identify a target goal for class size at each grade level and implement an action plan for reducing class sizes until the target goals are achieved. Ensure, as well, that teachers at grades PreK through 3 are sufficiently trained and experienced, and that 126. 7. 8. they demonstrate consistently the qualities most likely to evoke student the early grade levels. success at Fill the specialist vacancy in the Reading/Language Arts Department and do not organizationally violate the integrity of this department which provides cohesive mecbon for the Districts entire reading/language arts program. Provide additional support for the director who must also supervise other curricular Create at least one additional early childhood specialist position and hire a secretary for the director of early childhood. * areas. A Provide appropriate and ample opportunities for each department and for the various central office divisions to work collaboratively to ensure quality focused opportunities for department personnel to ttend literacy focused conferences and provide division time to bring together all epartments to identify specific literacy work priorities, to develop action plans and timelines, and to assess and evaluate effectivenpcc nf all ^-r^ii-.k,,.,,.:___ assess and evaluate effectiveness of all collaborative efforts. * The committee recognizes that a I I- , \" management audit is currently in progress but we believe that results of the audit will support our position that additional personnel are critical to the departments ability to operate successfully. delibtatinn Th ^^''^boration, and thoughtful Id W il f meaningful, and doable framework for action that and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes to commendations made by well-meaning people often become unrealized hopes or drean a'^ rLXT therefore, ask for^immediate  can hopes or dreams. approval to begin their implementation. We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the ~endations. We will meet monthly to review progress and ,0 ensZheco of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a fo?the\"Z believe should be immediately incorporated into the divisions work plan for the remainder ofthe school year. The timeline is attached for  P proposed budget. review, along with a In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will S U I, lu sei as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading t\" \" y yof tbe third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to education that prepares them for productive adult li^: h ffie before nX \"k 7 unwavering support for the clearly focuTed best-  p actice based, district-wide reading curriculum and program we believe our r^ommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all resources to the one ffort, whether the resources are school-based or district-based, or district-Zded or Tkle One supplemental, Campus-based decision making must be based on clear distrta gide7n and resources to the one 1314ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS PRIMARY GRADES 1. Adopt as a District goal that by the completion of third grade all students will be reading independently to make accurate meaning out of words on a page. 2. Limit the primary teaching focus to reading/language arts and mathematics instruction at grades K, 1,2, and 3\nand direct all teachers at these grades to teach science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences that require all students to be active learning participants. 3. Promote thematic instruction (using a specific theme such as bears of North America or rain forests to teach reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies in a planned context) to help students actively apply their learning.  4. Provide teachers with District-written samples of thematic units to model the approach and for teachers to use as examples to follow in creating their own appropriate thematic units. 5. Add to the District reading/language arts curriculum clear objectives that specifically address student mastery of all three reading cueing systems: 1) phonics - using sounds\n2) semantics - making meaning\nand 3) syntax - understanding the structure of language. 6. Add to the District reading/language arts and mathematics curricula clear objectives that specifically address student mastery of knowing-how-to-learn skills (such as research process, building on prior knowledge, or using context clues). 7. Design and put into place a system to monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials for helping to achieve curricular objectives and outcomes and to make sure that all classrooms are equipped with enough appropriate materials for all students to learn. 8. Write specific guidelines for all elementary schools that require principals to schedule uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction. Include in the requirements that all pullouts (computer lab, art, music, etc.) must occur after lunch so that all students benefit from reading/language arts and mathematics teaching and learning without interruption. 9. Design and require the use of appropriate assessment inventories and pre/post tests to regularly monitor student progress in reading and mathematics beginning at grade K. 10. Design and put into place a District-wide portfolio assessment plan to monitor individual student progress toward achieving learning objectives and to make sure that appropriate help is immediately provided when any student falls behind.11. SS'Sikw sZXnh^^T*^ P^rents/guardians with information uidi inaKes sense about the real learning achievements of their children. 12. Organize pre-K, K, and grade 1 programs to provide important learning readiness * \u0026lt;=------- uuMUHfliii icdininu rea w1!hTT''^\\ oral language, etc.) for students who without such experiences so that they can master learning \u0026lt; of third grade^ Include strategies to intervene when students are struggling with mas7ei^of basic reading/language arts and mathematics skills. come to school on grade level by the completion 13. Develop and ope ate a comprehensive, ongoing training program for K, 1, and 2 teachers hat focuses on planning and teaching thematic units, assessing and evaluating student learning, and managing successful learning for all students * classrooms. in diverse, mainstreamed 14. Plan for grade 3 to be a transitional year from a primary focus L... \"  familiar teaching of specific subjects throughout the school day. mathematics to the more on reading/language arts and 15. Gaining program for grade 3 teachers to help them p ovide the appropriate transitional learning experiences for all of their students prepare them for success in grades 4-6. in order to 16. Line up reading/language arts and mathematics curricula teaching strategies and learning activities that make it loi an iimitea tnelish proficient and non-English speaking students to fully participate in mainstreamed classrooms and provide training with appropriate on-site follow-up for all Newcomer Center teachers on how to do this. iNewcomer at grades K-3 with appropriate it possible for all limited EnglishLRSD EARLY LITERACY INITIATIVE SPRING, 1999 TIMELINE ACTION DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE Plan summer school curriculum and instructional focus, and plan teacher training. Also complete student selection process. Identify timeline for delivery of training modules (see #9). Develop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs. Write specific job descriptions for new specialists and secretarv. Advertise for and interview. Identify' the primary learning components for PreK-grade 3.  Describe content/focus  Identify time needed for instruction Write guidelines for schools to follow when scheduling at grades Pre-K-3. (See #3, p. 8.) Write guidelines/teacher manual for I'/i language arts block.  Make grade level specific  Include how to/what to do/why do it/ troubleshooting sections Design classroom profile rubrics.  Make grade level specific  Format status quo to most desirable matri.x Design teacher behavior rubrics. Design materials appropriateness checklist.  Identify required materials  Develop guidelines for additional materials Develop guidelines for thematic instruction. Develop portfolio assessment plan. February February March March/May/June March March March March March March April April Departments/Consultant Departments Departments/T eachers/ Principals/Title One Departments Dcpartments/Teachers/ Principals Departments Departments Departments/T eachers/ Principals Dcpartments/Teachers/ Principals Departments Departments DepartmentsDesign/identify assessment inventories.  Identify pre-post component  Make grade level specific and/or reading level specific Develop training modules for:  Shared reading/writing  Guided reading/writing  Integrated phonics  Intro to English grammar  Vocabulary development  Spelling instruction  Planning for and managing thematic instruction  Studcnt/classroom assessment and student/ classroom evaluation  Components of student-centered classrooms Identifi'/plan for After School Reading Clinics Begin Module-based training Order and distribute ELLA support materials April Departments April * ongoing Departments/Consultants Mav June June\nJuly (order) Departments/Consultants Departments/Consultants Departments1. 2. 3. 4. 5. BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS School-Based Professional Development and Program Support (See Recommendation #1, p. 11.) ELLA Training Stipend $262.75 per teacher/5-day training @ $52.55 per day for 298 teachers Materials and Supplies @ $150.00 per class for guided reading sets to accommodate 298 classrooms Total Stipend Cost Total Classroom Supplies Cost TOTAL District Professional Development and Program Support (See Recommendations #4, p. 10\n#2, p. 10\nand #6, p. 11.) MATERIALS Classroom Books - grades 3 \u0026amp; 4 @ $200 per class for guided reading book sets or classroom collections to accommodate 175 classrooms. Focus on materials for students who are reading below Proficiency levels. Total for Classroom Books Developmentally appropriate print for PreK \u0026amp; K classes @ $100 for 45 classes Total for PreK \u0026amp; K Print THEMATIC INSTRUCTION Commercially prepared thematic units for grades K-2 and 3-5 to serve as a foundation for teachers to develop own units @ $1,000 per school for 35 schools Total for Thematic Instruction Cost MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/STAFF DEVELOPMENT - Materials, supplies, \u0026amp; texts for workshops - Staff Development/supplies for principals TOTAL SUMMER SCHOOL FOR K-2 (See Recommendation #4, p. 12.) - Salaries, Training, Building Expenses, Materials, Transportation (currently funded) TOTAL READING CLINIC (See Recommendation #3, p. 12.) Salaries, Training, Building Expenses, Materials, Transportation The Reading clinic will be free for some/fee of possibly $15 per individual \u0026amp; $25 per family TOTAL $ 78,299.50 44,700.00 $122,999.50 35,000.00 4,500.00 35,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 $ 99,500.00 332,040.00 $332,040.00 175,840.00 $175,840.00 PERSONNEL (See Recommendations #6, p. 113, and #7, p. 13.) 1 Reading Specialist (11-month contract) (not a new position\ncurrently vacant) 1 Early Childhood Specialist (11-month contract) 1 Secretary (Early Childhood - 12 month contract) 47,900.00 TOTAL 47,900.00 27,731.00 $123,531.00\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_700","title":"Roberts, Don, Ph.D.","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":["1996/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School superintendents","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Roberts, Don, Ph.D."],"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/700"],"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":["423 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\nRoberts was Little Rock School District superintendent.\nCONTfNGENCY COMMITTEE REPORT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JULY 18, 1996 Rett Tucker and Roosevelt Brown, Co-chairmen Debbie Glasgow, Marian Lacey, Betty Mitchell, Skip Rutherford, John Walker Members of the School Board and citizens of Little Rock, my name is Rett Tucker and I am Co-chairman of the Contingency Committee approved by this Board earlier this year. Other members, who are present, include Co-chairman Dr. Roosevelt Brown, PTA Council President Debbie Glasgow, Mann Principal Marian Lacey, CTA President Betty Mitchell, fomier school board president Skip Rutherford and attorney John Walker. On behalf of Dr. Brown, let me begin by thanking the Board for putting your confidence and trust in us. We also want to thank th? committee members for their dedication and hard work. We met numerous times in the spring and put together the framework of a contingency plan in the event it was needed. We have had almost perfect attendance at every meeting. We took this assignment very seriously. We considered it an honor and an opportunity to participate in this very important process. We resolved from the beginning that we would put our differences aside and work toward consensus. When we were notified Sunday that Dr. Williams was going to Kansas City, we were prepared. To finalize our recommendations, we have met every day this week and now come before you with a recommended plan of action. 1This plan comes to you with our unanimous support. In fact, I must say that our committee-with strong wills, strong personalities, strong views and all the diversity we prize in Little Rocknever once had a split vote and never met an issue that we didnt resolve in a civil and thoughtful way. I have been part of many committees both personally and professionally, but this one has represented the best and most gratifying experience Ive ever had. Lets clarify first what we did not do. Although there has been a great deal of speculation, we did not consider the selection of a permanent Superintendent. That Was not our assignment. We do believe, however, that this is a very important decision in its own right because it comes at such a critical time. We focused on the short-term, although we define short-term as one to two years. Tonight, we have two major recommendations. Our first deals with getting through the next several days and weeks. In this regard, we congratulate Dr. Williams on his new position and wish him well. We thank him for his leadership and his service. This is a tough job. We recognize that and appreciate all he has done. Although Dr. Williams will remain on the payroll until September 1, we know that he will be spending a great deal of his time, his talent and his energy-as he should-on Kansas City and the future. 2While he will still be a very valuable resource for this school district, we proposefrom tomorrow through August 14, the formation of a five-person management team which would report directly to the Board. This team would operate in the same spirit that our Contingency Committee has operated: successfully addressing a short-term assignment. We spent a great deal of time and thought on the membership of this team. We looked for people with experience, with dedication and who had the energy to take on extra assignments. We recommend the following individuals: Dr. Victor Anderson would serve as the daily operations officer. He biings a wealth of experience as a principal, an administrator and, more importantly, as a person who is recognized as both a consensus builder and a team player. He would be in charge of day to day administration. Joining him on the team will be Sadie Mitchell, a former teacher, a former principal, and now an administrator, who has worked very closely with the elementary schools. Also, Jodie Carter, the principal of McClellan High School, who from first hand experience understands both the challenges and the opportunities of our senior high schools. Sadie will be in charge of all elementary schools and Jodie will have the responsibility for the senior high schools. The two other members come from our Contingency Committee. Let me add that neither sought a position on the team. In fact, both had to be drafted. 3Marian Lacey is the principal of Mann Junior High School. She is a principals principal and was such a positive voice on our committee. Marian knows the junior highs and her outstanding record at Mann speaks for itself. She will focus on all aspects of the junior high schools. Skip Rutherford, the only non-educator on the team, understands the school board better than most. He served on the Board from 1987 to 1991, as its president in 1989 and 1990 and coordinated two victorious millage campaigns. He will supervise communication and student assignments and will serve without pay. All of these members will continue to perform their current responsibilities. Marian Lacey will still be the principal at Mann and Jodie Carter will still be the principal at McClellan. Skip Rutherford will still work at Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods. Vic Anderson and Sadie Mitchell will still be district administrators. All of them, however, for the good of the district, will work on the management team which means extra duty and long hours for each of them. Please note that all four educators are or have been successful principals and the non-educator is a former school board member and president. The team is experienced. It needs to be because much will be happening over the next four weeksincluding the opening and beginning of school. We simply cant put this district on hold for that time period. This professional team addresses that issue. 4The second part of our recommendation relates to the position of Interim Superintendent. We considered many people and possibilities. We listened to board members and to interested citizens. We wanted to recommend someone who could provide effective, steady, experienced leadership\nsomeone with local ties who understands Little Rock, Arkansas and state school funding\nsomeone who could help this district and the Board in its search for a permanent Superintendent. We believe we have found that person. Tonight, we unanimously recommend to you. Dr. Don Roberts--the former Director of the Arkansas Department of Education and the former Assistant Superintendent of the Little Rock School District.-Dr. Roberts is an Arkansas native and was educated at Henderson State and the University of Arkansas. He served as State Education Director during the administrations of both Governor Bill Clinton and Governor Frank White. He has been a successful Superintendent in three urban school districts. We recommend him to you as Interim Superintendent for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two. This will give you the time, the breathing room and the opportunity to find the best Superintendent possible. As we know from experience, finding a Superintendent is not always a quick process. Dr. Roberts can and will help you in the search. He is 61 years old and retired in 1994 after seven years as Superintendent of the Fort Worth School District. This is a district with 72,000 students and 9,000 employees. Since that time, he has been doing consulting work with school districts across the country. 5He loves Little Rock, loves Arkansas, knows Little Rock and knows Arkansas. We sought him out for this position. He has always been dedicated to high quality desegregated education and seeks to build cooperation across racial lines. He is known as a person who keeps his word and works in good faith. He is an educator, an administrator and, we believe, a healer. He did not seek the job. We went after him. Dr. Roberts can be here tomorrow to meet with you individually and as a group. He can be in Little Rock and on the job no later than August 15. We also recommend the followins: When Dr. Roberts arrives on August 15, the management team will become an advisory team to him. Dr. Roberts would, of course, take over the day to day operations, but we envision the advisory team helping him on both a regular and as-needed basis. Their assistance in this transition will be invaluable. As I noted earlier, we believe Dr. Roberts should be given a one- year contract with the possibility of another year if needed. He has indicated he is not interested in the full-time Superintendents position, but, again, that subject is a matter for the Board to discuss at the appropriate time. We believe his compensation package should be comparable to that of Dr. Williams. 6V Dr. Roberts said it is extremely important to him that the citys leadership, the business community and other groups come together in support of the public schools. Weve seen a great deal of that happening already and tonight we have with us Mayor Dailey, other elected officials, city leaders, school patrons, parents and interested citizens who are here in support of quality desegregated public education in our city. As chairman of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, I can pledge to Dr. Roberts, the board, and the management team, the Chambers continued support. The next two Chamber Chairmen, Doug Buford and Janet Jones, are here to back me up. Finally, and this is very important: to provide tfiis district with stability as it works its way through some difficult problems and prepares for the 21st century, our colleague and fellow committee member John Walker, has agreedin good faithto a two-year moratorium on initiating any new legal action against the school district related to the settlement agreement. Dr. Roberts expressed reservations to our committee about accepting a position in a district embroiled in litigation and controversy. This offer was made by Mr. Walker to Dr. Roberts because of Dr. Roberts past record in the Little Rock School District and the State Department of Education. This means that the Board, Dr. Roberts and the employees in the District, for the first time in almost 40 years, can concentrate totally and fully on educating our children and on implementing and, if necessary, modifying the current desegregation plan and getting out of court. 7These are our recommendations. We believe they serve as a sound and reasonable short-term plan. We also believe they serve as a new beginning for the district and a bridge to the future. It is amazing what we can accomplish when we work together. Madame President and members of the Board, the Contingency Committee respectfully requests your approval of these recommendations. Having discharged our duties and responsibilities, we have concluded our assignment and will disband as a committee following tonights meeting. We thank you for this opportunity to serve our school district and our city. Dr. Brown and I as well as members of the committee are now available to answer any questions you might haye. Thank you. C:\\wpwin61'wpdoc3\\aicker\\Supmntendent.78 8RECEPCP Dr. Don R. Roberts 7216 Johnstone Lane Fort Worth, Texas 76133 (817) 346-6253 JUL I 1996 f 5 Office of Deseflfegation Monito..:0 Dr. Don fi. Roberts, served as superintendent of the Fort Worth (TX) Independent School District from March 1987 to July 1994. Before assuming the post in Fort Worth, he was a teacher, principal, and later superintendent of Weston (OR) Public Schools. He has served as associate superintendent of the Little Rock (AR) Public Schools\nsuperintendent of Newport News (VA) schools\ndirector of the Arkansas Department of Education, and superintendent of the Amarillo (TX) Independent School District. He holds B.A. and M.S.E. degrees from Henderson State Teachers College, (AR), has done other graduate study at the University of Oregon, and holds an Ed.D. degree from the University of Arkansas. Dr. Roberts has developed the Fort Worth\nC^ (Community, Corporations, and   - .- - - c is Classrooms) in cooperation with the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, the process to transform the FWISD through a variety of creative programs, educational restructuring, and school/business partnephips. Some of the initiatives under the c umbrella include: 0 The nationally recognized Vital Link program, which shows middle school students the connection between classroom achievement and workplace success, students and is The program began three years ago with 40 students. now a year-round activity involving 3,3Q0 Approximately 1,000 teachers have also been directly involved in Vital Link: 0 Equity 2000, a project with The College Board, that from the 1990- 91 to the 1993-94 school year. Sth and 9th grade enrollment in Algebra I showed a substantial increase. The enrollment increased from 2,850 to 5,626. Furthermore, by the end of the ninth grade more than 90% of all students had successfully completed Algebra I. Approximately 30% of the students made a \"B or better in the course: 0 Significant technology improvements such as TechLab 2000, which enables FWISD students in all high schools and middle schools to use computer networks to study new industrial technologies and eliminate out-of-date industrial arts-type programs\nApplied Learning activities, 0 including an Applied Learning Elementary School at Alice Carlson, and an Applied Learning Academy Middle School where students use the community as a resource and learn through hands-on activities in many locations\nPage 2 0 0 The New Standards Project, a national effort to define world-clys assessment standards and develop an examination system that includes student projects and portfolios of student work\nand The JCPenney High Performance Schools Project to train school personnel and parents in school'based decision making concepts tn FWISO schools. The District has become more open and more inclusive with strong emphasis on school-based decision iwking (SAW) and continued involvement and support of the Fort Worth ISD PTAs-PTOs, parents and the general coramunity. There are health collaboratives between ^^^5choo^ district and hospitals at three elementary schools. include the multi-age \"Connections\" program. .... . schools now offer year-round classes. The District s Adopt-A-School program has expanded with parent and connunity volunteers donating more than 575,000 hours to schools in 93-94. community. Early childhood initiatives On their own initiative, 12 Dr. Roberts has received many awards and honors, including twice being named one of the top 100 school chief executive officers by The Executive Educitor magazine. He was nationally recognized in Ndvenber, 1993 by the National Association of Partnerships in Education for his significant contributions to education reform and restructuring efforts. In April, 1994 Fort Worth won the Scholastic/National Alliance of Business Community in April, Award for Eacellence in Education. Following retirement from Fort Worth ISD in 1994, Dr. Roberts has worked with school districts in Arkansas and He several other states to implenent Vital Link programs. 1 has also represented Creative Learning Systems, Inc., developer and supplier of Technology Labs 2000 and other comprehensive laboratories for the study of science and technology.November, 1994 DON R. ROBERTS 7216 JOHNSTONE LANE FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76133 (817) 346-6253 TEACHING AND ADHIHISTRATIVE EXPERIENCES\nInstitution and Location Position Period Size Student/Emplovee Fort.Worth Ind. Sch. Dist. Fort Worth, Texas Superintendent 1987-94 72,000/9,000 Texas Christian University Superintendentin-Residence 1987-94  Amarillo Public Schools Amarillo, Texas Superintendent 1984-1987 27,500/3,200 Arkansas Dept, of Educ. Little Rock, Arkansas Director 1979-1984 450,000/1,600 Newport News Public Sch. Newport News, Virginia Superintendent 1974-1979 30,000/3,000 Little Rock Public Sch. Asst. Supt. Admn. Services and Pupil Services 1968-1974 23,000/2,000 Little Rock Public Sch. Little Rock, Arkansas Interim Deputy Superintendent 1967-1968 23,000/2.000 Weston Public Schools Weston, Oregon Superintendent 1959-1966 High Sch. Principal, Teacher, Coach 300/30 University of Arkansas Instructor Spring, 1970-1971Don\nR. Roberts page 2 FORMAL EDUCATION\nB.A. Economics Graduate Study Education M.S.E. Social Studies Graduate Study Education Ed. D. Educational Admn, Danforth NASE Fellow Henderson State Teachers College, 1958 Eastern Oregon College - Summer, 1959 Henderson State Teachers College, 1963 University of Oregon - Summer, 1965 University of Arkansas, 1969 1974 Selected and participated as one of 40 educational administrators from throughout the United States and Canada in an intensive two-month ^tudy program under the sponsorship of the Danforth Foundation and the National Academy for School Executives.Don R. Roberts page 3 RECOGNITION - HONORS, AWARDS. PRESENTATIONS, PUBLICATIONS (PARTIAL LIST]\n. \"Profile\" - School Administrator, November 1994 Community Award for Excellence in Education - National Alliance of Business/Scholastic Inc., 1994 McKee Award - National Association of Partnerships in Education, 1994 Outstanding Service to the Counseling Profession, N.C.T.C.A., 1993 Distinguished Library Service Award, Texas Association of School Librarians, March 1993 The College Board - \"Reducing the Education Deficit\", Equity ZOOO - conference participant, Washington, D.C. Hay 1993 Alliance Recrafting the Business of Schooling\" a JC Penney Compaiiy-Fort Worth Independent School District-National of Business Collaboration The Executive Educator 100 - Selected as one of The Top School Manaagers in the Nation, 1990 and 1993 it II What Superintendents Want From The Legislature And The Courts School Leaders Forum - University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, Hay, 1992 The College Board - Presentation to Foundations, Equity 2000 -New York, New York, April, 1992 Secretary of Labor - Press Conference SCANS - Washington D.C,, April, 1992 The College Board Regional Meeting, Equity 2000 - Fort Worth, Texas, February, 1992 The College Board National Forum - Equity 2000 - San Francisco, California, November, 1991 - NSBA, \"Grow Your Own - Alternative Certification\" San Francisco, California, April, 1991 Center for Creative Leadership  Chief Executive Officer Leadership Development Program, 1990, 1991Don R. Roberts page 4 REC06NITIQW - HONORS. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, PUBLICATIONS (PARTIAL LIST)\nThe Danforth School Administrators Fellowship Program, 1987-1988 The Academy for Educational Leadership - Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 1986, 1987, 1988 \"Improving the Climate for Learning\", Irving Independent School District, Irving, Texas 1985 \"Improving Student Achievement Through Outcome-Based Schools\", NASE Seminar, Boston, Massachusetts, 1985 Basic Skills: General Leadership Workshop\", Educational Service Center - Region.X, Richardson, Texas, 1985 Arizona Principals Institute, Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona, 1984 i Secondary School Recognition Panel, Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1983 n Improving Student Achievement\", NASE Seminar, San Francisco, California, 1983 Member of Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities Student Body President - Henderson State Teachers College Distinguished Alumnus - Henderson State UniversityDon R. Roberts page 5 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS fPARTIAL LIST)\n0 Member of Executive Board - New Standards Project 0 Member Board of Trustees - The CoHege Board 0 Texas Association of School Administrators 0 Texas Center for Educational Research - Board of Trustees 0 American Association of School Administrators 0 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 0 Association for Childhood Educational International 0 Phi Delta Kappa 0 Horace Mann League I 0 Congress of Parents and Teachers - Texas and Virginia COMMUNITY SERVICES (PARTIAL LIST)\n0 United Way Board of Directors 0 Collaborative Leadership Development Program 0 Leadership Forum Fellow - Fort Worth 0 Rotary PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS\nTexas - Professional Superintendent Arkansas - Social Studies, Secondary, and Administrator Virginia - SuperintendentLRSD ADMIN. BULDING F.a\\: I-501-32d-20: Jul 19 '96 11:41 P. 02/0i Little Rock School District Press Conference Interim Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts July 19, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann. 24-2020 Little Rock School District interim superintendent Dr. Don Roberts will hold a press conference today at 1:00 p.m. School board members and LRSD manacement team members also will attend the press conference. The press conference wall be held in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (.501)324-2000iP-H- - '^rp T ,-'C 1?5 PC12 H'JS 5e , 14:09 Dr. uon ii. Roberts 72IS Johnstone Lane fort !rLn, Texas 7513,? (^:.7} 34C-6253 Ct. f\non R, Ruterts, Inaepihidert Schoo! u-,su ict -r.-m narrn h3/ to Juv, 1994 Before 111 fort ^worth. ns was a tcachar, pr{nripa\\ and later 4!sst,(nilng t-is poit ~.--v.,..,..y u.m S(jr,e\u0026gt;-\u0026lt;r.tQ'c!unt sfe'vad as superintc.-ident of the Fort inorth (''Xl s*r,rt Narrh I\u0026lt;?37 to duly, 1954 - - ' DisUict , . , Weston (3H) f\"j3ic Schac'^s superHitandent of the nt 01 He ^a5 server* as isscciats iii -^OCk (AR) Public Schools\nsuper!nter,dsn* i,Vn, schools\ndirector of the Arkansas Denartmert (TX) IrdapeMent Schco' '' :2''^ oeyrees from Henderson State Teachers and h^lds V 'idivensity ct Crsgon. ano noias a., td.D. decree froir. tne University of Arkansas Newport Nows Edecotiort, Cl of ^1 deve.op^c the ren wc-th' t (tomnunity, Corporations t.asu.bueisj tf. couperatinn with the Fort Worth Chamber of Co.-rmerce the process to triiisforr me fki\u0026gt;U chreugh a va, ,vi- r tre e.-jeat!final reslr uctur jng. 400 sthool/b'isi.ness psrtnonship\n, , i:.a is variety of creative programs, Some qC th? init:4{ives uiui^r the C umbreiia ircluoe- 0 0 0 workplace SL'ccfss itUdirntJ students i 11X 01 /eC lecogaiZgp V'lT.a'' link program, which shows miuglc. tonriPttisr. bewce.n ciaisrocn, aphieverent and ... reyah three years ago wth 40 (jiiiJd'le ano is r.pM ,4 ynar-fubncl activity invoUi.-.T 3 390 tsarhers have also been diractlv ifi Vitai tinx\n4 year f'jbncl fqvSty ZODD, witii The toiiege i^oard, that from the 1990- *1 sefisc' ysar, Stn anj gvn grade enrnlinent if, '\".'c\u0026lt;,Mru shnwed a Subsantul increase from 2,3%a to 5,676 91 to tn\nFij'\"the.\"iio'\"^, 1 fl j The ehroHfuert increcfsec! by the ena of the ninth grade mors than 90, of 31 i students hod success^u' 1 v cc-roloted AloGCrs  Approximateiy 3in o'^ the studenrs raade a '\u0026gt; vr better in the rour.s\n' I Siyniftcart ethnotosy itnprovar.cnt$ sucn ^tynirt^aft ethno\u0026gt;osy itufirove.'i'.cnt$ suer 33 'echi4rt jgQo rao\ne3 fWlSD students in all high schorls and middle 5 use computer n?t*'crki t.c study n^w indusfrig'! \u0026lt; J,- e. ira.natg cut-of-date industrial arts-tyDe pregrar.s, i-r 3!i wh i ch Choo's to tef\nhno''ogios and ivit\u0026gt;fs, an Applied learning fjtmfen.ofy \u0026gt;chool at AHce Cur'ior, ina in Appiic-d Lsarninq Acaceiry H'ldoie Sciioof where students us? the cenmumtv 35 a resource and e^rr. througn hands-cri activities in .'nany 'ocaticns\nleafni05 nd \"ear activnihi including ira Appi1pd use the ccnmunity 35 .c \u0026gt;jFr ICt 195 H!JG ' 96 14: eg 0 c Page 2 The Wert Stt\u0026lt;j3-d5 Prcjsct. a natuinat effort ic def'\nne war'.d-cUss assess?fit standards .y .\u0026lt;.j d- ew^Jnp an exaSinatian system that includes student proerts portfolios cf student wank\nand The jr,Pe*irey High Perfovnafce st^cwils project to train school personnel and carrnts in school-hosed decision eiakmg concepts in rwisc schools. The District has becc.-*? wre open and laone inclusive with strong emphasis on school iiset! deciSion 'taki'\u0026gt;g (SSC**) and toAliwued involve-'nent and supp-.rt of the fort Wd-th .SO FTAs PlUs, p-ents and the general There a^^ health coraWirativE.s between the school district tariy childnood initiatives coomunity. ard iivspitJls it thres elewptary schools. Ir.rludi- th? BuUi-ige \"Can,igctsons\" program, Un tneir own initiative, 12 schools co* offer year-rriird classes, Ihe District's Adopt*A-School prcgfs has expanded fith parent ccnwjmty voiunteeri donating more than S?5.tK\u0026gt;C hours to srhoois in 93'54 Pr. Hoberts has rt-z^^vpt} many sMargs and honors. inc1u4n9 twice being named on* of the top lUO schnol chief executive officers by ZAe Ixvcuti^e fdf/catijr oagiiilne. He wa?. nationally recogniied in November. 1953 by the hatiortl Association af Pa-'lnrrsilip?  Fducation for nis significant centrib'Jtions to ?ijucti3n reforw and restructuring efforts. Jn April, 19P4 Fort Worth won the ScholasJ\u0026lt;/\u0026lt;atinna' aPianee of Business Cnmunty /M^rd for excellence m Educator, Dr. Foliovino retirewer.t I rort) ~ort Werth ISO in 1594 , Pyterts has wotVeel witn school districts in Ai-kaneas and eevex^si other states to iwpicjment Vical uin'K programs. has .also ropresnnted Creative Le^rhing SystaCuS, Inc He deve-oper and supplier of Techoologry r.abs 2C00 and other come-to,hen si ve laboratories for the study of soieno and tec.hKo.l cgy. .1' I HI I iN hiili imi LITTLEROCK is IA rSi FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS RECF'a SEP 1 1 JS3Z OFFICE Of SIC Bi RESOLUTIOR'w*R14Lf^ Qnnes Together OF APPRECIATION JOINTLY ADOPTED BY THE LITTLE ROCK ALLIANCE FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WHEREAS Dr. Don Roberts has served this community in a leadership role as the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, and WHEREAS his leadership has lead to significant improvements in the health of the District, and WHEREAS his seasoned approach to managing the District has reinforced a sense of trust and commitment among its patrons, and WHEREAS his strategic focus throughout his tenure has stayed fixed upon an overriding goal of whats best for the education of all of Little Rocks young people, and WHEREAS our community, as represented by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, will benefit from Dr. Roberts hard work and commitment for decades to come. The Board of Directors of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Pubhc Schools and the Education Committee of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce do hereby adopt this special resolution in appreciation of Dr. Don Roberts, for his tireless efforts to provide stability and improvement to UUU RuUCl USj ivx uii. vxwuu r the operation of the Little Rock School District as its Superintendent. ADOPTED THIS ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY SEVEN. Baker Kumis President, Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools Hubert Barksdale Chairman of Education, Greater Little Rock Chamber of CommerceArkansas Democrat ^(Gazelle  FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1996 Board 1 Schools name interim leader with ties to LR BY CYHTHIA HOWELL Oemocral-GazBtle Education Writef Dr. Don R. Roberts, a retired Fort Worth, Texas, superintendent with deep Arkansas roots, is set to become interim superintendent of the Little Rock School District beginning Aug. 15. The Little Rock School Board voted unanimously to appoint Roberts to the position Thursday during a meeting in which civil rights attorney John Walker, as a show of support for the move, offered a two-year moratorium on, any new legal action against the , district related to the 1989 de-' segregation plan. Announcement of the moratorium prompted a standing ovation and cheers from the audience of more than 100 business leaders, government officials, parent activists and district employees. See BOARD, Page 12A  Cooiiouod ftom Pago 1A lloborls, (H. wa.s a Lillie Rock assistant superintendent in the units and director of Ilie stale Department of Education under Govs. Bill Clinton and Frank While. He ha.s been nationally recognized for his Icadersliip in educational programming. in Fort Woi'th. Roberis mini- aged a district of 72.11011 studeuLs and 9.009 employees. When lie retired two years ago. the president of the Fort Worth teachers union wa.s (luoted a.s saying she ilid not believe Roberts had\ni single enemy. Roberts will replace Dr. Henry Williams, 54, who iilans to become superiiilendenl of public schools in Kansas City, Mo., by the first of September. I want to help, Roberts said jp a telephone interview from lii.s home in Fort Worth. Ive always had an allegiance to Lillie Bock. i\nPending the outcome of contract negotiations, Roberts will sei-ve as interim superintendent for at least one and possibly two years while tlie school board looks for someone to fill the job permanently. ij He was reconiniended to the .school board Thursday night by 4 high-profile citizens' commit- lee that has been working since spring to develop a plan for teni- jSorarily filling the vacancy they ttiought might occur in the superintendent's position. T We considered many people dnd possibilities, Rett Tucker, 'co-chairman of Ihe cominittec, told the board Thursday. . Dr. Roberts loves Little Rock, loves Arkansas, knows Lit- lle Rock and knows Arkansas, Tucker said. \"We sought him out fpr thi.s position. He has always been dedicated to high-ciuality xtesegregated education and Spek.s to build cooperation across raci!d lines. He is known ,as a person who keep.s hi.s word itnd works in good faith. He is ... we believe, a healer. The board also agreed Thursday to establish a management tpam to oversee operation of the district until RoberLs assumes .tlie job. The team, which will report, directly to the board, will begin its work today. r The appointment of that team elTeetiveLv end.s Williams supervision of the Little Rock district, although he will serve in an advisory role and draw his salary Until he officially resigns.\nMembers of the team include foUKdistrict employees, all with e$p^ricncc a.s principals, and (5n4 former school board president. ' The learn members are Dr. Vjc Anderson, assistant superintendent for secondary schools\nSadie Mitchell, assistant superihtendcnl for elementary schools\nMarian Lacey, principal at Mann Magnet Juniur High\nJodie Carter, principal at McClellan High: and Skip Rutherford, former board president and a public relations executive.  Anderson will oversee day-to- day operations of the school district. Lacey, Mitchell and Carter will work with the schools. Rutherford, who will serve without pay, will focus on student as- signiiieiil 1111(1 coiiiiiiiiiiicalioiis. All Hie team members will take on the duties in addition to their rurrenl jobs. Aller making the personnel recoiiniiendalions, Tucker an- nouuced the moratorium offered b.v Walker, who represents black families in the district's 13-year- old school desegregation lawsuit. \"Thi.s offer wa.s made b.v Mr. Walkc'r to Hr. Robert!! because of Hr. Roberts' past record in the Little Rock School District and the state Department of Education. Tucker told the board. Thi.s inean.s that the board. Dr. Roberts and the employees in the district, for the first time in almost 40 years, can concentrate totally and fully on educating our children and on implementing and, if necessary, modifying the current desegregation plan and getting out of court,\" he said. At a break in the meeting. Walker praised Roberts, whom he has known since the 1960s. My commitment is to Dr. Roberts and what he stands for and the record he has in this district, Walker said. Dr. Roberts was here during the hard days. He demonstrated he was committed to the princi- ples of desegregation. lie showed it by example and personal witness. 1 do not know of a single thing that he ever did or said that would be racially divisive. I think someone like him has to have a chance, Walker said. The moratorium, while not unprecedented, is rare. It is significant because Walker routinely charge.s the district with violating provisions of its desegregation plan. Those charges lead to time-consuming federal court hearings. Walker said the moratorium will not negate the challenges already pending before U.S. Dis- trict Judge Susan Webber Wright. Rut some of the issues might now be negotiated bC-' tween him and the (listi'ici, making some of the court hearings and judicial orders unnecessary. Walker, who was a member of the contingency committee, said Roberts was tire group's first and only choice for the interim position. The committee recommended Roberts be given a contract similar to the one that paid Williams $115,000 a year. Roberts said Thursday he first talked to contingency committee members in April, but only in an advisor.v capacity. He said he wasn't interested in the job then. But when the committee members called him earlier this ' week, he said he would take the interim position if the board supported it unanimously and the busines.s community demonstrated support for the district. He said he wa.s sympathetic to the counuillees desire to stabilize the district, and he pointed out that this is the wrong time of year for a (piick search for a permanent superintendent. Roberts, who will be in Little Rock today to meet with board members and staff, grew up in NcNeil, in Columbia County. He earned a bachelors degree in economics and a masters degreeArkansas Democral-Gazettc/KAREN VANDONGE Civil rights lawyer John Walker talks Thursday with Marian Lacey, principal at Mann Magnet Junior High, as a Little Rock School Board audience applauds news that Walker won't file any desegregation-related complaints against the district for two years. He made the pledge in response to a board decision to hire Dr. Don Roberts of Fort Worth, Texas, as interim superintendent. in social studies from what is and hands-on instruction add now Henderson State University fostered a system of schoOlin Arkadelphia, and received a based decision making. ,t. *9* doctorate in educational admin- of Roberts three adult istraUon from the University of children live in Little Rock. One Arkansas at Fayetteville. son, Jon Roberts, attended the He first became a superinten- school board meeting Thursday dent al age 29 in a tiny comniuni-ty in Oregon. He served as assis-night. The other son, Dqn Roberts Jr., stayed at home jo tant superintendent in Little  hold the telephone receiver next Rock between 1967 and 1974. He was superintendent of Newport News, Va., public schools between 1974 and 1979, when then- Gov. Clinton appointed him di-to the television .iso his father ,0' could hear newsireports about the board meetingj Also Thursday,' board mem-rSecto ro fo Ef dthuec afAlorkna nsas Denart- tractubarli eoflbyl idgiastciounsss etdo tWheililri acmohs,- ment ot Education. superintendent since 1993. In 1984, he left Arkansas to be ... ., superintendent in Amarillo, Attorneys for the district and Texas, for three years. He served Williams had-'been negotiating 7'/2 years as Fort Worth's super-  early end to his contract even intendent. While there, he initi- before the Kansa^ City job offer. ated academic programs that at-\n]Price GardnerTan attorney for traded national attention. J the district, said Williams had Under one program, the num- sought a payment of more thqn her of students^taking and pass- $200,000 from the district to end ing algebra in Fort Worth almost his contract. That 'includedna doubled. Another program, now duplicated in North Little Rock and other Arkansas districts, in$ 60,000 bonus that he was notJo get unless he stayed in the dis-trict until September 1998. 't Eager to keep the meeting lip-volved placing young adoles- beat, board members took no ap-cenls in various businesses and industries for a short time so they could see how academics are applied in the workplace. tion on the issue Thursday, saying they could meet with Williams next week to iron out the details of his transition from Ile also increased technology Little Rock to Kansas City. I I kiKaiiMs lyviiHKial iWiOpazvdv SAI UfJDAY. JULY 20, 1996 Intel iiii cliief of schools tells team: Carry on Roheils BY Cl inis HEINOLDS OntixKial Gn7Pllf' 3lnH Witlcr Little Rock'.s interim school siipeiiritendenl told a temporary nianagemeid team I' liday Io op erate the distiict as it's been run d!ig until In* takes over next month. Hnlil Dr Dim R. Robiutsstail.s Aug. 15. the Lillh* Rock .School Board ha.s established a manage ment learn of four ediicalors and OIK* businessman to ovrrser* IIk\nOpel atiini of the district. The ap poinlmenl of the team elfeclively ends Dr. Ilenr.v Williams' super vision of the Little Rock district allhongh In* will serve in an advisory mle ami draw hi.s salary until he ofllcially resigns. Williams has been in Kansas (.'ity, Mo., Ihi.s week ami may return to Litth Rock Sunday. There was no word Friday whether he had negotiated a contract with of- ficials there, and Little Rock ) Sen nOBERIS, Page 9A * CoolioiiP'l hoin Paeje t A boaul noiidans were unsure it he planned to show up for work Monday. If be (Willianisi is hen* Mon flay, I want to talk Io him,\" team mtunln'r Dr. Vic Anderson said. We're not tiying to usurp bi.s an Ibfuily. The Imard askefl n.s Io pnivido the liansilion Irom Dr. Williams. Un's nia\u0026lt;b a caicei \u0026lt;!' cisifm. If any ptdbh'in.s arisf', Ainh'r ag.ed a di.-ilrict \u0026lt;if 72.(K)() sindetifs and (inphiyees. 'Last Sunday afternoon, I was onlsidi' playing wilh my two gi mxlkids in I'Oll Wculh.\" Roberts said. Monday morning Ihing.s changed.\" Although Roberts said he was unprepared for a ncw.s coiifer- (*nce. Ids remarks and easygoing style evoked applause and amens of approval. I in going to work wilh Ibis board and Ibis community Io pro vide I he best education for the children who go to the Little son snid lie cxpocls Ilie sfhool Uovk public schools.\" he snid. bojiKl Io work it Old will! Williams. Wf'v(! ben \u0026lt;h?i rijcd wilh the responsilul ity of moving forward.\" Tlie manage ment team hud died hriday with its future (inai'terback I\" L ' jII Robeits and planned for the big game, School slarl.s in one inonih. You know what ha.s Io be done to get school started, Robeits saifL 'I'he team members are Anderson, assistant snperin t(*ndenl for secoinlaty schmds\nSadie Mitchell, assistant superintendent for elementary schools\nMarian Lacey, principal at Mann Magnet .Innior llidh\nJodie (barter, principal at Mc\u0026lt;'lellan High Scimol\nand Skip Ruth(*i- ford. former board president and a public relalion.s executive. Anderson will overset* day to day operation.s of Ihe school dis- Irict. ami the other edncaliou.s will work wilh the .schools. Rutherford will focus on commu uicatiou inside ami outside the disirict and student school as signments. Rutherford said Ihe leam will guide the district belwecfi now and when Ihe new superintendent lakes the wheel. Fridays first meeting was orderly and organized rh'spite Hie absence of a (listrici ebifd. We're doing what we would normally do. Anderson said. The p(!ople that open Ihe schools are not the superinten dent. Fresh off Hu* plane fnmi  Texas, Roberts eascfl into bi.s role al a news conference Friday by letting busines.s leaders ami eflucalors km)W lu^ is not here to fix the schools. When Roberts beaded Hu* F(rt Worth schools, business leaders asked him how he would fix the schools. Roberts replied, I can't do anything al)oul il. I dfui'l know what io do ... but I said we can do something about il. The laid back Texan with Ar- Itobert.s said ht.s philosophy of education is to teach kids to dream, but he understands that not all student.s will end up at the Massachusells Institute of Technology. Lvmy kid who wakes up anywhere in the world has the right to dream about being a high achiever.\" Roberts said. Ann Brown, a federal court-appointed desegregation monitor, called Hoberls wonderful.\" We're very fortunate to have his view of the world,\" Brown said, lies down-home folk, and we can relate to that. Roberts said he had no immediate plan.s for hiring staff but did note that the districts' top t hree positions are vacant. I'm ready to try to provide any assistance and help to you that I can. Hoberls said. So the next time you hire a superinten (lent you can pick from the cream of the crop.\" Roberts said his contract with the district will be similar to Williams except a.s an interim superintendent, he won't rcipiire any bonus clause. Williams' contract set an annual salary of bonuses. and provision.s for Frank Marlin, Little Rock Classroom T(*achers Associalion executive ilirector, said (he buzz aboul Roberts is positive. Ue has a laitl-back style and seem.s to be firm in hi.s comic lions.\" Martin .Said. Board member Dr. Katherine Mitchell agreed. Dr. Roberts can do very well  if Ihe boanl lets him do his job.\" I said Mitchell who has been a strong supporter of Williams. While she wa.s satisfied wilh the committee s choice. Mitchell said Williams should have been notified of the management team. Pending the outcome of con tract negotiations. Roberts will serve as interim superintendent for one and possibly two years while the school board looks for someone Io fill the job permanently. 'i'he board has not announced when or how the permanent superintendent search will be conducted. Roberts was recommended to Kansas roots expects the same support in Little Rock. The Little the school board by a citi zens   ................................  committee that has been working Rock School Board voted unani- nionsly 'I'hur.sday for his appoint since spring to develop a plan for ment, and he received a standing temporarily filling the vacancy, ovation Friday when he was in  trofiuced at the afternoon new.s conference at district headcpiar- teis. When 1 move on. 1 hope you'll still stand up.\" Roberts said. Roberts. 61, was a Little Rock assistant superintendent in the 1970s and director of the state Department of Education under (ovs. Bill (Jlinton and Frank White. He has l)een nalionally recognized for hi.s hmdersbip in educational programming. In Fort Wfuth. Rolu'ils man-Retired? No, just on recess School was out 2years for Roberts BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrai-Gazette Educaoon Wnter Dr. Don R. Roberts told colleagues and friends in Fort Worth two years ago when he retired as school superintendent that he wanted to rest but would return to work someday. Still. Roberts associates in Texas were surprised by the news last week that hes returning to a superintendents position, this time in Little Rock. Dr. Roosevelt Brown, a Little Rock dentist and co-chairman of the school districts citizen contingency committee, first contacted Roberts about the possibility last April. The committee was working on ideas for replacing Dr. Henry Williams, who they knew was like- his sons, who live in Little Rock, ly to leave the superintendents called to say that Williams had job at any time. Roberts told Brown he wasnt Mo. After more telephone con-interested. But he agreed to meet versations with Brown and other with the group on an advisory ba- committee members during the sis. week, Jan Roberts heard her hus- He didnt think much about band give his permission over the job until last weekend when the telephone to submit his name 1 Democrat (gazette F ------SUNDAY, 1996 ------------- Arxansas Democral-GazsneZSTATON BREDENTHA, Don Roberts talks Friday about his return to Little Rock, where the proud Papa\" will be near two granddaughters. accepted a job in Kansas City, to the board. Roberts is a former assistant superintendent in Little Rock and a former director of the Department of Education. Pending the finalization of his contract, Roberts will serve at least one year and maybe longer in Little Rock while the school board searches for a permanent replacement I thin! he always wanted to be a part o. the Little Rock School District Jan Roberts said about her husband. It was just that there wers other things in the way or othe\nthings to do. Helping to lure the Robertse\nSee ROBERTS, Page 8E 8B Roberts  Continued from Page 10 to Little Rock are two young granddaughters, the children of their sons, Don Jr., a respiratoby therapist at Baptist Medical Center, and Jon, who works at Landers Auto Sales Co. Daughter Susan Robbins, 32, a school librarian, lives in Fort Worth with her minister husband and two children. The Robertses are known as Papa and Mimi to their grandchildren. Hes excited about this move and Im thrilled about it, Jon Roberts said last week. Asked why his father would come oift of retirement for such a job, Jon Roberts said, My dad loves kids more than anything in the world. Anything he can do for a child, he is willing to do. Hell do a good job for Little Rock. tenure, he turned that around. He Business Community Award for also worked to equalize Fort Excellence in Education. ing veteran teachers pass a basic --------------------- skills test to keep their jobs, , . - . -------  Donna Parker, vice president Roberts said he would implement salaries paid in the suburban of the Fort Worth Chamber of the test because it was law. He got school districts. Commerce and its chief adminis- t .................... When Dr. Roberts came to trative officer, said that as the re- Fort Worth, there was not a soul suit of Roberts leadership, the .vAa,... uv.u.c , who had a good thing to say about schools had become responsive to actually given in 1985. the schools, Steve Palko, a for- the needs of the business commu- ~ ......... mer member of the Fort Worth nity and vice-versa. School Board, said Friday. Now ................... Worth teacher salaries with people are excited about the schools. He caused people to have faith. _ - Fort Worth Assistant Superin- He listened to us because he the process started but became superintendent in Amarillo, Texas, in 1984 before the test was Fayetteville Superintendent Bobby New. who once worked for Roberts at the department, knew we would get the students in praised him as a visionary able to our companies when they com- ................... - * pleted school, Parker said. He was intense and deliberate, and tendent Joe Ross called Roberis a he did what was good for kidk hands-on superintendent, espe- .................. ........... daily on matters pertaining to the move his vision from the boardroom to the classroom. Roberts was the fifth of five children in his family in McNeil. As a Little Rock district admin- ... .--------------- istrator in 1967 to 1974, Roberts district's budget. was credited with almost single- He would do his superinten- handedly designing and imple- denfs duties during the day, but menting the districts federal at about 4:30 in the afternoon he court-ordered, cross-town busing umwiwv. iw was mwr- would call in the district s finance system for desegregation in 1971, rupted by a two-year stint as a Ma- people, and they would work on which affected students in grades   budget planning until two or three six through 12. in the morning, Ross said. He His parents operated a dairy for a while. Later his father was an of- fice manager for a construction company. Roberts left McNeil to attend what is now Henderson State University. That was interrine in Korea in 1953 and 1954. He retunied to Henderson, So after a vacation on the knew where every dime beach in North Carolina, Roberts \"\"  ' . . . .. ----------.-  One day we had one bus for where he pitched on a team that got down to counting pennies. He transporting orthopedically handi- won the AIC chanipionshio He knew where Him, was. capped kids, Roberts recalled, tried to play football but quit after Seventeen days later we were won the AIC championship. He When Roberts announced his recognized^trict of 72,000 stu- nizations in the district bought a well. During that^tZ hralZmetZ hrwaspaid^220( aZr'nri! At the end of the 1971-72 school marrifd. tnSa-W^his wifrwho moving to a district of 25,000 stu- FrmX,\ni,c\n\"tT-----J/Tu\"? At the end ofthe 1971-72 school married, in 1958, his wife, who fort worth Star-Tetegram\" to thank year, a group of parents honored . ~ . him for his 35 years of service to Roberts for his work by present- grew up in Delight. Roberts taught junior high a year in Welch, La., before the young family moved to Oregon to dents that has experienced falling students. ing him with a miniature school enrollment, public criticism, He ccuIJ ao Luo and uic li  dwindling funds and a 13 year old long as he wanted to stay, Palko ing, or BuD. ....................... wiirk in a frozen foods rnr^nanv desegrega .on laj^ - for a said. ' In different capacities in Little Robet^S inSon salary of about $115,000 a year. ................. . nuqeiu. imeiiuon He could have been here as bus and the title of Doctor of Bus- !rj r u XL J. . . , .  : X., ixuMciLs itiienuuii was to earn Under Roberts, the district, in Rock, Roberts also handl^ stu- enough money to go back to Ar- ooerahon nitvs eham- a,Hiwow ------- to attend law school. That ~ . .J , ... X vx.w UUUJVb, XO XIVVIV, llUUCI W (lldU lldllUlCU tU- Robem said last week that cooperation with the citys cham- dent disciplinary matters, super- | vised principals, developed the did3? haDDenwead''he^^^ rested and played with his grand- ject C-Cubed. which is made up of budget and served as chief nego- children. He also did consulting programs to prepare children for tiator in bargaining the annual for school districts and represent- the workplace. C-Cubed  short teacher contract ed an instructional computer com- for Community, Corporations and pany. He continues to serve on Classrooms became a national some national education boards. - - - - during his brief retirement he ber of commerce, developed Pro- wife took teaching jobs in Weston. He conceded that retirement took some getting used to after the After a five-year stint as super- , , ----------------- intendent in Newport News, Va., pawwm model. Educators from more than Roberts returned to Arkansas, *\n, at age 29 a dozen states, as well as foreign this time as the director of the'-'  Oree First a teacher and a coach, Robe^ capped his seven-year ca- reer in Oregon by becoming superintendent of the little district rigors of being an urban superin- duplicate it in their schools, tendent. His wife joked that his re- ...... ' countries, studied the program to General Education Division of the The family returned to Arkan- sas so Roberts could get his doctor- Little Rock residents have to newed interest in household af- look no further than across the Ar- fairs took some adjustment on her kansas River to see one such pro- Frank White and then Clinton . ----------------------------... jxxw again. P n . . . During his tehure,'Roberts in- Roberts, 61, has aged well since School District last year adopted stigated a training program titled he last uyed in Arkansas. He lost Fort Worths Vital Links program. Program for Effective Teaching the pipe he always used to smoke. Seventh-graders, supervised by or PET. Virtually every adminis- teachers, spend a few days of their trator and teacher in the state at- state Department of Education ate at the University of Arkansas at under Gov. Bill Clinton, then Gov. ............................................. Fayetteville. He then took ^e job of interim deputy superintendent gram. The North Little Rock His brown hair is thinner and grayer, but not much. He is tall, standing 6 feet 3 inches. Uis summer vacation performing jobs tended workshops where key com- - -------- in local businesses and industries. ' \" ................... tanned face highlights the blue The purpose is to show the stu- eyes behind his glasses. dents how lessons they learn in On Friday, he wore a dark suit school are actually applied in and starched white shirt with red- businesses. in Little Rock, working while Paul Fair, who held that position tlien, went to get his doctorate. Roberts intended to stay on the Little Rock job a year but stayed seven years, serving as an assis- tant superintendent under Super- ponents of successful instruction intendents Floyd Parsons and were identified and practiced.  -  Also during Roberts tenure, the statewide student testing pro- then Fair. Fair, now executive director of the Arkansas Retired Teachers and-blue print tie when he attended a news conference in Little Other C-Cubed initiatives in ----- ---------- Fort Worth led to more students Rock. He wore dark dress shoes, taking and passing Algebra I and not Western boots.----------------------the increased use of technology as Roberts speaks slowly and with a tool for acquiring academic little inflection. But speaking to skills, Roberts said. the school board, district employ- ..................... gram was started and scores were Association, said Friday that he publicized, gifted-and-talented ed- was overjoyed to learn of Roberts ucation was developed, including intentions to return to the school the Governors School for Gifted 1 dont want to scare evei-yone into thinking that I am going to and Talented, and the department began assisting schools in acquiring and using computers. system. He is a very able school administrator, Fair said about his ees, city leaders, reporters and a few old friends, Roberts joked easily about himself. , _____ _____________,xxx I want to establish my intel- more kids would go to college if mittee Hillary' Rodhani'^Clinton lectual capabilities first, Roberts they knew a reason for it. More led that devised education stan- told the group. I graduated third kids wouldnt drop out mentally dards for the state. Also during his in my class in McNeil, Arkansas. when they are in middle school if. directorship, the states ftinding He paused, Of course there were they knew why they were there. -----' ' * only six people in the class. Thats what C-Cubed was about. , former colleague and golfing bud- Roberts in Arkansas is closely dy. They could not have chosen linked to education initiatives of come into Little Rock and do all of Clinton as governor. Roberts was this, he said. But, I do believe an ex ofilcio member ofthe com- formula was declared unconstituanyone better than Dr. Roberts. But turning around the Fort Worth system may be Roberts greatest achievement so far. If there was any criticism of him in Texas it was for not making changes quickly enough to satisfy some people and for a reluctance to conthont controversy. There are those who believe you can only have growth if you have controversy and chaos, he told the Star-Telegram. I simply do not believe that. tional and revamped. Lawmakers Colleagues say The Fort Worth C-Cubed pro- approved a penny sales-tax in- wrought miracles for the Fort ject is heralded as the forerunner crease that resulted in improved Worth district. of the School-to-Work movement teacher salaries. The districts finances were in now sweeping . the nations . Roberts was on board when the disa^ay, and jts^ cash reserves schools, Ross said. ,/. /state's controversial teacher test- r:?-'\n.L_.. Lw- In 1994, Fort .Worth won the \u0026gt; ing law was enacted in 1983. Became superintendent. During his Scholastic/National Alliance for  spite his own opposition to mak- Roberts nearly depleted when Roberts be-MONDAY, JULY 22 1996 Convripht O I htia \u0026amp;. Welcome, Don Roberts Little Rock has been waiting for you w HO SENT Little Rock this new. interim superintendent of schools, the search com- mittee or Heaven? Don Roberts sounds custom-ordered. You got your .Arkansas rootsMcNeil in Columbia County. You got your Little Rock connectionsDr. Roberts was an assistant superintendent of the school district back in the '70s before becoming director of the state Department of Education in the administrations of both Bill Clinton and Frank White. Yes. you got your cool, even, bipartisan temperament. When he re- Tliank you. Mr. Walker. Welcome. Dr. Roberts! Peace, ain't it grand? Little Rock could use a breather from the positively Dickensian case that has held the school district and its families in thrall for what seems as long as Jamdyce v. Jamdyce. Can it be I possible? Can people treat one an- i other as people instead of plaintiff j and defendant? To quote Rett Tucker This means that the (school) board. Dr. Roberts. ' and the employees in the district for the first time in almost 40 years can i tired as school su- concentrate fully on educating our children....' That perintendent in Fort Worth, where he ran a district with 72.000 students and 9.000 teachers, the president of the teachers there said union she didn't believe Dr. Roberts had made a single enemy. .And thats the opinion of the president of the would be nice. It would be glorious. .Actually, there's a lot of education going on in the Little Rock district but for too long its been obscured by lawyering and badmouthing and all that race business and general ideological irrelevance. Itll be good teachers union! Those negotiating sessions must have been remarkable. To quote Rett Tucker, co-chairman of the citizens committee that recommended Don Roberts\nWe sought him out for this position. He has always been dedicated to high-quality desegregated education and seeks to build cooperation across racial lines. He is known as a person who keeps his word and works in good faith. He is... a healer. Dr. Roberts was healing the school districts most obvious woundthe legal kindeven before a unanimous school board voted to hire him. It seems thaL in the course of his interviews, he e.xpressed reservations about accepting the job so long as the district was tied in Gordian knots by litigation and ill will in general. And so John (The Litigator) Walker offered to hold off any new lawsuits over the settlement of Little Rocks endless school desegregation suit. John Walker had been filing such pleas for years. Now hes declaring a welcome truce. Wow. to get the spotlight back on whats important teachers teaching and kids learning. John Walker knows Don Roberts, and thats enough to let him give the man a chance\nDr. Roberts was here during the hard days. He demonstrated he was committed to the principles of desegregation. He showed it by e.xample and personal witness. I do not know of a single thing he ever did or said that would be racially divisive. I think someone like him has to have a chance. Everybody in Little Rocks school district, especially the kids, deserves a chance. Don Roberts may be just the man to give it to us. Welcome home, Don Roberts. We have missed you. And its clear we need you. Just your arriving has lifted the whole tone of how we speak to one another. Itll take some getting used to, but all of us look forward to being nice to one another again. Its about time the kids had that kind of i example set by the alleged grown-ups. |I Arkansas Democrat^^azcltc THURSDAY JI II Y 9R . iQQR \"\" 1 --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Walker qualifies no litigation vow: Board must back new school chief I I BY JULIAN E. BARNES Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer HENRY WILLIAMS signs 35-month The attorney for black chil- contract to become superintendent of dren in the Little Rock school desegregation case said Wednesday his moratorium on new litigation against the school district hinges on board support for the new interim superintendent. Civil rights attorney John Walkers six-page letter Wednes- Kansas City, Mo., scboois. Page 9A. ate a climate of \"good will and sues with the federal court. Immediately after Little Rock school board members appointed Roberts on July 18 to the interim post for one to two years. Walker announced his plan to temporari- racial cooperation. which he ly halt new legal action. That prosaid will be needed after the dis- nouncement prompted a standing trict gets out of court. ovation from an audience of 100 The letter is addressed to two business people, government offi-  members of a black community cials. activist parents and school  group formed to analyze Little employees. ! Rock'S school desegregation plan. Roberts, retired superintendent lines ongoing litigation that he although copies were sent to 19 of the Fort Worth. Texas. School ' plans to pursue and tells school black communitv leaders inboard members that they risk le- ' ' ' day to critics of his stance places limits on the moratorium, out- Roberts. retired superintendent gal action if they do not follow the wishes of Don Roberts, named interim superintendent a week ago. The letter concludes by emphasizing Walker's desire to cre- DistricL was a Little Rock assistant I volved with the schools. Walker superintendent in e 1970s and i was responding to questions that Hafeeza Majeed and Mark Cole. served under Govs. Bill Clinton  and Frank White as director of the members of a fact-finding com- state Department of Education, mittee. raised about Walker's pledge not to raise new legal is- Walker said Wednesday that See Lti ILK, Page 9A Letter  Continued from Page 1A he has come to trust Roberts over a period of manj years. Although he was initially skeptical of board.  Roberts' ap- ! and a request for about 5600.000 in legal fees from the Little Rock district. Walker said the moratorium does not apply to his concerns about student discipline, either. But he will give Roberts an opportunity to address his complaints before he files a motion in federal court, he said. School board member Judy Magness said she wasnt surprised by Walkers stance. \"He already has enough litiga- - . ------ tion hes filed in the last two trusted. week, months to keep him busv for two In his letter. Walker makes it vears or more, Magness said. clear that if the school board  Rett Tucker, co-chairman of seeks to change the spirit of the pledge bodes well for the district, the committee that recommended desegregation plan, he will go ....................... ' ~\nback to court. pointment was j suggested by a j citizens committee charged .... . with finding a Roberts. Walker said, the man replacement for i ' championed black childrens in- Superintendent , terests when it was unpopular to Henry Williams S, ' do so. when it became John Walker I learned ... that he was a dif- i ferent kind of white man. Walker I said. \"He wanted to do the right clear last spring that he was seeking another job. Williams was selected to ! thing, and his words could be become the new superintendent in Kansas City, Mo., last week. School board President Linda Ponde.xter said that Walkers said. Walker alluded to as much ir. his letter. He emphasized that while he remains a passionate advocate for black children, people must understand that giving biac.k children's needs more consideration does not mean that white children suffer. \"The new objective that I have in mind at this time is to ensure that the goals of the settlement agreement are implemented within a framework of good will and racial cooperation which will extend beyond any final court judgment in the case.\" Walker said. ' -Majeed. to whom Walkers let- - J r, J -----------------------------------ter was addressed, was pointed in Both the letter and Pondexter Roberts, said the retired Fort her criticism of Walker. She insin- said Walker had offered Williams Worth superintendent did not . _____ a similar moratorium on litiga- . .. lates solely to Dr. Roberts and not tion. The no litigation promise re- to the school board, Walker wrote, If the board takes any ac- Pondexter said she believes want to come to the district in a litigious environment. Walker, who wanted Roberts to that Roberts will keep the \"lines take the Little Rock post offered of communication open and en- '   tion which is contrary to the de- the moratorium on his ownwhich I segregation plan and to Dr. came as a surprise to Tucker Robertsjudgments, thismorato- As he has come to know Walk- num does not apply. \"er in the last year. Tucker said, he Walker said school boards that opportunity to move forward for has been impressed by the advo- emerged after the 1989 desegrega- the schoolchildren. Ponde.xter ---- tion plan, and the superinten- said. .And John Walker is going sure that the latest moratorium lasts. The district is being given the cate. dents they appointed, have sought to be an integral part of that. to undermine the desegregation Walker said his moratorium \"If you listen and show respect bers. she said, he can be very reasonable,\" Tuck- uated that he had sold out -lo white elites, and she said she feared the black childrens interests would be compromised by a ban on new legal action, \"I don't understand how an attorney who has been so-called fighting for those causes .,. can back away from that unless there has been some sort of agreement made with school board memplan. Walker said Roberts will does not apply to three matters work to implement the plan, now before U.S. District Judge Walker said he wants to make Susan Webber Wright  com- er said. Cole, the other person Walkers letter was addressed to, said sure the school board backs up the new superintendent. plaints about the double-funded incentive schools, a motion to on I trust Dr. Roberts. Walker force the Office of Desegregation said. I want to trust the school Monitorings recommendations. _ Tucker also said he thought he had questions about whether Walkers call for a moratorium re- the moratorium would prevent el- fiected cooperation throughout ements of the desegregation plan the community to try to solve the from being implemented or districts problems. changed. Cole would not offer ex- \"1 think Mr. Walker is ready for amples of problems he thought a new day in the district Tucker should be addressed.Arkansas Demcxrrar (gazette J VVEDNESDAY, JULY 31. 1996 New school chief to draw $115,000 in yearly salary 'BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Dr. Don Roberts, hired July 18 as interim superintendent by the i Little Rock School Board, signed a contract Monday entitling him to an annual base salary of $115,000, a $15,000 retirement investment and $11,639 in fringe benefits. Roberts, 61, the retired superintendent of the Fort Worth, Texas, public schools, said earlier this month that he would take the Little Rock job for a minimum of one year and possibly longer. The language in his new contract permits that flexibility. - The term of the contract is about one year, starting Aug. 15 and ending Aug. 31, ISffJ. After thaL the contract will be in force on a month-to-month basis imtil Roberts or the board ends it with 60 days notice. Roberts succeeds Dr. Henry P. Williams, who will take over as superintendent of the Kansas City, Mo., public school district 'Thursday. As Little Rock superintendenL Roberts will take a cut in his base  pay. Before retiring in 1994 from the Fort Worth districL Roberts salary was $122,000. Fort Worth had more than 70,000 students and a budget of about $300 million. In Little Rock, a district of about 25,000 students, Roberts base salary is the same as that paid to Williams in each of the past three years. However\n' Roberts contract allows him to decline certain fringe benefits in favor of cash reimbursements that would be added to his monthly pay. Also, Roberts will be entitled to $15,000 to fund a retirement investment of his choice. If he remains in the district beyond Au-vs-. gaging in any act that brings the disgust 1997, the district will fund the trict into disrepute, including habitretirement account at the rate of ual use of drugs or alcohol., - $1450 a month. Williams was enti- . Roberts, a native of Columbia --------  County, worked as a deputy and tied to a $10,000 yearly payment. Contracts for previous superintendents in Little Rock provided the administrators with district- leased cars for business and personal use. Roberts contract enti- ties him to a $50(}-a-month automo-  of Education. bile allowance and $60 a month payment for his cellular telephone expenses. He also will get $200 a month for incidental e.xpenses as well as reimbursements for business trips and other expenses as allowed by district policy. He will get 20 days of vacation and 24 days of sick leave. He will not be entitled to any compensation for accrued vacation time or sick leave unused when his contract ends. During his first six months on the job, Roberts will get up to $5,000 to move his belongings to Little Rock He also will be eligible for monthly payments of up to $1,500 to cover costs associated with relocating. Those may include the cost of maintaining two residences, travel, house-hunting expenses and lease deposits. Roberts contract is five pages long, compared to nine pages for Williams agreement with the district As an interim superintendent Roberts has a contract with none of the trust fund and bonus provisions included in Williams contract Had Williams worked in Little Rock five years, he would have gotten the proceeds flx)m a $60,000 trust fund. His contract also included provisions for bonuses to be paid for accomplishing goals. That provision was never fulfilled. Williams contract with the district also included provisions dealing with professional training, consulting, evaluation of job per- formance. and organizational membership fees. - Roberts contract includes a provision giving the board the authority to fire the superintendent for en- assistant superintendent in the Little Rock district 22 years ago. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he directed die general education division of the state Department_Ajkansas Democrat W (gazelle J THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 Superintendent ready to start ' work on improving LR schools BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts new superintendent urged city, business and education leaders Thursday to spend the year working together to improve education, which will in turn cause the city to prosper. At a reception held in his honor, Dr. Don Roberts said he was eager to work. I want to help you improve the educational opportunity and system for kids, he told about 150 people in the lobby of the Aerospace Education Center. Take advantage of me,\" he said. I have done some good things. Im not perfect: I cant walk on water. But I can help you. Take advantage of that. Don't have me sit there and take care of the stuff that goes on from moment to moment. Let me help you come up with something that all of us can support. Roberts, 61, became interim superintendent Aug. 15. He was recruited by a biracial citizens committee and agreed to stay on the job at least a year. Roberts was an assistant superintendent in the district more than 20 years ago and is a former director of the Arkansas Department of Education. Most recently, he was superintendent for almost eight years in Fort Worth, Texas, before retiring in 1994. I am pleased to have this challenge, and, if I have the opportunity to do the job without being overwhelmed by activity and minutiae, 1 believe I can do something to help you,\" Roberts said. And, by doing that. Ill be helping myself because I really want to see Little Rock progress and become the city it can be. This city has tremendous potential, but it liasn't reached where it needs to be,\" he said. As I said to you before, you can't have a wonderful city with a soriy school system. We dont have a sorry one. but we got one that is not near what it could be,\" he said as the crowd applauded. Roberts said a unified effort to improve education is particularly important with the approach of the 40th anniversary of the integration of Central High School by nine black students. He said he hopes city leaders will be able to show the results of a year's efforts to reporters who visit Little Rock and Central High next year. The reception for Roberts and his wife, Jan. was sponsored by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools.2B  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1996  Aikansas Democrat (gazette Students need computer training, LR school superintendent says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts superintendent revealed some initial concerns about the district and shared a few of his educational beliefs at a sparsely attended public meeting Tuesday night at J_A Fair High School. Dr. Don Roberts told about two dozen parents, students and staff members that he had visited 31 of the districts 50 schools  including six Tuesday  since becoming interim superintendent in mid-August.. One of our significant needs is technology. he said. We are not anywhere close to up-to-date. Roberts admitted that he gets frustrated trying to operate his own personal computer, but he said students must have access to the types of computers used in business and industry. \"Its not right to allow students to leave school without showing them current technology. Roberts said, adding that hell be working with the staff and the school board to develop strategies to acquire equipment He also said students in their early teens must be exposed to varied careers so they will understand the importance of their schoolwork and can select courses appropriate for their interests. A career-education program for seventh-graders that Roberts orchestrated as superintendent in Fort Worth. Texas, won national recognition. It is being emulated in other districts, including North Little Rock and Pine Bluff. Roberts described himself as an advocate of converting junior highs into more nurturing middleschool programs. Every place I have been, if they didnt have middle schools when I got there, they did when I left, he said, though he added that he wouldnt recommend an immediate change for Little Rock partly because of the complexity of the districts school assignment plan. In middle schools, the student body is divided into groups and a team of teachers is assipied to each group. Scheduling is more flexible, and more multidisciplinary lessons are offered in middle schools than in junior highs. Generally, middle schools serve sixth, seventh and eighth grades, so sixth-graders would leave elementary schools and ninth-graders would be moved to high schools. Proposed changes in the grade configuration have proven controversial in the past. Roberts also said he believes athletics and the arts are essential programs. He said he didnt particularly agree with Texas no-pass, no-play rule for student participation in e.xtracurricular activities. Roberts is seeing the good and the not-so-great in his visits to the schools. Im seeing some good environments, he told the group. But he also recalled seeing a lot of inactivity at the end of class periods. and he recounted an exchange he had earlier in the day with a student he found sleeping in class. Youngsters hanging around a local mall and smoking at 3 p.m. on a school night also caught his attention. \"They didn't have any business being there, he said. Somebodys mother or father or grandmother or ^andfather was not paying attention. Roberts will hold two more public meetings this month. The next one is set for 6 p.m. Thursday at Franklin Incentive Elementary School.I Arkansas Democrat W! (\u0026lt;3azelle  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1996 LR official seeks relief for schools Desegregation plan said to be time stealer BY LINDA FRIEDLIEB Democtat-GazetlG Stall Wrilor The Little Rock School District superintendent called Tuesday for the relaxation of the districts desegregation i)lan. Dr. Don Roberts, speaking to a handful of parents at a town hall meeting, called the court-mandated program an activity plan that use.s up stalT time. We have to have some relief from the desegregation pian, either letting us not have to do some things for awhile while we modify the plan or else changing the plan so it's an educational |)lan, not an activity plan,\" he said. Robeils said the requirements the pian imposes on administrative stair nicnibers prevent them from doing other things with their time. He said the plan's requirements could prevent the implementation of a strategic program that parents. community members and educa- i tors developed last year. Nearly 300 volunteers took five months to write the plan, also called A Vision for the Future, to guide district olficials development of school programs and policies over the next five years. It contained recommendations to ! improve student achievement, increase enrollment and strengthen I district finances. I dont want it (the strategic plan) to wither and die,\" Roberts said. But it may have to if we can't get relief. He said he would like to replace the desegregation program with education-based goals and a tiiiietable for getting the district out of court by accomplishing those goals. Then we need to get together a's a community and decide what needs to be done, he said. For example, he said, one part of,the plan requires field trips for students. I'd much rather have a regulation that says all the kids at Mitchell (fneentive Elementary School) will learn to read, Roberts said.  Robeils said he also planned to promote extracurricular activities. He said he met with the citys religious leaders to encourage them to help generate programs for children. .-Young people are going to be involved in something, going to join something, he said. Thats lyhy so many are joining gangs.\nHe said he felt programs such ' as athletics, music and art are important to students education.\nIts not where you get involved, necessarily, he said. Its that you get involved.Arkansas Democrat ' . FRIDAY. With dist r-fli c t d1y ing Roberts  Continued from Page 1A on vine, chief hcipes new ideas bear fruit BYCYNTHIzX HOWELL ARK.\\.vs.As oExsxux f (.,v.r.n In his first 100 days on the job, Little Rock Superintendent Don Roberts kept many of his thoughts to himself as he became reacquainted with a school district that he left 22 years earlier. This week, Roberts revealed his views on the state of the Little Rock disirict in a televised 45- minute address to the school board and in other conversations. He said the district is dying on the vine. It is a school district so focused on the details of a complex 1989 desegregation plan that employees can't concentrate on leaching children, Roberts said. Dwindling while enrollment, old schools in disrepair, and a lack of up-to-date technology systems also are among problems Roberts cited. The problems aren't hopeless, Roberts said, but the district must change its way of doing busine.ss. He proposes asking a federal\njudge for a break of up to nine Don Roberts Monitoring Io shill temporarily from moiiiloriiig to advi.siiig Ihe disirict in budgeting, sludenl as-signmenl, sluir development and sludenl discipline. A revised plan should focus on eight lo 1(1 points Unit are Ihe most ini])ortai)t, he said. I'm not telling you what we ought lo do al this moniciil,'' Roberts said aboul Ihe operation of the district. Im telling you we ought to slop doing it the way we are doing it During a break, people could form coalitions and everybody would work together to modify the plan. \"If the judge allows us lo lake a break from the plan, its our obligation lo come out of it wilh a new game plan that ________ _ couliiicl .sclllemenl, avcrliiig a sirike by teacher.s. Since Ihcn. he ha.s worked lo unite a school board thal has been publicly split 4 3 on key issues. Lalely. he has been working with the privalc coiiipanies thal provide transportation and custodial management for the district lo improve their services. One of Roberts chief concerns i.s school buildings. The dislricl need.s new ones, and il needs a bond issue lo pay for repairs lo existing schools, he said. Il cant be good advertising for us to have il said in the Wall SliTvl .Itninml thal we have a school that needs .$6 million in re-pairs,* Roberts said, referring lo a recent article about Central High. When do we fix il? When il costs $12 million? We have lo \"I lur (Ilie want a titialily, de-segregated school district.\" Roberts said. Thi.s society is pluralistic. Our young people must learn lo work an\u0026lt;l live logelher. They can't do that if they are .separate during Iheir formalive year.s.\" Roberts also wants to address Ihe district's academic program. The dislricl has some good schools, but others aren't so good and need innncdiale work, he said. Finding new and improved ways to teach inalhemalics to more sludent.s is critical, he said. A recent national study indicated that a black student who doesn't lake high school geoineliy has a 1- in-60 chance of completing college. For whiles who don't take geometiy, Ihe chance is 1 in 20. But students of either race who will have a If the jiiilge allows ns lo take a break front Ihe plan, S Otherwise^ ohHgalioii lo come out of it with a new game so plan Ihal will have a chance of success. Otherwise, much opposition - -  chance of sue- Roberts we'll have take the course* have a l in-4 chance of completing college. Nalionally, only about 17 During the proposed brcal\nso fast, we wilt have no chance I of ever getting a new plan going. district officials would conceii- has Roberts also well have so iiiiieh opposition so fast, we will have no chance of ever getting a new plan going. uisuivi uiiiviuia wuuiu vuiivcu-. naS proposed Irate on improving the quality of that the disirict develop a less percent of  Don Robei ts , said. black students ever set foot in geometry class- Roberts I months from requirements of court-monitored desegregation. the schools and proposing modifi- disruptive system for handling cations to the desegregation plan.  misbehaving sludenLs. Il is a proRoberts also wants the stalT in the posal that John Walker, an attor-federal Ofiice of Desegregation ney for the class of black sludent.s See ROBERTS, Page 20A in the school disirict, has doubts ---------- --------------- about. Too frequently when a teacher suspends or intends to discipline a student in some way, an advocate for the child  either an attorney or someone else  be-  comes involved, Roberts said. That takes everybodys focus ofT what should be occurring in a school and onto a negative. We have lo remove Ihat component to an outside locality, Roberts said. He has suggested Ihal a staff member from the Office of Desegregation Moniloring supeiwise the discipline case.s below Ihe level of expulsions. Student advocates could still participate in the process, but il wouldn't divert the attention of everybody in a school from other duties. Roberts said people may wonder if the proposed timeout from desegregation moniloring is the best idea he can produce. I could have come up wilh a 1,000 things, he said. Thats not the problem. This step will help us say to the community that things are going to be different. Weve got to get people to come togellier lo change the culture in our district. Roberts has made some measurable progress. Almost immediately upon assuming his job, he got the district and the Classroom Teachers Association lo reach a show our kids that we care aboul Iheni and that we dont want them to be in unacceiilable buildings.\" The district also need.s to build one or more schools in west Little Rock lo atlracl while fainilies lo the disirict and lo ensure that the district will continue to seiwe both black and white families. Student enrollment is now 67 percent black and 33 percent while, compared with 65 percent while and 35 percent black in 1974, when Roberts last worked in the district. The disirict also needs to improve alternative education programs for students who arent doing well in traditional academic programs, Roberts said. The programs should help sin-dents grow and improve themselves. he added. Plans are already in the works lo introduce 500 of the district's junior high studenU lo the world of business next summer. The students, supeiwised by teachers, will work for a week in local businesses to show the pupils why an education is important. Roberts, as superintendent in Fort Worth, implemented a similar program that became a national model. The Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools has committed to help fund the program next year. Roberts, who at 62 has been an educator for almost 40 years, told the Little Rock board that he is no longer interested in being a traditional superintendent. Tn the time tliat I'm here 1 don't want to just do those things that I've done for my whole lifetime and that you have seen a thousand other people do. That wouldn't be valuable use of my lime.\" he said. I don't think Vm smarter than anyone else. I'm just looking at it from a different point of view. I do believe all'those years ofexpe-rience ought lo let me see sonu things that might be of benefit ti this district and this city. T'm going to be obsessed will*, making .sure that teach the chil dren' becomes our motto. I hope we get a chance to come up with soniething together that will allow us to do that.\" Arkansas Democrat  azeUe 9 TUESDAY. MARCH 25. 1997  Find new \"chiefby98, Roberts tells LR scliobls a t U'. .V BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Interim Superintendent Don Roberts has asked the Little Rock School Board to find a successor by the end of this calendar year. i School Board President John ' Riggs IV confirmed Monday that he will issue a news release today announcing that the board will search for a new chief executive with the goal of having that person employed by September. Roberts, 62, said Monday he is willing to stay on the job briefly after the arrival of a new superintendent to help with transition. He also said he is willing to assist the district on future projects but does not want to be the full-time superintendent ! ' T Roberts and his wife, Jan, intend to continue living in central Arkansas, where two of his three adult children and two of his four grand- I See ROBERTS, Page 11A Roberts  pontinued from Page 1A children live. Roberts became interim superintendent of the states largest district last August at a salary of $115,000. He succeeded Dr. Henry  Williams, who left to become superintendent in tlie Kansas City, Mo., Scliool District.  A native of McNeil in Columbia County and a former Little Rock School District employee, Roberts was recruited by a citizens committee chosen by the School Board. Tlie committee co-chairmen were Dr. Roosevelt Brown and Rett Tucker. Tucker was chairman ofthe Greater tittle Rock Chamber of Coimnerce. ' Roberis said when selected that Hd would serve at least one year and possibly two. \"Committee members heralded Rdberts as a healer. Civil rights at- tdrhey John Walker, a committee member, joined in praise of Roberts and pledged to not sue the _ district in federal court during Rbbcrts tenure. Roberts had been living in retirement in Fort Worth, where he hh'd served for more than seven years as superintendent in the district of 72,000 students and 9,000 teachers.  During Roberts tenure in Fort ^prth, the district was nationally recognized for academic programs, ihcluding the Vital Link program in which sixth-graders and their t^hchers were placed in businesses and industries for a week so they could see how their lessons were applied in the workplace. Roberts worked in tlie Little Rock district in tlie late 1960s and early 1970s as an assistant and deputy su- p^erintendenL He left Little Rock to become superintendent in Newport I?ews, Va., but returned in the late 1970s to become director of the general education division of the Ajrkan- sas Department of Education under Giivs. Bill Clinton and Frank White. IJe later was superintendent of the Amarillo, Texas, schools and then the Fort Wortli district \" Shortly after taking tlie Little R'bck job last year, Robeifs urged the School Board to ask a federal judge for a hiatus of up to nine months in federal court monitoring of\nthe districts desegregation ef- fqhs. He called it a Kings X, after a gum he played as a child. Roberts spiij district employees needed the time to strengtlien the districts educational program and propose modifications to improve the 1989 qqsegregatioii plan. \n,,U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright agreed to the moratori- ' IArkansas Democrat ^(Ojizclk | \u0026gt; WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 Save our schools, 1997 ust M In 1957, Little Rock again has a choice. The city can stick with the same J old reflexive responses and watch its school district slip back into resegregation. Or it can think anew and act anewwhich is what leaders worthy of the name do when their communitys situation is new, Don Roberts, doing toe district a last service on his way out as school superintendent is a fair-minded, realistic veteran of the school wars. He proposes that the school district concentrate on educating kids regardless of color, and proceed to build public schools where Little Rocks school-age population is. Heres a way to bring back public education for all. But there will always be those who would rather stick to old obsessions. And toe old obsession with racial balance has left this district anything but racially balanced. Some members of toe school board un- derstMd toe challenge and are prepared to meet it Mike DaugherW, for example, cant sw the sense of continuing to bus black kids long distances to already predominantly black schools. He understands toe attraction of neighborhood schoolsfor families of any race. And hes for more nei^borhood schools as a way to keep families in their neighborhoodsand in toe public system. So is Ricky Hicks, another member of toe school board. To quote toe Reverend Mr. Hicks: I dont know how we ever got to the point where we measure educational quality by toe number of white children in a classroom. Ive never been concerned about the number of whites in my sons classroom, but I am concerned about the quality of education. So are most parents. Racial balance in the schools is desirable, but when that one goal began to take precedence over convenience, practicality, efficiency, reason in general, and finally education it^if, we lost sight of what integration was about: equal opportunity. Instead, integration has been reduced to some elaborate, expensive, and in toe end meaningless numbers game. We need to get back to thinking about what is best for each individual child, rather than in terms of racial blocs, their leaders and lawyers. Paul Greenberg Were all in this together. When youve been wandering in the wilderness for 40 years (1957-97) its only natural that leadership becomes reflexive instead of responsive. John Walker, whos been lawyering this cause just about since it was a cause, had an immediate reaction to Dr. Roberts new plan. It sounded a lot like: Hell. No! Or maybe Forget, Never!' To quote him more precisely, Mr. Walker says the new plan has no possibility of meeting our approval. Mike Daugherty is hoping John Walker will reco^ider. I think once he studies these revisions, says Mr. Daugherty, he will imderstand that this is for the better, even if he does not agree with all of it ^e Daugherty sounds like a cockeyed optimist which is just what this school district needs, but it may be too late for some of us to adjust to new realities, John Walker has been fighting the status quo of 1957 so long he may have lost touch with the realities of 1997. It would be nice to have his help in saving public education in this community, but, with or without Mr. Walker, the public schools can and will be saved. They must be if Little Rock itself is to have the kind of future all would wish for it. Sometimes old victories lead to new defeats. By sticking with old strategies, and old plans, new challenges go unmet Just look at what has happened to racial balance in school after school in the Little Rock district Look at how little has been aa A fl I' JI Ji '\u0026gt; ' 4-1 achieved at what great e.xpense. Think of how much could be achieved with some flexibility, imagination, and a newly united communityif we put ideology aside and concentrated on toe kids. A blueprint for toe future of public education in Little Rockits called Plain Talk, and it ishas been produced under the aegis of toe University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Will it be consigned to toe shelf, or take life? .4 grand opportunity to act on that report now approaches: This capital city is about to commemorate toe 40to anniversary of toe crisis at Central High. It was more than a constitutional crisis. It was a moral crisis, too. In many ways, it represented a failure of toe imagination, of toe spirit, of toe local, state and national conversation about race. - If we simply go through this months cer- emoni^ without applying toe lessons of that crisis, without reaching out to one another for new ways to undo old mistakes, those ceremonies will be only thatceremonies. Worse, our leaders can use this occasion to go through the same old motions and take toe same old, predictable positions,.- What a grand opportunity this anniver: sary would be to do something different to get together behind toe school boards new plan. What a good time this would be to convene that Community Congress mentioned in UALRs report on toe schools: an open- minded group of people, people with no axes to grind, who are broadly representative of toe people ofthe city and are connected in ways that will permit their work to flow back and inform others in toe community. Plain Talk uses as its frontispiece a quotation from Will and Ariel Durants The Lessons cf History. Their words would seem particularly relevant to Little Rock just now) When toe group or a civilization declines, it is through no mystic limitation of a corporate life, but through toe failure of its political and intellectual leaders to meet the challenges of change. ----------------- Paul Greeuierff is editorial page editor of the Ariamsas Democrat-Gaeette. He vxn the Pulitzer Prize inl969fi\u0026gt;r editorials oixna civil rights. IbUllOniALS T The continuing crisis L\u0026gt;i\u0026gt;ii liobcrts bluepniit for chaise ,J,I R DA.'.C..R... ..w. .n s Aii/'iisl .2..!.ll.l.i .in .sMvliiiouuuil wwuniiiiihui gfo\u0026lt;) ulipp IiIlIl wWecsstl LLilUllllee llie (jlisoeiiiiglilcncil yenr of Hoek, ifs (Jie lasleslgixnviiig pail of InIIinIKe'(leepn\n -h1lullnldlrrie\u0026lt;dfl a'IInI.dI ninety- II. ..II.. \u0026gt;...1 !, I .  r seven. Leading the front page of IJie Uie cily. bill JI lia.sii'l had a new paper were stories, |ilclnres, and graphics re\u0026lt;-ounling Ihe daik ages- Ihe Cenlial High Crisis of l(Ki7. That was years back, when cleaily we .(lidn'l know heller. All llic ncw,s jilay .^.ven Uie aiiniveisaiy left mom at Ihe .lop of Uic page for just one oUier slo-schooi since BZ7H. Il's liard to Lliink of a boiler cx- ample of what's wrong with Liltle Rocks school dislvicl limn IJial last lad. U.S a.s if public educalion had ly: a single column article with Ihe subhead,     given lip on a whole section of the cily and was reli-ealing into a shell. If Ulis school dislricl ts Io keep hum be,, 0, , I ....................c o. .m...i.n'og resefgretga*lcd -- amnmd IIlI' s.s amlmmoossti w, ..I i i  , 1. Ihei-c, folks-were going to have to at- would be inodiricd. ttrraacctt wwhhiillee sslutuddeennLt-s! ttoo fdhioe opnuhbiilnic ibio li'l  ............s-'l'ools. And where are so many of Illis Storys all loo current. those while sludenls? Out west \"It Some Uilngs don t change. Some would biing more whites into die dis- ,U)ing.s don I even have enough d id,\" Dr. RoberLs stus of die pre- 'J'' sL'liool. \"Wc can't recruit go.slisakes. I'oityycais ago, die debate em now\" cciilercd on Litde IliK-k's plan for in tfgiadon. hotly yeais later, die dcbnlo \nNope, its not a reprint iloiii 1957. \u0026lt;11------ -fr- vaicillKV. OIIIIIU Jnjiijs don't liiivc cimiigli com iJ'llie jilan would let more kids go /.QiiUnn .............to schools in Uieir own nelghbor- Wno^nAi TIv iimVi , AIJxevsQeVgfMievgsnii uiMono nhooooudss.. iIimnaaggminee:: AA KkiKdi ccoouulldd walk to school raUier Uiaii spending an hour J**  ret^J approach lo '9 schooling. A pleasant side effect . More stable neighborhoods.  This plan is a lol like what lute- ---- J i.i vciii:u Ine Revised Desegregation and Edu-  'I'hls latest Cliffs Noles-veislon of t1h,e_ _o_ld, deseg p--l-a--n. Xis\na. lo. t .b e lte* r (Jinn fgturiauloionniaisisls ubaaccKk inin utileie o6o0ss utliioouugj^liitt racially integrated education would fp low and focuses on Uie basics of be: reasonably pracUcal. Instead of education, not racial percentages, al- ... .... tendance zones, and fleoLs of buse.s. wiial it t(K\u0026gt; oflen turned out lo be\nan tanxviiso andi  ric\"ki s\"h1 a*w\"s'*. Ilie jd\"!a n wa.s spends mnilnliownosik anbolte lobo ioiinledgogrngllee UUiniet schoolswhile putUng educaUoti not Robei-ls to Lillie Rocks school board rust but last Make Uiat a distant last 'ri' ,interested parlies ln.sl after an biunease check list of minute nTvL?'i I n ............... specincnUoiis Uinl would make the .It was his goodbye gift to Uie dis- smallest-minded bean counter look inct, a last chance to make sense broad-minded and generous and educationof de- .R  segregation. But al least one intereslcd parly gave It Uie same old heave ho. John Walker, Who represents a group pf: children in Uie de- Pffgregatlon lawsuit, hn.s V.een uncharaelerlsll-cally recepUve Uiese last few nionUisa leinpo-  This plan would move 9U)-Graders out of junior biglis and into high schools, an Idea Uial some of us former rniy concession to Dr. Roberts, a man of'unqualiried good will. But now Mr. iow-on-lhe-totem-pole OUi-Gradeis recommend highly. The Inst Uiiiig must hormone-spiked, rage-agalnsl-authorlty 9Ui-Graders need to be is role models. And most of Uie district's higli schools can acconiniodate .Walker, Esip, sny.s: As far os Im con ., lu.i.m.,..- uh. uie.v,s one 01g, oig eerned (Uic plan} has no possibilily of excepUonCenlral High. How ac-iiiee ng our approval. First of all, its coiiuiiodate a few hundred more stu-a noUinig plan. It doesnl do anyUiing. dents al a school already bursting It says black children have no rights wiUi 2.000 sludenls? Good question \u0026gt;d this ts d.mul cosi^Utuljjjiinl ihc superinlcndenl admils. But where rights lor black childioii.\" Uiere's a will .... . a. '.u.v,, IIU  IglllO and tins case Ls about coirsUtutioiial a !llli Grade claw, llicies one big, big '5'Pe pages of i..c.co lu mis piun. nui noi Uie Revised Desegregation and Ed- much. It's only 16 pages long. And Uie ucatioii 1 Ian,  we .seem lo have supcrinlcndcnt can sum it up in Iwo oussed die section that .strips black words: Education Fii-st, Now Uint anybody else of Uieir would be a nice legacy lo leave Uie noble Till! l/iliii UZt.ll,..,. i iii  . There's more to this plan. But not '  11 T  1 I ... ..  xviiiii MW \u0026lt; iiitu ivgiH-y lu leiive uie Ml i'J ^'slricts incoiiiing superintendenL will Into anything, and. in Uiis case, Ix-slie Caniine. And it wouldnt hurt 1 he's done il ag.ain. Conclusion: If people of good will have to save public education hi this town wllhoul him, Uien we'll have to do il wllhoul him. Uic kids, eilJicr. I Obiy. Now let's get on willi it '\\Vli:il R niiM iriipfessTvi'^nioiir iir. llolieiLs plan i,s Itijil il ran Im\nlead in one silling. Amazing. Compare il lo the 2iiich pile ufjaigon known a.s llu' I T WAS WIIDLLY a plcasuh' (o vis-il with Don Roberts again. lie dropped by before his nieefing Thursday nighl and (irovcd just as Ai kansa.K hoiH'.sl as he w:i.s nine 1 lie monliis ago back when he came up V'c\n'' os ii wwiitihii mthe Iiddeeaa oolf a lIir uiiccee bellwoeen IIhe Df .y.gK.galion 1 ian\nmd iLs equally districts warring liidions. A King's X 3 0^0*'^'\"\n*': he -alled il. Out ol llial peaceliil lime Tool Kit. No piiy.sic.s lexibooks ever lookiti KO inlimidafing. The original plan is big ami complicaled enough lo Ialled i(. Ont ol'ihal peaeel'iil iiinl Ilie wink ol d\u0026lt;izeii.s olroneei'iii'd I'ilizeii.s lamc IIk' Revisml Desegre galion and lxhn'alion I'lnn, Ihil unieK.s we ael oil il, 40 yeais hum now it m: i hc.illh taie leform bill. And aboiil be only bmely recnllcti as the Insl IaIKs tu ls.llepffull]l, Dllro,n,i llR,.oIbe .1i'4ls was a.1b.1le.. II.o. .g..o. ..I__ J I ..... Ihrongh Ihe revised plan section by seclion Ihe oilier da.v in less Ilian an hour. And if you've ever bilked with/lieen hilled by Dr. Robeils. you kmiw he'll never be aci iised of rirsli chance lo keep l.illh- RoeVs school disliii'l horn becoming almosl as seg regaled a.s il wa.s in Ti7. The sohilion, just a,s in .57, is up lo n,s. We can take Ibis plan serionsiv, all ,, ,1...................................................o...f. ..n..s.,. ..o...r. mgivvee up.. vWvee can lfoorrmm tlhimall .1 M M o A Hr Commuiuly t4tugiT.s.s recommended aail lMllecNNmei l, AAlr-klr. , csrpiie.,eitiill, (wl,iliici..hl. ...... I...........11__ . .. .  . . nolcli behnv slow. i.s one To simimarize:  The pian emphasize.s reading and malhemalics, including algebra. Don Robeils would like to see a I'ily Wille campaign to gel kids Io read. II would be similar to Uio statewide campaign under way now in 'Ibxas. \"I in anolher report and pul educalion lirst - before Ihe race issue, before our own precious egos, b,=fv.v lawyers fees and all the salisfactions before waul lo create an alnio.spliere.\" he .sjijs, \"where you leel had if you're iml of cheap dcmagogueiy ... or we can Walch Ilie laigcsl school ilislricl in Ilie slate go .lim Crow again. This lime maybe for good. Ami what hajipeii-s Io school dis- Irirl.K lia.K a way of Imppctiing (o Ihi* I ........ ^c.iiltiicc..-s. lIuhceyj sseeinveo.. iI,z\u0026lt;nn,iKk aarroouiinndii natl leu\u0026lt;0 ig- (.oiinl ns in anil pass liny America's inner cilies. Tliis discussion RHerieridil'cs EhtnnniilMHwip. ..... ... . .... _. ...  The plan calls Ibr building Iwo new elcinenfaiy schools. Due wouhl go up al Ihe site of the former bil l just about Illi' l,ii(Je Kock School Disliicl. Il's aboiil Lillie IliKk We can save our schools, or we can jusl for s,\n........ - jgiveil nil.. W\u0026gt;e\nIc.aIlnl .sMauvee our ciily, or ndrritflti. Slephen.s ^hool near downtown. Once We can squabble, or we can work Io-that school IS budt, Ihe district would gelher. The basic decisions in life cluse down Garland Elemenlar,v jii.sl don'l change all Lhal much: Wlielher a few blocks away. Ilie other new il's ISKTZ or KHZ?, Rs slill decision time. Aikansas iX-inocral B^lnHislirHl inza Avltnnnan 7?r(f\u0026gt;azcllc RsinliliRboil 1819 Arf\u0026lt;an,sa,s Deniociat /^(l,*)jizell\u0026lt;.' Aihans-'if\n' Npwr.f\u0026gt;ni)ei Walter E. Hussmnn, Jr.. Publisher Grinia Smith, |r. F.tpculhx FOHoi Pnul Gificnborg f.Mo'ial Pego FMiv on  WUUNESOAY, SEPl EMBER 3. 1997  Poul n. Smith VP/GiuvalMunngitr Lynn tlnmlllon VP. Oi'r/fllioiij John Mobbs Larry Graham Cicul.il:cn Dtifeloi Ealol Jellery, Jr. ot PlOfOOtIQ/'t Cnpylglll C mriMto Rock NnwatMlpAil. Inc Arkansas Democrat '^(ij^azctte ]  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1^7 Schools awaiting ruling -'Little Rock owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Don Roberts, who returned to the Little Rock School District more than a year ago.  -Roberts, a nationally known educator, had retired after mitigating the Fort Worth School Districts problems. Hanng previously been an assistant superintendent of the LRSD, he was well aware of our problems, but was willing to return and help in a time of crisis.  With the help of relaxed requirements from Judge Susan Webber Wright and the hard work of a dedicated school board, the district has had a good year. .As Wright recently reported, virtually no reports of school violence, labor strife or infighting among school board members and the superintendent  Where do we go from here? We are rapidly approaching the point where professional educators, dedicated school board members and parents will give up and simply write off the district as a lost cause. Wright has before her a revised school district desegregation and education plan prepared by an outstanding superintendent who knows the problem and has come out of retirement to work and study this problem. The hope of the Little Rock School District will rest with her decision. Is the primary goal of our district to be education or continued litigation? H. PRICE ROARK Little RockArkansas Democrat ^(gazette  FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 199ff^. 5E Fof rhef intcrirn school chief to stny on with district as consultant fet^llS^S15.SS?cS- Sof Edu?ahom''''Sete^re^otiltions'T''\"\" '\"a rt^^P^^vision of the school money for educating children who Mo'o!^ToSvcS^TiS' iofyei ' mSKKSSss\nfor the district as a consultant Tie distocts new superinten- Mauuaie ! dent Les Carnine, said Thursday dent for desegregation that Roberts will work through \" ' March as a consultant to him and to the board on matters related to supervision Of the school pleted negotiations on a revised distnct by the end of the 2000-2001 - plan with civil rights attorney John school year. , Walker. In other business, the School fSSf5 =S SBStoS BBSS ...I..... g.jSTss.-'sa\nCoiSwSpecFa!^ch?o! '5^e Little Rock board also Last week Roberts and attor- Schools vokeSp^ortfoftt^ ?^finl^^X \"1'  J th. d^ SSKSKa^LTd,rx^^ S5TdX^Jd'3,t^S\" position of associate superinten- Roberts was an assistant superintendent in the Little Rock dis- trict in the 1960s and later became , J------ST.\"-----------: The proposed plan is now CIVIC leaders asked him to serve as awaiting federal court approval siinonntQTiaor,* lone II . Thursdays regular monthly school board meeting, representa- superintendent in 1996. He accept-\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_763","title":"SWAT visits","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":["1996/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["SWAT visits"],"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/763"],"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":["169 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\ninteroffice MEMORANDUM to: from: Gene, Horace, Margie, Melissa Margie subject: SWAT Visits 1996-97 date: August 14, 1996 During the weeks of August 19-22 and August 26-27, we will visit selected schools in the three Pulaski County districts. Working in two separate teams, we will collect data to be incorporated into an informal report to the superintendents. The focus for these visits should be on activities related to school readiness such as building preparation (cleanliness, paint), classroom readiness (materials, furniture, displays), staff (positions filled, preschool inservices), and student processing (registration, transportation, room assignments). The facilities and classroom observation forms may be used as guides. Teams members should minimize requests for information from school staffs during these visits, since we will get numerical data from later reports. Give the lists of team observations to Margie. Team and school assignments are as follows: Team 1-Gene and Margie Mon. 19 Tues. 20 Weds. 21 Thurs. 22 MILLS HS MCCLELLAN HS Mabelvale JH J. A. FAIR HS David O. Dodd Forest Park Pine Forest* OAK GROVE HS* Scott Elem./ALC* Jaxville Jr. - North Arnold Drive BAYOU METO JAXVILLE HS 9:00 10:30 1:30 9:00 10:30 1:00 9:00 10:15 1:00 9:00 10:00 10:45 1:30 Team 2-Horace and Melissa MILLS HS MCCLELLAN HS Chicot J. A. FAIR HS Otter Creek Jefferson Oak Grove Elem.. OAK GROVE HS Northwood JH Jaxville Jr. - South* Jaxville Elem..* BAYOU METO* JAXVILLE HS* Mon. 26 Tues. 27 NLRHS EAST RIDGEROAD JH North Heights Rose City JH Redwood 9:00 10:30 1:00 9:00 10:30 NLRHS EAST RIDGEROAD JH Amboy Lakewood JH Central Elem.. *Skip on teamGene, Horace, Margie, Melissa Page 2 August 14, 1996 PLANS In the event the PCSSD teachers are on strike the schedule is as follows: PCSSD on strike Team 1 - Gene and Margie Team 2 - Horace and Melissa Mon. 19 CLOVERDALE JH MCCLELLAN HS Mabelvale JH 9:00 10:30 1:30 CLOVERDALE JH MCCLELLAN HS Chicot Tues. 20 J. A. FAIR HS David O. Dodd Forest Park 9:00 10:30 1:00 J. A. FAIR HS Otter Creek Jefferson Weds. 21 PARKVIEW HS* Terry* Williams* 9:00 10:30 1:00 PARKVIEW HS Romine Badgett Thurs. 22 CENTRAL HS ALC Booker Magnet 9:00 10:30 1:00 CENTRAL HS* Baseline* Southwest JH* *Skip on team NLRSD schedule remains the sameGene, Horace, Margie, Melissa Page 3 August 14, 1996 PLAN C In the event that the LRSD teachers are on strike the schedule is as follows: Team 1- Gene and Margie Team 2 - Horace and Melissa Mon. 19 MILLS HS FULLER JH Landmark 9:00 10:30 1:00 MILLS HS FULLERJH Bates Tues. 20 SYLVAN HILLS HS SYLVAN HILLS JH 9:00 10:30 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM.. 1:00 SYLVAN HILLS HS SYLVAN HELLS JH SYLVAN HELLS ELEM.. Weds. 21 Pine Forest* OAK GROVE HS* Scott Elem./ALC* 9:00 10:30 1:00 Oak Grove Elem.. OAK GROVE HS Northwood JH Thurs. 22 Jaxville Jr. North Arnold Drive BAYOU METO JAXVILLE HS 9:00 10:00 10:45 1:15 Jaxville Jr. South* Jaxville Elem..* BAYOU METO* JAXVILLE HS* * Skip on team NLRSD schedule remains the sameOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 18, 1996 Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: Its become an ODM custom for us to make brief, informal visits to some schools during the first few days of the new academic year. Our obsen'ations during these visits are the same type which we believe parents, students, and staff would make as they enter the building to start the year. Thats why we pay particular attention to the aspects of a school which are most likely to initially impress those entering it, such as the condition of the grounds, building upkeep and cleanliness, student behavior, and so forth. Tills year we dropped in on 18 LRSD schools: the Alternative Learning Center\nBadgett, Baseline, Booker, Chicot, Dodd, Forest Park. Jefferson, Romine, Terry, and Williams Elementary Schools\nCloverdale, Mablevale, and Southwest Junior Highs\nand Central, Fair, McClellan, and Parlcview High Schools. The notes we made on each of those schools are attached. As in the past, we will not formally file or publish our observations at this time, although its possible that we might eventually include some of them in a monitoring report. Our intention with these early and informal comments is to give you, your administrators, and principals the benefit of our initial impressions. 1 hope the enclosed information is helpful. Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, QU- Ann S. Brown Enc. cc\nVic Anderson Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Building principalsALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER (ALC) Exterior  The exterior grounds were well tended and the courtyards were pleasing to the eye. Trees and shrubs were healthy and attractive.  The exterior of the building showed its age and could use new windows and doorways. Interior  The concrete floors were clean and shiny.  Lower walls in the corridor showed much damage and needed to be refinished.  Wires for the telephones or intercom were exposed and hanging in unsightly ways through most of the corridor. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Floors in the cafeteria were clean and waxed.  Cafeteria walls were badly spattered and stained, although students werent due to arrive at the ALC until the following week. The walls needed a thorough washing.  Although the kitchen manager reported that an exterminator had visited the school, we saw large amounts of mice droppings in the faculty lounge along the ledge of the chalkboard and on trays by the microwave oven. Uncovered trash stood in the lounge, which surely served to abet the vermin infestation.  The kitchen area had virtually no ventilation.  Water from a large pipe, which protruded from the kitchen ceiling, drained into a trash barrel, causing the plaster and insulation around the pipe to crack, peel, and break, thus presenting a serious safety hazard.  The kitchen floor was cracked and peeling. Media Center  Although the ALC had a book collection, it could not be called a library. The books were rejects or gleanings from other schools and were not purchased with the needs of the alternative students in mind. The principal reported that he had no media specialist nor aide to staff the center. Thus, for all practical purposes, media center services were not available to the students. Restrooms  Restrooms were a mess even though students had yet to be sent to the school! Paper towels overflowed trash cans\nthe piles had obviously built up over several weeks.  None were fully supplied with paper products.  Toilets were not flushed and some were filled with paper. Brown, crusty rings around the water lines indicated the bowls had not been cleaned,  In the girls restroom, only one of three taps was operable, and the tile was dirty and unsightly. Page 1BADGETT ELEMENTARY Exterior  The custodian was mowing the grass when we visited.  The school had virtually no trees or shrubs in front of the building, which would improve the exterior appearance. The courtyard area contained some shrubbery, but the area was littered with an old ladder and a collection of metal tubing.  Garbage cans from the cafeteria were sitting in front of the building, creating an unsightly scene.  Weed-filled cracks in the sidewalk, around the perimeter of the building, and around the portables were very unsightly.  The playground for four-year-olds was not fenced. Interior  The hall floors were clean and waxed.  A bank of storage cabinets in one hallway was defaced with considerable graffiti and scribbles. The new paint on the cabinets was chemically different from the original and, as a result, had not adhered well, enabling students to scratch messages on them with their fingernails.  Ventilation in the interior halls was almost nonexistent. Security  We discovered one unlocked exterior door from the kindergarten wing to the playground. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Floors in the cafeteria were clean and waxed, and ceiling fans helped the air flow. All of the exit lights were working.  Some of the tables were badly chipped and gouged. Although lighting was adequate, some of the light bulbs were missing their covers.  The kitchen had adequate ventilation and was arranged to allow for good traffic flow. The kitchen surfaces were immaculate and workers reported no sightings of bugs or vermin.  The kitchen fire extinguisher was located where it would be hard to get to if needed quickly.  The doorway leading to the serving area needed painting. Restrooms  Tilework in the boys restroom was in good condition. The facility was handicapped accessible and supplied with paper products.  One light was out in the boys restroom. Although disguised somewhat by air freshener, the boys restroom had a faint urine odor.  The girls restroom was fully supplied with paper products and soap. One of the restrooms had litter on the floor and counters. Two of the toilets were not flushed. Page 2BASELINE ELEMENTARY Exterior  The grounds were clean and free of litter, and the exterior of the building was well maintained,  Play equipment was located in shaded areas, which was beneficial on the very warm day we visited the school,  The pea gravel under the climbing equipment had become compacted and offered little cushion for falling children,  Some rocky areas needed topsoil and sod. Interior  The large foyer was unusually attractive, due to decorative plants and inviting benches that were tastefully arranged.  The in-house LRPD alert center was designed to blend in with the rest of the school, maintaining the welcoming appearance. Security  All exterior doors were properly secured,  No security fence separated the playground from busy Hilaro Springs Road, Cafeteria and Kitchen  Unlike many of the other schools we monitored, cafeteria tables were free of plastic sticker residue,  The floor was spotless even though students had recently eaten lunch,  The staff reported that the kitchen had been treated by an exterminator, and they found no evidence of bugs,  Ventilation in the kitchen area was very poor,  Fire extinguishers were at the rear of the kitchen area and not immediately visible,  According to one kitchen worker, a hole in the storage room ceiling was caused by a mouse. Restrooms  Although all of the restrooms had toilet paper and the common wash areas had soap, the floors needed mopping.  Two of the girls restrooms were generally clean and free of litter and graffiti.  One of the girls restrooms was marred with graffiti, and the dispenser lacked paper towels,  Another girls restrooms was not handicapped accessible, and the entry to one stall that was ostensibly designed for wheelchair access was rather narrow.  All of the boys restrooms generally were clean\nhowever, some of the restroom walls needed scrubbing.  The ceramic tile in a boys restroom had started to crumble near a drain, leaving an unsightly hole. Page 3BOOKER ARTS MAGNET Exterior  The campus lawns had been mowed recently.  A downspout on the north side of the gym was dislodged and leaking. Interior  Hallways contained a variety of posters and banners emphasizing the art theme, and student work was already on display in the halls and classrooms.  Classrooms were clearly and attractively labeled with grade, teacher, and room number.  Floors gleamed, as did the lockers.  Interior areas were clean and free of litter, and the custodian was actively addressing building needs during our visit.  The hallways near the gymnasium had some worn and missing floor tiles. Security  Several classroom doors were propped open rather than being secured. Media Center  The media center was spacious and had areas that were set up for younger as well as older students.  A full reference room was separate from the main area, and the check-out system was fully automated.  The area was stuffy. According to a staff member, the air conditioning units had not been turned on. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The cafeteria presented a very bright and inviting atmosphere\nfloors and tables were clean, and the walls looked freshly painted.  Four fire extinguishers were strategically located in the kitchen area.  One of the freezers was not cooling properly and was making an excessive amount of noise. Restrooms  Restrooms were clean and free of debris.  Paper products were in plentiful supply, and all fixtures operated normally.  Restrooms throughout the school lacked signs identifying gender. Climate  We noted several instances where adults appeared overly harsh, demeaning, or sarcastic with students. For example, a group of very young children were required to walk down the halls with one hand covering their lips and the other behind their backs. A teacher was heard delivering a lengthy harangue to a small girl who did not descend the stairs properly, and an adult in a third grade class repeatedly chided and insulted students who failed to provide the correct answer during a math lesson. Page 4CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Exterior  The picnic area behind the cafeteria was accented by blooming crape myrtles.  The area behind the school looked like a dump. A large pile of discarded desks and furnishings littered the area near the door to the building. A pile of debris lay in front of the old and crumbling Campus Inn. The discarded building material included a large collection of 2' x 4's with numerous protruding nails. A large tree limb (about seven feet long) lay beside the path to the practice field, and a planter near the gymnasium was filled with dead azaleas.  The school bears a plaque indicating that it is a recognized National Historic Landmark, but no flags were flying. Interior  Several signs welcomed new students and others encouraged good behavior.  The glass in the doors to the main entry was filthy.  The entry alcove at the south end of the building was so dirty that it appeared to have been neglected for quite some time. Walls in the area were soiled and filled with graffiti.  The plexiglass panels, which have replaced glass in many of the exterior doors, were exceedingly unsightly due to dirt, fogging, scratches, bums, or other damage.  In another area, workers had painted over graffiti on the lockers with paint that contrasted sharply from the original.  Several hall hghts throughout the building were out, and some of the ceiling tiles were damaged.  A broken window in a classroom door had been repaired with duct tape.  A water fountain had been removed from the alcove built for it.  The floor tile on the ramp leading backstage was loose or missing in several places, and several floor tiles were missing from the hallway leading to the wellness clinic,  The corridors around the band room were especially depressing. The carpet was dirty and patched with duct tape, and gum had been carelessly ground into the rug fibers.  Litter was common both inside and outside the building.  The absence of overall maintenance and cleanliness seriously undermined the grandness of the building.  We noted custodial personnel sitting idly, with no supervision apparent. Security and Safety  Although not immediately visible upon entering the school, security personnel were present in the building, and the school was served by a resource police officer.  Class changes were orderly, but many students wandered the halls during class,  Security forces seemed to congregate in one area on the main level\nthey did not circulate very much. We did not see any security personnel on level four during our visit,  Some side entrance doors were not locked,  Several fire boxes were noted in the corridors, but extinguishers were not prominently displayed,  Exposed wires dangled from an electrical outlet in a corridor, A large quantity of wires and cables hung down from the roof of the library,  The sidewalk leading from the main building to the library was hazardous: the metal grates imbedded in the concrete protruded above the level of the walk and posed a tripping hazard. Page 5Media Center  Despite more than 8,400 square feet of space, the media center was crowded, A large computer lab occupied an entire section. The computers which had research capability were sitting atop book shelves because the center did not have computer furniture,  The center showed substantial damage from use and age. The original carpet was threadbare and tom in many places,  By usual standards, the book collection looked large and impressive\nhowever, the size of the student body and the uniqueness of the special programs necessitates an enhanced collection if the service is to be adequate for the needs of all students. No special collection served the international studies program, and technological service was not adequate to meet the research needs of Centrals students. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The cafeteria floor was swept, and tables and chairs were in good repair.  The facility was arranged to provide excellent traffic patterns and air flow was very good, even in the kitchen area.  Kitchen workers reported no problems with bugs or vermin.  Unsightly hoses from the soft drink dispensers detracted from the appearance of the snack bar area.  One section of the cafeteria showed evidence of some wall repair, but the replacement plaster had not been sanded or repainted. Other sections of the cafeteria walls and ceiling exhibited extensive damage and deterioration.  Although the kitchen had been painted last year, serious moisture problems were not corrected\nas a result, the plaster around the window casement was badly cracked, chipped, and stained.  Some of the ceiling panels in the kitchen were missing. Gymnasium  Bleachers in the gymnasium were in good repair, and the gym floor was in superior condition,  The hardwood floor beside the bleachers was damaged and one large section was missing. Restrooms  Restrooms varied in appearance and state of repair. Most, but not all, of the restrooms had paper products and some had soap. Tilework was in good repair and clean. The restrooms were free of litter and well lit.  Several of the boys restrooms did not have paper towels and many of the stalls had no doors. Some of the counter tops were damaged and not all restrooms had facilities for the handicapped.  Although the windows were open in some of the girls restrooms, they were still stuffy and exuded a feint urine odor. Stall doors were sloppily painted and plaster was peeling and smeared with non-matching paint.  In one girls restroom, three of six taps did not function. A commode in another did not flush and several counters were scratched, stained, or marred, Ants were crawling all over one counter top,  All of the girls restrooms we monitored had new soap dispensers, yet none of them contained soap. Page 6CHICOT ELEMENTARY Exterior  The grass was freshly mowed and some flowers filled the planter under the school sign. Interior  The new construction was attractive with thoughtful touches, such as plastic comer guards on the hall walls.  The walls were painted a neutral color which gave the school a light, bright appearance.  Workers had retouched the wall paint with a paint glossier than the original. The mismatched touch-ups were more unattractive than a few smudges would have.  Chicot is one of LRSDs designated Newcomer Centers for students who are not native English speakers. Areas throughout the school were labeled in English, Spanish, and braille. Security  Two rear doors were not secured, and a supply company was making deliveries through one of the unsecured doors.  A few classroom doors were not locked. Media Center  The unusually large room housing the media center was located on a hallway that allowed for easy access.  The facility was attractive, well lighted, and offered plenty of shelving for additional books and materials.  The media specialist related that the books from the closed Ish and Stephens schools had been used to restock the library and that $77,000 from the fire fund had been spent to supplement them. The result was a good collection of books and attractive materials. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Floors in the cafetorium and kitchen were clean, and fire extinguishers were clearly visible in both areas.  The chairs and tables were in good repair.  Traffic flow in the kitchen area was smooth.  Although the kitchen lacked windows, air from four fans, plus the flow from air conditioners from the cafetorium, kept the area cool on the very warm and humid day we visited. Restrooms  The restrooms were labeled in Spanish, English, and braille.  Stalls in the girls restrooms were new and free of graffiti.  One of the girls restrooms was fully supplied and spotless.  While another girls restroom had plenty of paper products, it was not immaculate\nthe floor was dirty.  Both boys restrooms had soap and paper towels in the common wash area.  One boys restroom was exceptionally clean, while another had some scuff marks and ghosts of past graffiti on the walls.  One of two boys restrooms was handicapped accessible. Page 7CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH Exterior  The front of the school was neatly landscaped with trimmed grass and flower beds that featured crape myrtles and dwarf hollies.  While the grass had recently been mowed, it appeared that the district allowed a great deal of time to elapse between mowings, as large piles of long grass clippings littered the courtyards.  Flags were flying on the day we visited.  The principal indicated that many of the cracks we had noted last year in the exterior brick had been repaired over the summer. Workers shored up the foundation in the affected areas, removed sections of the exterior brick walls, and re-bricked the areas. The replacement work was indistinguishable from the original brick walls. Noticeable cracks in the brick veneer remained in only one area of the school. Interior  A large welcome sign greeted parents in the main office, which also included a parent center sponsored by the PT A.  The hallways in the new addition were clean and shiny. Classroom doors were clearly marked to ease getting students into their rooms on the first day of school.  Hallways in the original building had been adequately cleaned and most lockers were in good repair.  Students looked neat and well-groomed in their uniforms, which were black or white tops and jeans.  We noted a cracked concrete ramp in a corridor near the gym. Security and Safety  Although a resource officer was in the parking lot, the officer was visiting with a parent in a parked car, rather than patrolling the campus.  Only four of a long row of outside lights in an exterior corridor were on.  The back exterior door was not locked.  Two large construction trenches were exposed beside the cafeteria area and to the side of the building. None of the ditches were protected by fencing.  The wing containing rooms 24-26 was dark and unattended.  A safety hazard was created when an electric extension cord was attached to an outside light pole, which had a broken globe and no bulb. The cord extended from the pole along the ground, under a fence, and into a small hole in the exterior brick near a storage shed. Media Center  The media center was being used as the holding spot for 70 to 80 late students and others who did not have schedules for the first day of classes.  Students were very orderly and staff members helped students find their classrooms.  Although the room for the media center was old and tattered, the staff had dressed it up as much as practical with a fairly recent paintjob.  Media equipment was stored on carts for later distribution to the rooms. Page 8Cafeteria and Kitchen  The cafetorium was cool and comfortable, and ventilation in the kitchen was excellent. The rubberized floor was clean and free of debris.  The walls in the cafeteria, from the vestibule area throughout, were dirty and scuffed and needed a coat of paint.  The glass doors to the cafeteria were marred with fingerprints and other smears, a few of the ceiling panels were missing or loose, and two of the overhead lights weren't functioning. A few carts in the aisles impeded traffic flow in the kitchen area.  Walls in the kitchen appeared clean, thanks to the green and cream school color scheme: dark green covered the bottom four feet of wall, eliminating visible stains or scuff marks.  One refrigerator unit had a rubber tube protruding from the bottom that was leaking a milky substance. When brought to the managers attention, she said she would fix the problem.  The fire extinguishers were not readily apparent in the kitchen area\nin fact, when monitors asked about their location, two of the extinguishers had to be retrieved from behind a large cardboard box. Restrooms  One of the girls restrooms was locked until a student asked a security person to open it. The restroom contained no soap, toilet paper, or paper towels. None of the stalls contained receptacles for feminine hygiene products. The sink was clean, but the counter top was badly marred and stained.  Two other girls restrooms were in poor condition. In both of them, the walls had been poorly repainted. Countless paint drips and splotches had fallen on the yellow tiled walls, and the painters had made no attempt to avoid painting over metal hardware or the identifying signs on the doors. It also appeared that earlier workers had painted the tile walls a dark brown color. The paint had been removed from the tile, but it was still present on most of the grout lines.  The toilets appeared to be functioning, but neither of the girls restrooms had any running water in the sinks. The lack of running water seemed long term, since it was obvious that the painters had cleaned their brushes in the water fountains rather than using the restroom sinks or the custodial area. Paint residue had also dripped onto the sidewalk under the water fountains. No attempt had been made to clean the walkways or the water fountains.  One of the boys restroom was locked. The word boys was painted over on the door and the painter had left several paint drops on the floor. The restroom lacked paper towels. Page 9DAVID O. DODD ELEMENTARY Exterior  An attractive awning provided overhead protection between the drive and the school entry.  The campus featured good play areas including a softball field with backstop, paved basketball courts with baskets in good repair, and age-appropriate playground equipment on pea gravel.  The lawn and shrubs around the front of the building were well tended, but other areas of the lawn needed mowing.  The front of the building, although well maintained, did not have a clearly marked entryway, which would be helpful to parents and newcomers.  The exterior building which housed the kindergarten students was not attractive because it appeared to have been poorly constructed of plywood.  The portable that housed music was dilapidated-looking. Interior  The entrance area to the school featured a large Parents are Important sign, and the decor was completed by several live plants, a table, a large fishless aquarium, and a parents comer.  The interior hallway was well maintained and had wheelchair accessible ramps connecting to the south entryway.  Although the hall was clean, some of the baseboard was peeling from the wall, and several floor tiles showed evidence of damage. Security  The rear door of the school was slightly ajar and, therefore, not secure.  A side door by one of the restrooms was not secure. Media Center  The media center was attractively ananged with portable shelving, which were both functional and aesthetically pleasing. The area was busy, clean, and efficient,  Students had access to three computer stations. One new computer housed in a work room was also available for CD ROM or Internet searches. Two of the sixteen open-space teaching stations surrounding the media center were vacant. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The cafeteria floor was clean and polished, and the kitchen was clean and free of bugs.  Some of the floor tiles in the cafeteria were damaged, and the walls were dirty, chipped, scuffed, and marred. Tables had residue from old assembly instructions.  Ventilation in the kitchen was poor, and window screens were frayed and unsightly. Restrooms  All facilities were handicapped accessible and free of litter.  Girls restrooms had narrow stalls. Wash areas were supplied with paper products, but one of them had no soap. While not obviously dirty, the floors and walls looked dingy and appeared to need scrubbing. None of the stalls had units for the disposal of feminine hygiene products. Page 10J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Exterior  The exterior was very neat, and the grounds did not have even one piece of litter.  The grass was trimmed, crape myrtles provided landscaping accents, and other shrubs and annuals near the entry added to the grounds appearance.  No flags were displayed. Interior  A large banner promoting a schoolwide open house greeted those entering the building.  Interior spaces were very neat, clean, and attractive. The floors were shiny and clean, much of the wall paint looked fresh, and graffiti had been painted over in some areas.  Trash receptacles were readily available throughout the building.  Lockers were well maintained.  All the halls were well lit.  Most of the classrooms contained both the room number and the teachers name.  Every exit light observed was operating.  The surface material covering the ceilings had deteriorated in several areas of the building. The problem was particularly acute in the practice gym. The vinyl ceiling behind the metal mesh was cracked, exposing the underlying insulation. Security and Safety  None of the security staff was visible outside the school. The resource officer was behind the counter in the front office, and a security guard patrolled the main lobby area.  A few classroom doors were ajar, probably due to the hot and humid weather.  Although most exterior doors were properly secured, one pair of side exterior doors were unlocked.  When queried about the small security staff, the guard stated that one guard was absent, but he was expecting a substitute within the hour. The security guard spent a lot of time herding individual students to their proper destinations. Media Center  The media center was clean, functional, and located off a major corridor of the building. Though small for a high school, the room appeared to be student oriented as most decorations were student-created art works, which included Greek masks and Egyptian symbols.  The electronic barrier that is intended to prevent theft was the only unsightly item in the media center.  No students were in the center on the second day of school. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The floor was waxed and spotless.  Tables in the cafeteria contained residue from adhesive instruction stickers.  The walls near the tray drop-off area were splattered and soiled.  One kitchen worker reported having seen bugs, but the manager said that the exterminator had been there and she had seen only dead bugs since the extermination,  The tables in the Eagles Nest (snack bar and bookstore) were clean and free of residue, and the concrete floor was clean. The unpainted counter looked homemade, and the display case was empty. Page 11Gymnasium  Floors in the main gymnasium were freshly waxed and had a brilliant shine. Although not new, the paint on the walls was clean and free of chips and cracks. The facility was hot.  Floors in the practice gym were in good condition, but were not buffed. Some areas of the ceiling showed evidence of damage\nthis damage was also evident in the hallway leading into the practice gym. Auditorium  The auditorium was well lit, and the seats and curtains were in excellent condition. Restrooms  The floor in a girls restroom was spotless and the stalls were free of litter and graffiti. The facility was fully supplied with paper products and soap, the mirror was clean, and the room had units for the disposal of feminine hygiene products. The restroom was handicapped accessible.  Another girls restroom was also clean, well supplied, and free of graffiti.  In one girls restroom, two of five stalls had no toilet paper. This restroom was not handicapped accessible, and the dirty walls needed scrubbing. Page 12FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY Exterior  The front courtyard was beautifully landscaped with shrubs, flowers, brick sidewalks, and ornamental benches. Flowers, shrubs, and grass were in excellent condition.  While the rest of the grounds couldnt match the impressive entryway, they were equipped with suitable playground equipment, a paved play area, and basketball courts.  The path from one portable to the main building was not covered, but it was handicapped accessible.  Although the windows on the main building that receive direct sunlight were covered with glare reflecting screens, some of the screens were tattered and unsightly.  An unusually shabby pink portable building housed the sixth grade classroom, and a slightly better portable housed the music classroom.  The playground was not entirely fenced. Interior  The spacious entry was colorfully decorated with bright posters, paintings, and murals creating an inviting atmosphere.  The interior needed a coat of paint to cover the scuff marks.  The stairways were rather dour\na few displays or decorations would help to enliven the area. Security and Safety  The back stairways had no safety mats on the stairs.  Several classroom doors were ajar, probably because of the heat and humidity. Media Center  The media center was locked the morning we toured the school. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The tables in the cafetorium were clean, but some had residue from stickers.  The floors were clean and free of litter.  A dynamic, colorful display of stylized figures in geometric configurations was very eyecatching. A huge goldfish mobile and a set of student-decorated banners completed the colorful art work in the cafeteria.  Ventilation in the kitchen was almost nonexistent.  One fire extinguisher was obscured by a stack of crates that was topped with a fan\nanother was behind a refrigerator unit at the end of the dishwashing area. Neither would have been readily accessible should they have been needed quickly.  A kitchen worker reported evidence of bugs\napparently the exterminator had not been to the school.  The stage floor was scratched and the paint or stain was fading. The area behind the curtain was cluttered with furniture and other items. Page 13Restrooms  Both girls restrooms were well supplied with paper products and soap. One of them had a handicapped accessible stall.  In one girls' restroom, the wall area behind the commode had been damaged by water. The window casing showed evidence of moisture damage, as hard water deposits extended around much of the area. The walls were chipped, scuffed, and marred.  The other girls restroom had clean sinks, but lacked soap. One wall was gouged and chipped, and the wall behind the commodes was damaged. One toilet ran continuously. While the stall doors were free of graffiti, they needed a coat of paint.  One boys restroom was in good repair and clean. A faint odor of urine permeated the facility, and the walls needed a good scrubbing. Another boys restroom was free of odor, well supplied, and neat, but the walls needed cleaning. Page 14JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY Exterior  The exterior was attractive and neat. Benches and shrubs accented the entry area. An attractive blue awning with the school name covered the entry sidewalk.  We noted no litter or graffiti inside or out. Interior  The interior was clean and neat, and some student work was already on display.  The brightly painted classroom doors were attractive.  Several ceiling tiles in the building showed evidence of wear or water damage. Security  The portable building was not handicapped accessible and was not connected to the main building by a covered walkway. Media Center  The new media center was bright and colorful. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Floors in the cafetorium were very clean and freshly waxed.  Tables and seats were clean and prepared for lunch.  The cafeteria featured a parent recognition bulletin board.  Kitchen ventilation was adequate.  Areas along the baseboard where tables were stored were dirty. Restrooms  The girls restrooms were fully supplied and clean.  Many of the wall tiles in the girls restroom on the lower level were cracked and chipped. Some of the glass window panes were cracked or had holes. Three of the eight paper towel dispensers were broken, and some of the stall doors were damaged. Page 15MABEL VALE JUNIOR HIGH Exterior  Open areas had plenty of trash cans and the areas were free of debris and litter.  The grass had been mowed. Interior  The school does not have interior hallways. The open air corridors were neat and litter free.  The ceiling area surrounding skylights in the corridors showed evidence of water damage. Security and Safety  Security staff was clearly visible, but one security person spent the entire time sitting at an outside desk instead of patrolling the area.  The driveway from the street to a bank of portable buildings was unsecured.  The portable buildings were not handicapped accessible, and the walkways to the main campus area were not covered.  The schools main power supply units, which were located in an area easily accessible to anyone, were not secured, making it easy for anyone to capriciously shut down the power to the entire campus. Media Center  Although the media center was worn with age, the staff had worked hard to make the room attractive. Small student-made globes hung from the ceiling, and a recycling banner made by one of the clubs added to the decorations.  The gold carpet, although not pretty, was clean and in good repair.  No students were using the facility when we visited on the first day. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The temperature in the cafeteria area was cool and comfortable.  The cafeteria floor was spotless, but it had several missing or damaged floor tiles.  The tables and chairs were clean, but the table tops were marred by the residue of assembling instructions still adhering to them.  The kitchen area appeared to be too small for the number of workers present. Traffic flow was compromised by too narrow aisles and over-crowding with equipment. Many of the refrigerator units were lined against the wall in the cafeteria section because the kitchen had no room for them.  One kitchen window did not have a screen.  Fire extinguishers were clearly visible. Restrooms  In the girls restroom across from the cafeteria, the walls were spotless, the mirrors were clean, the facility was free of graffiti, and the stalls had disposal units for feminine hygiene products.  That same facility had toilet paper but no paper towels or soap. None of the stalls in that restroom were handicapped accessible.  Another girls restroom near the rear section of the campus had some toilet paper but lacked soap and paper towels. One stall was handicapped accessible but had no toilet paper. One of three sinks was dirty with what appeared to be light ink stains, but when the monitor turned on Page 16 the faucet in a nearby sink the water was blue-green, which may explain the stains on the other sink. The faucets did not have hot water and the floor was dirty. The facility contained disposal units for feminine hygiene products.  The boys restrooms did not have paper towels, but were generally clean. Ventilation was excellent and all plumbing functioned normally.  The doors to both of the teachers restrooms had out of order signs posted on them. Gymnasium  The condition of the gym floor was superb.  The students who were in the gym class were sitting idly while the only adult present read a newspaper. Page 17MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL Exterior  The school entry was neat with trees and shrubs growing in large planters. Many of the trees were surrounded with blooming annuals.  The entire area around the vocational building was littered and the grass had not been mowed.  Entry ways to the building were spoiled by broken and missing floor tiles.  The concrete courtyard outside the cafeteria had numerous cracks.  The concrete courtyard near the office also exhibited some damage due to the roof gutters that drain directly onto the concrete, spilling rain water that has eroded the surface of the concrete and exposed the rough aggregate. Interior  The corridors were very well lit.  The halls were clean and freshly painted.  Students were extremely noisy during class change, even through adults were present in the passage ways.  The business and Enghsh wings were practically barren of decor, while the math wing was alive with bright decorations extolling Lion Pride and mathematics by each door. Positive messages on bulletin boards complemented the displays.  The walls in the business wing were defaced by pencil marks mnning the length of both sides of the corridor. Security and Safety  Security personnel were clearly visible in front of the main area. The resource officer sat for several minutes talking to a student after the bell had rung. He later got up and patrolled the corridors.  While security guards greeted us at the front of the school, no one seemed to be addressing the half dozen or so students that continued to mill around the entry way. These students remained outside during class time.  Some of the hallway lights were out. Media Center  The media center was clean and in order on the first day of school, but no students were using the facility.  The carpet had been recently replaced and the media specialist pointed out some new furniture.  Although attractive, the replacement furniture did not appear to be of the same good quality as the original, and did not quite match the older furniture.  The library was not yet on the automated management system. Some computers from a lab were stored in a large unsightly pile\nhowever, we were told that they were to be moved later. Cafeteria and Kitchen  The floor in the cafeteria was very clean and nicely waxed, but was marred by several damaged tiles and a few paint splatters.  The wall near the food disposal area had spill stains that appeared to have been there for some time. Page 18 Several of the ceiling tiles in the cafeteria were water-stained, and only one exit light was operating.  The floor in the kitchen area was wet. Kitchen workers explained that the floor was filthy when they arrived and they had just finished scrubbing it. Apparently the facility had been used by a different team of kitchen worker during the summer, and the kitchen floor had been left dirty.  Ventilation was tolerable\nhowever, the workers had to open a side door to promote air flow. Although the cafeteria was air conditioned, not much of the cool air reached the kitchen area.  Fire extinguishers were visible and easily accessible\nhowever, the manager was unavailable and an assistant could not find the first aid kit.  The exterminator was finishing up when we arrived, so the smell of bug spray was still evident. He promised that most of the bugs were gone\nhowever, he could not get into the storage room to spray. Gymnasium  The hardwood floor in the gymnasium was in excellent condition, and all the overhead lights were working.  Although loud, the ventilation fan was very effective.  Several empty boxes were piled in the gyms foyer. The principal said the teachers had requested them for a project. Restrooms  District workers had repainted all the student restrooms during the summer.  One girls restroom still had a strong paint odor. The door to the restroom was not marked and it was only after observing some girls enter the room did the monitor know which gender was supposed to use the restroom. Each sink had two faucets, but one sink had no knobs on either of the faucets, and the other two sinks only had a knob on one faucet. The bowls were chipped and rusted, and water pressure was low. The restroom lacked soap and had no disposal units for feminine hygiene products. One ceiling light was out.  The facilities for boys were clean and stocked with toilet paper and paper towels, but lacked soap.  In one boys' restroom, only one of the three stalls had a door. A large area of floor tile by the door was missing. Only four of six faucets were operational. Page 19OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY Exterior  The exterior was very neat and free of litter. Lots of evergreens and perennials in front of the school added to the attractiveness of the campus.  No flags were on the poles. Interior  The interior hall paint looked clean and fresh. Doorways painted in primary colors accented the neutral colored walls.  Banners with motivational slogans decorated all areas of the building.  The facility was clean and floors were shiny.  Some ceiling tiles were damaged and a few were missing, apparently to allow access to the air conditioning units. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Cafeteria floors were clean and waxed and most of the tables were clean. Various paper mache animal mobiles decorated the dining area, creating a colorful and uplifting display.  One overhead light in the cafeteria was out.  An area near the kitchen exit was cluttered with items used by the CARE Program. Restrooms  The girls restrooms were clean, well supplied, and handicapped accessible. Some of the stall dividers were chipped, particularly at the comers.  The boys restroom near the entry was clean, odor free, and well supplied. One stall was handicapped accessible. Page 20PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Exterior  The entire campus was neatly maintained and litter free.  The entry areas included a variety of ornamental trees and plantings of annuals. Interior  A sign advertising Open House was prominently displayed at the main entrance.  The entry foyer and hallways around the media center and cafeteria were attractive, spacious, and offered areas conducive to relaxation.  Many areas provided interesting displays pertinent to the subject matter being taught. A timeline of American history covered an entire wall along a social studies corridor, and fun math facts and puns brightened another.  The school had nice bulletin board displays, many featuring pictures of the students,  Students were very friendly, polite, and helpful,  Some lockers needed replacement,  The white vinyl tile floor in zone seven was discolored due to dirt or wax build up. Security and Safety  Security was very visible in the main entry area. Security continuously patrolled the corridors, including the locker areas.  All of the zones and specialty areas were clearly marked.  Some of the exterior doors were unsecured.  Many of the classroom doors were open and a few empty classrooms were unlocked. Media Center  The large, attractive media center contained the standard collection of high school library books but appeared to have an enhanced arts collection consistent with its magnet theme. The center offered a lounge area for reading, a computer lab for word processing, and computers with various CD ROM capabilities. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Both the north and south cafeterias were clean and free of litter. A colorful wall mural decorated the south end of the area, but the north part was dull and uninspired.  The plexiglass used in doors and windows was stained, scratched, and marred.  The kitchen was too small for the staff, compromising traffic flow and impeding activity.  The kitchen ceiling was in very poor repair, and most of it was bowed. In one area, a dangling panel was in eminent danger of collapse. A similar situation existed in the kitchen storeroom, where a leaky roof had damaged a ceiling tile to the point of disintegration.  Electrical wires dangled precariously above hot grease vats, and one of the wires touched a food warmer.  A large section of floor tile was missing around the sink, creating hazardous footing.  A kitchen worker reported seeing some bugs, although the exterminator had been to the school.  Study hall classes met in the cafeteria immediately after breakfast and lunch, preventing kitchen personnel from cleaning the tables before students arrived for study hall. Page 21Gymnasium  The foyer to the gymnasium was immaculate and decorated with school colors, trophy cases, and large photos of school championship teams,  Several large fans provided comfortable air flow.  The gymnasium floor was in superb condition, smelled of wax, and appeared recently sealed and buffed,  The plexiglass in the entry door had some tape residue. Auditorium  The auditorium was very clean, had excellent air conditioning, and was in general good repair,  The ceiling tiles were in excellent condition, as were the theater seats,  Although showing some wear, the carpet was in generally good shape,  The stage drapery showed wear and dry rot in some areas,  A staff member reported that the auditorium sound system did not always work properly. Restrooms  The girls restroom was well lit, had clean sinks, was supphed with paper products and soap, and had disposal units for feminine hygiene products. The facility also had a sanitary napkin dispenser, but it appeared to be empty,  The walls in one girls restroom were freshly painted, but with total disregard to avoiding paint splatters. Stall doors and partitions were defaced with graffiti, the floor was dirty, and the counter was very dusty and gritty. The large mirror was cracked and the ceiling had a large 12 n X 12\" hole.  Two other girls restrooms were locked.  One of the boys restrooms was dirty and had a large hole in the wall where plumbing had been repaired. Otherwise, the facility was functional and contained paper products. Page 22ROMINE ELEMENTARY Exterior  The school looked very attractive and had good \"street appeal.\" Workers recently had repainted the exterior. The stucco portions of the building were painted in a shade that closely matched the buff brick. All trim was black. The monochromatic color scheme unified the building and served as a nice backdrop for the extensive landscaping.  Students had filled numerous flower beds with blooming annuals that greatly enhanced the appearance of the school.  The concrete sidewalks were flaking away in several locations around the campus, particularly around the main entrance. Interior  Many areas of the building featured attractive touches, such as a little sponge-printed horse border in a hallway.  Interior halls were highlighted by numerous murals depicting scenes from popular childrens literature.  Corridors throughout the building were clean and shiny. Their walls were clean and free of scuff marks or stains, and floors were polished and litter-free.  Many trash cans were strategically placed throughout the building. Media Center  The media center, which recently had been renovated, was spacious, bright, and well lit.  Celebrity posters encouraged reading.  A bulletin board contained a stereotypical rendering of children of the world. The math bulletin board featured an outdated world map. Restrooms  Girls restrooms were fully supplied with paper products and soap. Mirrors were clean and outside stall doors had been freshly painted. Restrooms contained feminine products dispensers and disposal units. Sinks were clean, but counter tops were very dusty. Paint was badly splattered where the stalls had been painted. Restroom floors were dirty and stall partitions were defaced with graffiti.  The boys restrooms was fully supplied and generally clean. Page 23SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH Exterior  The exterior of the school was neat, but not very attractive. While mature pines and oak trees dotted the campus perimeter, the school was nearly devoid of landscaping.  Flags were flying. Interior  Motivational banners and signs were found throughout the corridors.  An attractive display of African masks decorated a shadow box in the entry.  Monitors saw the custodian actively engaged in a variety of tasks during our visit.  While the floors were very clean and in generally good condition, we noted a few missing tiles in the main east-west corridor.  Several ceiling tiles were missing or damaged and the paint on one skylight was flaking. The missing ceiling tiles seemed to have been removed due to leaking pipes overhead. Several buckets had been placed in the main corridor to catch the drips.  The interior brick wall that was adjacent to the office had a long vertical crack.  Some of the large plexiglass windows in the halls were cloudy or scratched. Security and Safety  Security personnel were visible in the building and some of the teachers were in the halls during a class change.  Students were orderly and relatively quiet during a class change. The loudest noise was from a teacher who was playfully engaging students. After the bell, a faculty member with a bullhorn shouted down the main hall at a student. Media Center  The media center, which seated approximately 60 students, was well lit.  All areas of the circulating collection were easily accessible.  The carpeting was in excellent condition and plenty of bright posters and other visuals added to the room's attractiveness. While waiting to be distributed to classrooms, audiovisual equipment took up quite a bit of space in the center. Gymnasium  The newly painted gymnasium looked very good.  The facility was well ventilated, all lights were working, and the bleachers were in good condition.  The floor was in fair condition. Restrooms  The boys restroom on the main hall was out of order.  The girls restroom in the 7th grade hall had no soap but was supplied with paper products. The stall for handicapped students lacked a toilet paper holder. The room appeared generally clean, but it had a musty order. Page 24TERRY ELEMENTARY Exterior  The exterior of the building was attractive and in good repair, but the grounds showed signs of neglect. Three trees that appeared to have been recently planted were already dead. Much of the area adjacent to the building was rocky and unattractive.  The brick side to an exterior stairway was crumbling and had several loose bricks.  The playground was large, offered good equipment for children in the primary grades, and had two basketball courts.  One of the basketball goals was broken and dangling from the backboard.  A large number of discarded school desks and tables had been stacked near the dumpsters in back of the building. Interior  The interior halls had attractive banners suspended intermittently from the ceiling.  The names of students and their room assignments had been taped to the entries so that parents could easily find their childrens rooms.  Classroom doors showed the remains of displays from previous years.  Although waxed, the floor tile was cracked, chipped, broken, or mismatched throughout the building.  The hallways served as a storage room in the kindergarten area, the apparent result of too little storage space.  The courtyard adjacent to the media center was attractive, with a large mural across one entire wall. The area offered enough seating for a class and provided a convenient place for storytime and other book-related activities. Security and Safety  Hallways had plenty of fire extinguishers clearly visible.  Exterior light fixtures on the covered entryway were missing bulbs.  The portable building was not handicapped accessible, and it did not have a covered walkway to the main building.  An exterior exit door was not secure and the doors to some classrooms were ajar. Media Center  The media center was small and allowed for seating only 30 students at a time.  The facility had dozens of stuffed toy animals on display that were apparently used for story hour.  In addition to being small, the center offered almost no storage, resulting in a cluttered appearance. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Tables in the cafeteria were clean and in good repair, but (like so many of the cafeteria tables in the district) they had residue from stickers that had held directions for assembling the tables.  The kitchen had plenty of space and was designed for ease of traffic.  The children who were eating in the cafeteria were allowed to converse with each other and enjoy their meal. Aides quietly monitored the children\nnot one aide raised his or her voice. Page 25 The cafeteria was so chilly that several students complained of being cold, and a few had drawn their arms up into their sleeves to keep warm, making it impossible for them to eat.  Ventilation in the kitchen area was almost nonexistent.  Trash barrels blocked the tray-retum window. In the same area, several boxes were piled to within a few feet of the ceiling. Given the amount of kitchen clutter, it was not surprising that kitchen workers reported having a bug problem.  The washing machine was leaking and several broken and damaged tiles in the wet area were creating a safety hazard.  The stage had some tape residue. Restrooms  Girls restrooms were supplied with paper products. Mirrors were clean, but some needed replating. Floors were free of litter and walls had no graffiti.  Floors needed scrubbing as did the walls, and the girls restrooms had a faint unpleasant odor. The stalls were not handicapped accessible and stall doors were chipped and scratched.  Both of the boys restrooms had strong urine odors, had broken or missing mirrors, and needed painting. Each was stocked with toilet paper, but only one had paper towels available. Page 26WILLIAMS MAGNET ELEMENTARY Exterior  The exterior of the building was clean and attractive. A recent addition to the building closely matched the original structure. The front lawn and shrubs were well tended.  The circle driveway to the front of the building caused a traffic bottleneck.  The playgrounds included good equipment for primary grades and also had basketball courts and a soccer field.  The lawn and shrubs in the back of the building suffered from neglect. Grass had not been trimmed and a sidewalk was obscured by dirt and trash. Nevertheless, the area had a generally pleasing appearance since the playground was on an ascending slope generously dotted with pretty trees.  The window air conditioning units detracted from the buildings pleasing appearance.  The most obvious eyesore was an exterior door to the kitchen which was made of peeling, shattering plywood. Interior  The painted brick walls and finished concrete floors were clean throughout the building.  Many examples of student work were prominently displayed on colorful hall boards.  Classrooms observed through open doors were brightly decorated and very inviting.  The halls lacked air conditioning and were very hot.  Unsightly wires for the intercom system were visible along much of the corridor.  The newly added multi-purpose room which adjoined the cafeteria was directly across from the front entrance, which created a traffic flow problem. Security and Safety  Exterior side doors were unsecured.  Monitors walked by several adults and into restrooms without being stopped or questioned as to our identity, which didn't occur at other schools we visited.  An electric wire dangled from a fire box in the cafeteria. Media Center  The small but attractive media center was serving students on the third day of school. It offered what appeared to be the standard collection of elementary books and materials and three computer work stations.  The lay-in ceiling tiles had water damage around the vents, and the carpet showed extensive signs of aging, especially in areas where furniture had been moved around. Cafeteria and Kitchen  Tables in the cafeteria had plastic sticker residue. Some of the tables were chipped and gouged.  Cafeteria walls were dirty.  Cracked and broken tiles in the kitchen posed a safety threat, and ventilation was extremely poor.  Kitchen aisles were rather narrow, which could create a traffic problem during busy times. Page 27Restrooms  The boys restrooms had paper products. The restrooms were not handicapped accessible.  Floor and wall tiles in one girls restroom were damaged. One stall had no toilet paper and the facility had no paper towels. Dried wads of toilet paper clung to the walls and ceiling. The floor was dirty and littered. The restroom was not handicapped accessible.  The lights went out in another girls restroom just as a class was entering the facility. The monitor had to hold the door open for the girls in order for them to see. One of the sinks was clogged and water pressure was poor. The stall doors needed paint. Page 28\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_741","title":"Technology","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":["1996/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Technology"],"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/741"],"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":["76 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 challenge grant applications and newspaper clippings\nt Tech97.doc d8 Challenge Grants for Technology in Education Summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 LRSD proposal Topics and Comments Potential Response in 1997 Proposal Strategy______  lack of continuity between abstract and narrative on focus of project activities  greater clarification of expected interaction between stakeholders, stronger relationship between partner involvement and objectives  more detail on specifics and strategies - how technology will impact curriculum modules, developing a database for library research is too nebulous  explain what is being done before telling who will do it  provide more detail about secondary programs and integration of technology  identify possible initiatives beyond the chosen themes  create cross-curriculum, interdisciplanary modules. Avoid specialization only in math/science  explain how elementary program will be implemented within existing curriculum  identify experience with similar projects (district technology plan)  staff development should be provided by people familiar with the classroom and integration of technology. UALR staff should be more involved in lesson design and development  include more teacher involvement in the planning  Revise abstract  Revise narrative  Get input from program partners and revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Get input from technology committee and revise narrative  Review project role with UALR and revise narrative  Revise narrative Partnerships/Inclusion__________________  increase community and business partnerships  include a community impact component in the evaluation  graduating students should be represented in the consortium  Include description of Vital Link program  Get input from evaluator (Horizon Research) and revise narrative  Revise narrativeJ Access__________________________________  availability of public access sites when parents/students can get to them - evenings and weekends  sufficient placement of equipment at public access sites  Identify the eight schools to be involved in Year 1  identify University library as already being on-line  add a national component and an interschool teacher-to-teacher component to the dissemination plan Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise narrative  Revise nanative  Revise narrative Finance_________________________________  LEA support to equipment unbalanced vs. Program funds  consultant budgets and director salary are high  Financial support available from consortium members  identify intent to maintain program staff after grant period  clarify cost of public access sites - what will be bought and what provided in-kind  too much staffing in network engineers  Can Title I funds be used as match?  Unclear what action to be taken  Unclear what action to be taken  Include costs of Vital Link program Revise narrative Revise narrative  Reduce budget accordingly  Contact national office for clarificationDATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH:   Kc LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR 72202 0/ras December 19, 1995 Board of Directors Ujiarles Neal, Director, Procurement Fred Smith, Manager, Support Services iiTOndenf d'- d 1996 Of/jc* vA.'-. D -'Stii'jii'ijn Monitc:i,-\ng lj^6 \"J SUBJECT: Bidding Process/for Purchasing Computers This report is in response to a request from Board members during the December 7, 1995 agenda meeting. It is understood that the request contains two requirements\n(1) the bidding process for purchasing computers, and (2) an interest in reviewing all bids received. A. Bidding Process for Purchasing Computers The process for buying computers is no different from buying any other commodity. If the anticipated cost exceeds $5,000, the purchase will be accomplished by soliciting competitive formal bids or proposals. To assist in understanding the procurement process as practiced in this District for many years, there is enclosed that portion of our procedures manual which covers bidding procedures (Section 7.4.4). (A part of this section was provided to the Board recently in response to another request.) The criteria for bidding is established in paragraph B at the bottom of page 26 (page one of enclosure). L Formal Bids and Proposals: Formal bidding is described at paragraph C.l, page 27 and formal proposals at paragraph C.3, same page. Formal bids and proposals may be referred to as sealed bid/proposals in some governmental agencies and entities. Unless otherwise exempt, all commodity purchases estimated to exceed $5,000 shall be competitively purchased under these guidelines. 2. Informal Bidding: Informal bidding is a less formal method of purchasing which allows for getting the needed commodity to the user more expeditiously while still seeking competitive pricing. This method is used for low dollar value purchases. A minimum of three vendors are solicited. Commodity purchases estimated to exceed $2,000, but less than $5,000, may be purchased through informal methods\ni.e., telephone quotes, etc. See paragraph C.5, page 29.3- Acquisition Decisions Versus Contract/Bid Award Decisions: In the acquisition process, there are two decision points. The decision to acquire needed commodities, programs or services is a financial decision and takes place during the budget and program planning process. The actual purchasing process is merely the administrative function that occurs in obtaining those goods and services previously approved for acquisition. The Procurement Office, in coordination with the requisitioning office school, as appropriate, decides which vendor is awarded the order or contract. The Procurement Office does not establish requirements or play a role in financial decisions other than those pertaining to its own internal departmental needs. or 4. Commodity Descriptions and Specifications: Development of the type and scope of service to be performed and/or specification is initially the responsibility of the using department or school. A full explanation of this function is found in paragraph 26 on page 40 of the enclosure. B. Review of All Bids Received It is assumed that this request pertains only to computer bids. The Procurement Office has provided copies of all computer bid actions accomplished this fiscal year. We have also included a typical Food Services, Plant Services and Supply Center bid file as a sampling of what the bid process entails. Last year the Procurement Office generated 276 bids. This year we have issued 93 to date.7.1 general policy 7.1.1. Introduction 7.1.2 Board Policies 7.1.3 7.1.4 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 INDEX Governing Purchasing -entralized Purchasing Systems Goal procedures for General PURCHASING FROM Mandatory Purchasing Supply Catalog Requisitions Procedures Pages 1-2 Pages 3-5 Page 6 Page 7 Preparing a Requisition Returns and Credits INITIATING A PURCHASE General Purchasing Lead Preparation of Purchase Orders Time the supply CENTER Page 8 Page 8 Page 8 Pages 8-9 Page 9 Page lo Page 11 a Purchase Requisition Textbook Purchases responsibilities. General regulations and bid Page 11 Page 11 Pages 11-13 Pages procedures Mission and Regulation Responsibilities and Procedures Bidding Procedures Capital Equipment (Fixed Asset) Purchases Pages 15-16 Pages 17-19 Pages 20-25 Pages 26-44 Pages 45-5626 7.4.4 Bidding Procedures 'A. Definitions of Commonly Used Biddincr extracted from Model Procurement Government Purchasing Manual) Terms. (Definitions Code and State and Local 1. Invitation for Bid.s (IFB) - used for competitive bidding, mateJiill suoll^vernments far the purchaseof ec^i^wn^ wheSer attaSS r.  construction. (2) All documents souSting b?ds ilized for (1) The solicitation document the customary method used bv (2) All documents, 2 . ssKMassafg ,-,s'ubs  ss- solicitation document an''lnvrt7t''io 3 . 4 . B. proposals process. after proposals of the proposals and/or prior to award. {2} The Tho the competitive xuii The procedure allows changes to be made are opened and contemplates that the nature prices offered will be negotiated Reguest for Quotation (RFO) for seeking competition purchase lower than the formal bidding. L\u0026lt;, uioi delivery information for sole in the formal - The document generally used on small purchases or on any amount that :---' - - or , requires competitive Can be used for obtaining price and -source and emergencies. Re\u0026lt;^est_for Information (RFI) - primarily to locate providers of in informal. A sourcing document used goods or services. data, _--- Used uncompetitive solicitation of information. comments, suppliers/contractors. always, followed by issuance of a Request for Pronosal a multi-step bidding procedure. or reactions from Normally, but not possible necessarily or Criteria for Bidding Competitive bidding shall be the standard method of in =11 L.11C aucuiaara i thP yion \"\"^ich it is feasible, the best interest of the district. otherwise authorized by policy purchasing advantageous or in As a minimum, unless or regulation, all purchases and minimum. contracts in which the^stimated cost may exceed accomplished by the formal bidding shall Further, purchases and process. or more,'shall bec. d. 28 Proposals are to be sealed by the vendor and delivered to the designated address by the designated ____ Unlike formal bids, proposals do not require a public Precautions must be taken to avoid disclosure reading. time. of contents to competing offerors in the event followup negotiation is needed. Proposals may be accessible to the public after awarding, provided confidentiality provisions are not violated. Written or oral discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the pu2rpose of clarification to assure full understanding and responsiveness to, the of, to solicitation requirements. responsiveness assure to, Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with ' respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals, and such revisions may be permitted after submission to and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. There shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. ' ' from proposals Discussion need not be conducted: (1) with respect to prices, where such prices fixed by law or regulation, except consideration shall be given to competitive terms and conditions\nare that (2) where time of delivery or performance will not permit discussions\nor (3) where can be clearly demonstrated and documented the existence of adequate competition or accurate prior cost experience with that commodity or service that it from demonstrated of These particular service acceptance of an initial offer without discussion would result in fair and reasonable prices, and the Request for Proposals notifies all offerors of and the  possibility that award may be made on the basis of the initial offers. two methods of source selection. bids proposals, differ fundamentally in the following ways: versus Under competitive bidding, judgmental factors may be used only to determine if the supply or service bid meets the purchase Under competitive proposals, judgmental factors may be used not only to determine if the items or services being offered meet the procurement description but also to evaluate competing proposal description. competitive s.6 . Procurement of Professional and Personal Services: a. Professional professional engineering. Services: services as Arkansas legal, law 30 defines architectural, and land surveying. __ __ 801/805) further requires that procurement of these services be accomplished through contract negotiation, as opposed to competitive bidding. Selection made on the basis of demonstrated The law (19-11- shall is accomplished through competitive of competence and qualifications for the type of services required and at fair and reasonable prices. Solicitation be accomplished by requesting statements of qualifications. shall In evaluating the qualifications of each firm. District shall consider: the (1) the specialized experience and technical expertise of the_ firm with respect to the type of professional services required\n(2) The capacity and capability of the firm to perform the work in question, including specialized services, within the time limitations fixed for the completion of the.project, (3) The past record of performance of the firm with respect to such factors as control of costs, quality of work, and ability to meet schedules and deadlines\nand (4) The firm's, proximity to and familiarity with the area in which the project is located. Selection: The qualified firms. District shall select three (3) The District shall then select the firm best qualified and capable of performing the desired work and negotiate a contract for the project with the firm selected. Negotiation of contracts: (a) For the basis of negotiations, the District and the selected firm shall jointly prepare a detailed, written description of the scope of the proposed services. (b) If the District is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm selected, negotiations with that firm shall be unable terminated. shall The District shall then undertake negotiations with another of the qualified firms selected. If there is a failing of accord with the second firm, negotiations with such firm shall be terminated. If there is The District shall undertake negotiations with the third qualified firm.32 (2) In the absence of clear statutory guidelines, the District will attempt, when feasible, to acquire personal services by the same method used in the procurement of professional services. D. Procedures 1. Late Bids: All formal invitations for bid specify a bid number, day, hour and place for the public opening of the bid. Each vendor has the responsibility for ensuring that his bid arrives in time to be considered. The only late bids that may be considered at the discretion of the of Director of Procurement are those bids that are delayed as a result incorrect handling by the Procurement the Department or district personnel. All other late bids will be refused and filed unopened with date of receipt stamped on outside of envelope. 2 . 3 . 4 . Mistakes or Withdrawal of Bids: _______________ Correction of patent or provable in bids which do not prejudice other bidders, may be allowed upon approval of the Director of errors Procurement. In the event of an obvious error or under other circumstances considered excusable, the Director of Procurement may allow the vendor to withdraw his bid with or without prejudice. Prior to the opening of any bid, the vendor may withdraw his bid for any reason. The bid may be resubmitted any time prior to the stated opening time and date established for that bid. Penalty for withdrawal of a bid may, at the discretion of the Procurement Director, result in the disqualification of that vendor on future bids. year. Period of disqualification not to exceed one (1) Bid Openinos: Formal bids shall be opened publicly in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the Invitation for Bids. Each bid, together with the name of the bidder, shall be recorded. Upon evaluation and award, bids will be open for public inspection, except as protected under applicable provisions allowing vendors right of nondisclosure. shall be recorded. Award: Award will be made as promptly as possible to the responsive and responsible bidder or offeror whose bid or proposal is most economical for the purpose(s) intended according to criteria set forth in the solicitation.10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . Commodities Provided, 34 available only a single source, that the purchasing official determines in from writing that it is -not practicable to use other than the required or designated commodity or service and a copy of the statement is attached to the purchase file. Purchasing Official: Purchasing Official shall mean the Board of Directors of any school district or a lawfully designated agent of the school district with authority to contract or make purchases on behalf of the school district. or Purchase Price: bid price of any commodity, trade-in. Purchase Price shall mean the full sale or without any allowance for Purchase: Purchase shall mean and include not only the outright purchase of a commodity but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchase agreements or leasepurchase agreements or any other type of agreements whereby the school district has an option to buy the commodity and to apply the rental payments on the purchase price thereof. Open Market Purchases: Open Market Purchases shall mean those purchases of commodities by any purchasing official in which competitive bidding is not required. Exempt Commodities: ___ The following commodity classes exempt from competitive bidding: are Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. b. Fees, including medical fees and physician fees. Freight and storage charges and demurrage. d. Licenses. e. a. c. e. f. Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. Membership in professional, trade and other similar associations. g- Postage. h. Services of visiting speakers, lecturers and performing artists. 1. Taxes. j  Travel expense items, transportation charges. such as room and board and17. 36 A sole-source supplier is the only acceptable vendor who is able to furnish the product or service. Although documentation and technical assistance may be required from the user department, the Procurement Director is responsible for making sole-source determination. In doing so, the following must be considered: a. b. c. d. e. Is there a lack of responsible competition for a product or service which is vital to the operation of the district? Does the supplier possess exclusive capabilities? Is the product or service unique and easily established as one-of-a-kind? Can program requirements be modified competitive products or services may be used? so that Are there patented or proprietary rights that fully demonstrate: (1) a feature providing a superior utility not obtainable from similar products? (2) a product is available from only one prime source, and not merchandized through wholesalers, jobbers or retailers where competition could be encouraged? (3) What would the user do if the product or service were discontinued? Care must be taken to avoid making sole-source purchases because of a preference for a particular brand. Central purchasing must examine the intended use of the product or service and assure that only one supplier is capable of satisfying the intended use. The Procurement Department challenge all representations that would limit Each must competition or the rationale of \"standardization\". question of standardization/interchangeability requires Procurement seek an interface which will permit competition, while not diminishing acceptable quality and utility. Bidder List: to Opportunity shall be provided for all responsible vendors to conduct business with the district and the Director of Procurement shall develop and maintain of potential bidders for the various types of lists materials, equipment and supplies. the various types Such bidders lists shall be used in the development of a mailing list for distribution of specifications and Invitations for Bids. All responsible vendors may be included in this list upon request.19 . 20 . 38 (2) Any bidder who request in writing to be removed from a bidders list shall be removed. Qualified Vendor File: The Director of Procurement is responsible for qualifying and maintaining a listing of vendors and bidders authorized to do business with the district. Bid invitation mailings shall include those vendors and suppliers pre-qualified and in good -standing with the district. Pre-qualification shall not preclude or prevent a written determination. Discrualifications of Vendors: The Director of Procurement may disqualify a vendor on a bid under consideration for any one or combination of the following reasons: a. Bidders product does not meet district specifications or bid conditions. b. Bid is not received on the district's Invitation for Bids form. c. Bid not signed. d. Required bid bond not furnished. e. Failure to comply with bid instructions, terms and conditions that are judged to be essential to the competitive bid process and the best interest to the district. Disqualification considered for any reasons: of vendors on future bids may be one or combination of the following a. Refusal of the vendor to complete a contract or bid. b. Vendors past history of late deliveries, shipments and incomplete shipments. partial c. Vendors products have proven unreliable, unworkable or have not accomplished the result requested in the district specifications. 21. Right of Nondisclosure and Confidentiality: When requested by a bidder or offeror, and except as otherwise provided by law, information furnished by a bidder or offeror shall not be disclosed outside the Procurement Department without prior written consent by the bidder or offeror. *  provision is This not intended to prohibit disclosing such information with certain appropriate officials of the district and its attorneys.40 Bid invitations requiring a performance and payment bond are specifically stated in the Invitation for Bids. in the amount of one hundred per cent (100%) Bonds of the contract amount are required, unless specifically pre-set at a lesser amount by the Director of Procurement. 26. Specifications: To provide a common basis for bidding, specifications should set out the essential characteristics provide for bidding of the items being purchased so that all bidders or offerors know exactly what is wanted and can accurately  bidr. Assuring that specifications contain compute their bids. essential requirements relates- directly to the aspects of proper quality level. In purchasing, quality means the suitability or adequacy of a product to the intended use. Either over-specifying or under-specifying is wasteful. Commodities purchased should be capable of performing as necessary and be as durable as needed but they should not have any unnecessary frills or status features. Requiring unnecessary features can also result in a specification that is so restrictive that it defeats the objective of promoting competition. When practical, requirements should be expressed in generic terms. Specification may be classified standard: as standard and non- a. Standard - specification is developed for repeated use, in the sense that it can be lifted from a file, ready to use. b. Non-standard - specification is prepared for particular procurement and connotes a one-time use. a Types of specifications: a. Design^ - design specifications set the requirements for the item to be purchased by detailing the characteristics that the item must possess, and usually means that is written in such detail that it it IS describes how the product is to be manufactured. Normally accompanied with drawings or blue prints. Classified as non-standard. b. Performance - performance specifications set out the performance or functional requirements that a product must meet. Describe the capabilities that the product must satisfy. Generally, performance specifications provide the best approach. Performance specifications normally fall into the standard classification. c. Combination - combination specifications are written to include features from both the performance and design types. Carefully prepared specifications customarily contain both design and performance requirements.28 . 42 If the protesting bidder or offeror is not satisfied with the findings and ruling of the Director of Procurement and wishes to pursue the protest beyond the jurisdiction of the district, the bidder or offeror may seek such remedy as may be allowed by applicable state law. However, in no event can the district accept liability in excess of reasonable expenses solicitation. actually incurred in connection with the Vendor Susnension or Debarment: The Director of Procurement may, at any time, suspend or debar a vendor for cause. The Director may convene a hearing when it becomes known that a breach, anticipatory breach or that an extraordinary circumstance has occurred.  -  The Director must give notice and opportunity for the vendor to be heard and then issue a written opinion stating the action taken and the reasons. This opinion will be final unless the vendor seeks remedy in court of appropriate jurisdiction. The causes for suspension or debarment include but are not limited to the following: a. Conviction for commission of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract subcontract, or in the or performance of such contract or subcontract. b. Conviction under state or federal statutes embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification of or destruction of records, receiving stolen property or any other offense indicating lack of business integrity business honesty which currently, seriously and directly affects responsibility as a or contractor. a c. Conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out of submission of bids or proposals. d. Violation of contract provisions, as set forth below, of a character which is regarded by the Procurement Director to be action: so serious as to justify debarment (1) deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within (2) a the time limit provided in the contract\nrecent record of failure or to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one or more contacts\nprovided that failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be considered to be a basis for debarment.44 b. Default - a default in performance by a contractor for which a contract may be terminated shall include but shall not necessarily be limited to failure to perf the contract according to its terms, orm conditions and specifications or failure to make delivery within the time specified or according to a schedule fixed by the contract. c. Contractor's liability surety, if the contractor and/or his a performance or payment bond has been required under the contract, shall be jointly and severely liable to the district for any and all loss or damage as provided in the contract between the district and the contractor as a result of the contractor's default\nprovided, however, that a contractor's surety liability shall not exceed the final sum specified in the contractor's bond.Memorandum To: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Marvin Schwartz, LRSD Grants Writer Date: April 21, 1997 Re: Federal technology proposal RECESV'^ts APR 2 2 199/ OmCEOF OKGfiGAT(ON MONITORING Ive sent copies of the following items:  a 1997 program fact sheet and activities summary  full text of the 1997 program guidelines  1996 proposal submitted by LRSD  summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 (The positive comments are not listed) The abstract will give you a good sense of the 1996 proposal, then look on page 6 for a list of the consortium members and on page 55 for a program organization chart. I believe ODM can provide specific assistance in the Student Needs section (page 2) by helping create a tri-district profile. This would reduce the response burden on PCSSD and NLR, as well as offer an objective presentation of information. The 1996 proposal was rated highly on its presentation of Section 2. Readers wrote that the section made its point well and concisely. I think enhancing the section with similar data from the other districts would be the best and easiest way to go. Of course, this may not be necessary if I get no response or they decline the offer to come on board. I asked for specific input from each district no later than May 30. Its already been more than a week and neither has even said yes or no. I agree that bringing the other districts in will dramatically delay and complicate this proposal. But Ive got to do everything possible to make this piece as competitive as possible. With the other districts, we will virtually double our student population level. Well also create a wider community consortium and greater outreach to low income neighborhoods. I Thanks for your interest and support of this project. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. 1hili, Memorandum To: zVin Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Marvin Schwartz, LRSD Grants Writer Date: April 21, 1997 APR 2 2 I, OFFiCE vr Re: Federal technology proposal Ive sent copies of the following items:  a 1997 program fact sheet and activities summary  full text of the 1997 program guidelines  1996 proposal submitted by LRSD  summary of readers critical remarks from 1996 (The positive comments are not listed) The abstract will give you a good sense of the 1996 proposal, then look on page 6 for a list of the consortium members and on page 55 for a program organization chart. I believe ODM can provide specific assistance in the Student Needs section (page 2) by helping create a tri-district profile. This would reduce the response burden on PCSSD and NLR, as well as offer an objective presentation of information. The 1996 proposal was rated highly on its presentation of Section 2. Readers wrote that the section made its point well and concisely. I think enhancing the section with similar data from the other districts would be the best and easiest way to go. Of course, this may not be necessary if I get no response or they decline the offer to come on board. I asked for specific input from each district.no. later than May 30. Its already been more than a week and neither has even said yes or no. I agree that bringing the other districts in will dramatically delay and complicate this proposal. But Ive got to do everything possible to make this piece as competitive as possible. With the other districts, we will virtually double our student population level. Well also create a wider community consortium and greater outreach to low income neighborhoods. Thanks for your interest and support of this project. I look forward to speaking with you again soon. 1Program Fact Sheet Program Project Period Range of Awards Average Size of Award Submission Date TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANTS U.S. Dept, of Education 5 years $250,000 to $1,500,000 per year. $900,000 per year May 30, 1997 Program Purposes 1. Utilize educational technologies to improve learning and meet National Education Goals. 2. Organize schools to make computers and information networks accessible to students and teachers in learning activities integrated with the curriculum. 3. Provide opportunities for improved learning in homes, libraries, and community centers Suggested Goals 1. 2. 3. Increase student achievement in content area Provide teachers with training appropriate for technology utilization in the classroom Integrate innovative learning technologies into the curriculum to improve learning productivity in the community. Program Priority  Communities with great need for access to new technologies  Areas with a high levels of disadvantaged students  Active participation of teachers, students, and parents Use of Grant Funds Challenge grants will provide seed money for implementing promising new technologies in specific learning communities. These includes the development of new curriculum, professional development, and the evaluation of educational effectiveness. Eligible Applicants A consortium including at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. Additional consortium members should include:  other local educational agencies  institutions of higher education  businesses/software designers  other appropriate organizations.  state educational agencies  museums  academic content experts  libraries Consortium Obligations Partners in the consortia are expected to make substantial commitments for the costs of equipment, software development, technical support, and any other costs. The total value of commitments made by members of the consortium should significantly exceed funds provided by the challenge grantSuggested Activities Strong applications will have a well focused technical concept - an idea based on an important technology, software application, or other approach that is at an appropriate stage of development for implementation in a specific learning environment. Applications will focus on the innovative integration of these new learning technologies into the curriculum as part of a comprehensive, long-term plan for education reform. Students  Help meet the National Education Goals\n0 0 0 0 Contribute to school readiness and improved student achievement Smooth the transition from school to work Develop the life-long learning skills necessary to compete in the economy of the 21st century Help acquire tlie knowledge, skills, and habits of mind to get good jobs, be good citizens, and live good lives in a global community  Help all children meet high academic standards: 0 0 0 Mastering core academic subjects, including reading, writing, mathematics, sciences, history, geography, and languages. Learning to acquire and communicate new information Learning to tliink mathematically, to solve problems scientifically, to reason well, and to see and express oneself artistically. Access vast electronic libraries and museums Consult with scientists, scholars, and experts around the globe Professional Development of Teachers  Use a wider range of instructional resources titan is generally available today.  Provide tlie tools to meet this challenge in the classroom and electronic networks to share ideas  Support the integration of new learning technologies into tlie curriculum. Parents and Community  Improve learning productivity in the community  Support greater parent and community involvement in education  Involve parents and extending learning in the home Industry partners  Develop user-friendly, low maintenance systems that are cost effective and easy to scale up for widespread use  Help communities generate new markets for learning technologies  Opportunity for large-scale tests of innovative products or services Evaluation Plan  Define benchmarks to evaluate progress toward project goals  How improvements in student learning or teacher training will be assessed  Measure student performance and achievement at each stage of development  Develop evidence of effectiveness from the design stage onward. Selection Criteria Significance: the extent to which the project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. offers a creative, new vision for using technology will achieve far-reaching impact will directly benefit students will ensure ongoing, intensive professional development for teachers and other personnel is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for educational technology6. is designed to create new learning communities, and expanded markets for high-quality educational technology applications and services. Feasibility: the extent to which: 1. 2. 3. the project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant\nthe members of the consortium or other appropriate entities will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve the goals of the project\nand the applicant is capable of carrying out the project.Technology Innovation Challenge Grants * Applications Due: May 30, 1997 Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education Phone: 202-208-3882 Fax: 202-208-4042 E-mail: ITO_STAFFl@ed.gov http://www.ed.gov/Technology Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are the next generation of an initiative that began as the Challenge Grants for Technology in Education, and they are counterparts of the new Technology Literacy Challenge FunkHow can we use new technology and the information superhighway to improve education and increase economic competitiveness? Modern computers and telecommunication networks are powerful tools. But the hardware alone is not enough to improve learning. Sustained professional development for teachers and effective software, well integrated with the curriculum, are essential to help students meet high academic standards. THE CHALLENGE This is an ambitious challenge. We are experiencing a scientific and technological revolution of unprecedented proportions. Everywhere we look, technology is changing the way we work and live. Everywhere, that is, but in our classrooms. In the information age, we have industrial era schools. In classrooms that could be modern communication centers for learning, the basic media of instruction are blackboards and chalk. Community leaders and educators are excited about the possibilities for transforming their classrooms into information age learning centers, but few school systems can afford the costs and risks associated with developing new, high quality applications of technology on their own. Similarly, few school systems working alone, have all the expertise and resources they need to integrate these learning innovations into the curriculum on a system-wide basis. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants provide seed money to form community partnerships that can bear these costs and marshal these resources. These consortia bring telecommunications, hardware and software expertise to schools in combination with the educational resources of universities, research institutes, libraries and museums. As catalysts for change. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants support educators and parents, industry partners, community leaders and others who are collaboratively developing new applications of technology to transform their factory era schools into information age learning centers. Some of the most exciting possibilities might flow from a creative synthesis of ideas generated by teachers and students, who are working with software developers and cognitive researchers in consortia that include: telecommunication firms and hardware manufacturers, entertainment producers, and others who are stretching our thinking about how to create new learning communities. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants have the potential to improve education by building on computer and telecommunication 2advances that create powerful new ways to discover knowledge and exchange information. We learn more when we are solving challenging problems in meaningful contexts. Our mastery of new knowledge becomes stronger when we actively collaborate with others to communicate our understanding of what we have learned. The extent of learning and the effectiveness of teaching need no longer be limited by the amount of time in the classroom or by the resources of a particular school. Teachers and students can tap vast electronic libraries and museums with a wealth of texts, video images, music, arts and languages. They can work with scientists and scholars around the globe who can help them use experimental research, primary historical documents, and authentic learning in real life settings to improve their understanding of physical phenomena and world events. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia need not be limited by geography. The information superhighway creates new possibilities for extending the time, the place, and the resources for learning. It can bring high quality education and training to every classroom, workplace, and home in the community at any time of day. The information superhighway can be used to create new learning communities linking schools, colleges, libraries, museums, and businesses across the country or around the world. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia are encouraged to act on their most ambitious visions for technology in education reform. But, we must not become a society in which students from low income communities, and other areas in need of technology, are left behind in the acquisition of knowledge and skills for responsible citizenship and productive work in the 21st century. Failure to include these communities will put their future, and the future of the country, at risk. In awarding Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the U.S. Secretary of Education will evaluate the extent to which the proposed project is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. 3Potential applicants should be aware that Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are highly competitive awards. In 1995 there were 530 applicants for 19 grants. In 1996 a total of 586 applicants competed for 24 grants. At the time of this announcement It Is estimated that twenty (20) new grants will be awarded by September 30, 1997. WHO CAN APPLY FOR A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANT? Challenge Grants are five-year awards, and each applicant must propose five years of activity. Grants will range from $250,000 a year to $ 1,500,000 a year, with the average being $900,(XM) a year for five years. Applications that exceed $ 1,500,000 for any year of the five year project, and applications proposing less than five full years of work, will not be considered (these applications will be returned to the applicant without review). Each application must be submitted by a Local Education Agency (LEA) on behalf of a consortium of partners with appropriate resources to develop innovative applications of technology that will address specific learning needs identified in the application (a definition of LEA appears on p. 9). Each consortium must include at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. Moreover, the U.S. Secretary of Education will evaluate the extent to which the assistance sought is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for access to educational technology. The consortium may also include other local education agencies and private schools. State Education Agencies and institutions of higher education, museums and libraries, hardware manufacturers, software designers, telecommunication firms, and other businesses or appropriate community organizations. The consortium holds the potential for a creative synergy among its members. The partners should be carefolly chosen for their potential to develop innovative applications of technology for improved learning. A consortiums efforts should be clearly designed to encourage ongoing involvement of educators, students, parents, business leaders, and others who are committed to school improvement and education reform. Specific objectives for active participation by each consortium member at each stage of development will contribute to success. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are five-year development and demonstration projects. Each consortium should have plans in place to begin start-up activities in year one, including initial trials of new learning content and sustained professional development for teachers 4(Technology Innovation Challenge Grants are not planning grants). Years two and three should be devoted to refinement and expansion of the new applications of technology. Years four and five should support system-wide adoptions that can become self sustaining after the fifth year. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant can not be the only source of support for a consortiums work. Under the selection criteria for this competition, applications will be evaluated on the extent to which members of the consortium make substantial commitments for the costs of equipment, technical support, network linkage, telecommunication services, and other resources. Specific contributions of consortium members should be clearly identified and documented in the application. The projected contributions should be realistic and credible. The application should include convincing plans for long-term support of the innovation after the grant ends. Challenge Grant consortia are encouraged to demonstrate how other community partnerships can adapt and sustain these innovations in their schools on a cost-effective basis. Funding provided by Technology Innovation Challenge Grants should augment the investments of consortium members by supporting the development of interactive learning content, continuous professional development for teachers, and instructional strategies that integrate new technologies into the curriculum. Applications In which the primary purpose is to equip schools, build networks, or obtain operating funds for existing systems have not been successful in this competition in the past. to improve learning. Other U.S. Department of Education programs may contribute to the success of a consortiums effort, including: Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act\nthe Eisenhower Professional Development Program\nSchool-to Work Opportunities\nStar Schools\nthe Regional Technology for Education Consortia\nthe Regional Educational Laboratories, and the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which is the companion initiative of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. Other federal agency programs also may complement or strengthen the work of a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant. The U.S. Department of Commerce helps communities to develop telecommunication infrastructure. The National Science Foundation supports the use of technology for improved mathematics and science education. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration funds initiatives to improve the use of space science data in the classroom. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development supports networked neighborhoods and the Campus of Learners in public housing. The Department of Health and Human Services is interested in carefully conceived demonstrations of how new technologies can improve learning in Head Start and pre-school settings. Funds from other federal sources, including those provided through the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, may not be commingled with Technology Innovation Challenge Grant funds, or counted as costs supported by the LEA or other sources in the budget section of the application, however. The substantive contribution of each federal effort, and the cumulative impact of these activities, should be described in the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant application. But the budget for each federally funded effort or activity must be administered separately. Consortium commitments may be augmented by state or local bond issues and funding initiatives. They may include volunteer activities such as Tech Corps, and Net Days. Additional sources of support may include foundation grants, private corporate sponsorship, and other philanthropic contributions. Technology Innovation Challenge Grant consortia may draw on a wide range of federal government sources for support. For example, with assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, communities across the country have developed district-wide and state-wide school reform plans to meet the National Education Goals, and these plans provide an ideal context for demonstrating the use of new technologies 5Oa-'erge Grarr oorsoria begh a clear of hcrw ne/.' car r~rr\n,e rescrrrg x-rz ieanr-g: arr: roe rfr,r~xr.\u0026lt;'x \"fye. 5grrfc3T ccrriojccrs r: a rrxrrr.'xif are an triregra/ part of a comprehensive plan for school improvement. New technologies can enhance school readiness and help all students meet high standards. They can promote continuous professional development for teachers and foster greater parent and community involvement in education. They can reconnect students with their communities, they can smooth the transition from school to work, and they can help develop the lifelong learning skills students will need in our 21 st century economy. WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE GRANT? industry may become an even stronger partner for education reform in response to careful planning and well articulated technology needs. Systemwide, and statewide efforts to establish clear education goals and challenging academic standards could help define what educators and families need from computers and the information superhighway. In such an environment, industry partners could assume a leadership role if they work to supply this market with user-friendly, low maintenance systems that are cost effective and easy to scale-up for widespread use. A Challenge Grant application should make a convincing case that the proposed plan of action is likely to be an effective response to significant education need, and that the consortium partners are the appropriate ones to meet that need. Strong applications have a well defined concept - - an idea for specific learning improvements - - that clearly demonstrates how a new technology will be used to improve education. To take a specific example, as part of the effort to ensure all children can read by age 8 or Grade 3, educators, business leaders and community organizations could form a consortium to develop new applications of technology to improve reading and literacy skills for young children. Becoming a competent, self-reliant reader by Grade 3 is essential to future academic achievement and later success in the work force. New technologies with interactive learning applications could give each child access to the power of OIK' to one tutoring to Improve reading. Computers and electronic networks lould liK tease the ixirtlclfxitlon of older students, and the effectiveness of parent involvement in literacy instruction. To work with these technologies effectively, teachers and students need access to interactive computer applications and networked learning resources that can generate high quality content in all of the core subjects. The 6aeation of this new content should be bolstered by continuous professional development for teachers and sustained support for students, that goes beyond the acquisition of generic computer skills to include mastery of technology applications specifically designed to improve academic achievement. Teachers and students must learn to seamlessly integrate these new learning tools into the curriculum. If this profiessional development and these technologies are embeded in the fabric of work in the school, the teachers and students themselves may particpate in the creation of engaging new learning content that meets high academic standards. In middle schools, for example, these powerful learning tools can increase student achievement in science and mathematics by elevating the content of instnjction and the rigor of student wor1\u0026lt; in these disciplines. It is dear from recent reports that more time on task is not enough. Middle school teachers can use these technologies to take students beyond simple problem solving to in-depth study of the scientific principles and underlying concepts behind the solutions. If they build on this learning through well- fbcused projects, high school students and teachers can use these tools to gain access to the power of scientific inquiry and mathematical reasoning at some of our best colleges, universities, research institutes, and scientific firms. In this increasingly networl\u0026lt;ed sodety, learners of all ages have an opportunity to worl\u0026lt; with an enormous wealth of Imowledge. Teachersand students should be able to use telecommunications to overcome their isolation from a multitude of scholars and rich information resources that could help them improve education. With these tools they can collaborate with their colleagues in dassrooms across the country to form new learning communities that no school system could develop on its own. LinWng middle school or high school students with college students and faculty may improve the preparation of young people for postsecondary education. Many students never consider a college education as a real possibility until they have a personal opportunity to become actively engaged with the life of these institutions. Computers and telecommunication networks can be used to strengthen the early preparation of students for college. Professional development for teachers and the design of more rigorous content should be based on a careful analysis of the learning needs of students, and it should be consistent with the schools curriculum, mission, and professional standards. Teachers, administrators, parents, and community leaders should participate in decisions about the nature of the professional development and the content of the new learning activities. A teachers primary educational partners are the students parents. When families and teachers are in effective communication, students stand a greater chance of success. If parents learn how to use technology effectively, they can bring a vast array of education resources to the home. Parents can extend the time and place for learning from the dassroom to the living room, creating new opportunities for sustained study in core disdplines. With similar applications of technology, educators can forge new alliances with business leaders and local agencies that improve education by extending learning into the community. Most of our students begin their careers directly after high school. These new technologies can be used to improve the transition from school to worl\u0026lt;. In a networ1\u0026lt;ed economy employers must have well-educated employees who make sidllful use of information technologies to increase their knowledge and improve their productivity. If these new learning tools are embedded in the day-to-day work of the classroom, they will help students develop the skills they need for successful careers. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants provide seed money to stimulate the development of promising learning technologies in specific communities. They generate fresh possibilities for software developers, cognitive researchers, education leaders and others to collaborate on the creation of a research-based generation of education software that uses recent advances in cognitive science to support improved learning. If their success is well documented, the most effective practices, and the important lessons drawn from their efforts, may receive widespread use in communities across the country. But Challenge Grant successes and lessons must be well documented. A carefully designed evaluation plan should be part of each application. It is not enough to promise that an evaluation will be done at some point in the future. A specific section of the application should explidtly describe the evaluation design that will be in place when the grant begins. The plan should establish clear benchmarl\u0026lt;s to monitor progress toward specific goals, and it should be explicit about how improvements in learning and instnjction will be assessed. Developing evidence of effectiveness should not be put off until the last stages of the effort. In a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, a strong evaluation plan must be a consideration from the design stage onward and information generated by the evaluation should provide continuous feedbacl\u0026lt; for improvement to the project and to the wider education community. 7During the Summer of 1997, external panels of experts will review applications in a three tier process, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The review panels are generally composed of individuals representing three broad perspectives: (1) teachers who use new technologies in the classroom\n(2) administrators with school-wide or system-wide responsibilities for developing effective applications of technology\nand (3) researchers and consultants drawn from universities, hardware manufacturers, software developers and telecommunication firms. The Secretary will use two criteria to select applications for funding: significance\" and feasibility\". Is it important and can it be done? SELECTION CRITERIA Significance will be determined by the extent to which the project: (1) offers a clear vision for the use of technology to help all students learn to challenging standards\n(2) will achieve far-reaching impact through results, products, or benefits that are easily exportable to other settings and communities\n(3) will directly benefit students by integrating acquired technologies into the curriculum to improve teaching and student achievement\n(4) will ensure continuous professional development for teachers, administrators and other individuals to further the use of technology in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community\n(5) is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for educational technology\nand (6) is designed to create new learning communities among teachers, students, parents, and others, which contribute to State or local education goals for school improvement, and expand markets for high-quality educational technology or content. 8Feasibility will be determined by the extent to which: (I) the project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant\n(2) the members of the consortium or other appropriate entities will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve the goals of the project\nand (3) the applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as evidenced by the extent to which the project will meet the problems identified: the quality of the project design, including objectives, approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination plan\nthe adequacy of resources, including money, personnel, facilities, equipment, and supplies\nthe qualifications of key personnel who would conduct the project\nand the applicants prior experience relevant to the objectives of the project. In the final award of grants under this program, the Secretary may also consider the extent to which each application demonstrates an effective response to the learning technology needs of areas with a with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. Sweeping, unsubstantiated claims about the number of low income students or high need communities to be served should be avoided. A well documented plan for meeting specific education needs in these schools and communities should be presented. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS During 1995 and 1996, a total of 43 Challenge Grants were awarded to LEAs in communities across the country. Although these 43 LEAs are not encouraged to reenter this competition as primary applicants, they may consider participating as members of consortia in which other LEAs are the primary applicants. In such cases they are expected to demonstrate that they are not duplicating or overextending work under their current grant. DEFINITION OF A LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) An LEA is defined as follows in Title XIV, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended\n...a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for such combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary or secondary schools. The law states further: The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary or secondary school. In other words, a local educational agency (LEA) is an entity defined under state law as being legally responsible for providing public education to elementary and secondary students. In some states this may include, under state law, an entity performing a service function for public schools, such as an intermediate service agency (ISA). The application must be submitted by a single LEA, but the LEA is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a consortium. Applications must be developed by a consortium including at least one local educational agency with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty line. The application must be submitted by a local educational agency, but a single educational agency is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a consortium that may include other local educational agencies, private schools, state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, academic content experts, software designers, museums, libraries, or other appropriate organizations. 9THE APPLICATION Each application should have the following five sections: 1. Title Page: Use the Title Page form included in these guidelines or a suitable facsimile to cover each application copy. 2. Table of Contents: Include a one-page table of contents. HOW TO APPLY 3. Abstract: Attach a one-page double-spaced abstract following the Title Page (this is in addition to the abstract requested on the Title Page itself). The abstract should mention the problem or need being addressed, the proposed activities, and the intended outcomes. Application Deadline: May 30, 1997 4. Narrative: Although a standard outline is not required, in a narrative of no more than 25 double-spaced pages, printed in 10 point font or larger, you should address the selection criteria and the issues discussed in this application package. Each submission should be concise and clearly written. Each submission should include the five sections of the Application and the six sections of the Appendix listed here. 5. Budget: Use the attached Budget Summary form or a suitable facsimile to present a complete budget summary for each year of the five-year project. Please provide a justification for this budget by including, for each year, a narrative for each budget line item, which explains: (1) the basis for estimating the costs of professional personnel salaries, benefits, project staff travel, materials and supplies, consultants and subcontracts, indirect costs, and any projected expenditures: (2) how the major cost items relate to the proposed activities\n(3) the costs of evaluation\nand (4) a detailed description explaining the funding provided by members of the consortium. Please include project staff travel hinds for two trips during each year of the project to Challenge Grant Project Directors meetings in Washington, D.C.\nand two trips during each year of the project to regional Challenge Grant meetings. Each trip will be for three days for up to three persons. At these meetings each Challenge Grant recipient will have an opportunity to strengthen its efforts by collaborating with the other grantees funded in this program. 10THE APPENDIX Each application should be accompanied by an appendix which includes the following six numbered sections.- 1. List of Consortium Members: List all consortium members, their contact persons, addresses, telephone numbers, and Fax numbers. Similar information should be provided for other sources of support. The roles and contributions of all consortium members should be described clearly within the 25-page narrative. Letters of commitment should be included in this section of the appendix to clearly document the role and contribution of each member. 2. Project Personnel: Please provide a brief summary of the background and experience of key project staff as they relate to the specific project activities you are proposing. 3. List of Application Authors: Please list all persons who wrote the application, their organizational affiliation, the sections they worked on. and the approximate percentage of the total effort each one contributed. 4. Evidence of Previous Success: Include a brief summary of any evaluation studies, reports, or research that may document the effectiveness or success of the consortium or the activities proposed in the narrative section of the application. 5. Equitable Access and Participation: Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) requires each applicant to include in its application a description of proposed steps to ensure equitable access to. and participation in. its f^erally-assisted program. Each application should include this description in a clearly identified section of the appendix. The statute, which allows applicants discretion in developing the required description, highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. You may use local circumstances to determine the extent to which these or other barriers prevent equitable participation by students, teachers, parents or other community members. Your description need not be lengthy, but it should include a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances, and it should support the discussion of similar issues in the narrative section of the application. 6. Private School Participation: Private schools may participate in Technology Innovation Challenge Grant applications as consortium members. However, if they do not participate as consortium members. Section 14503 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. as amended. (20 U.S.C. 8893) requires that a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant recipient shall, after timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials, provide private school children and teachers. on an equitable basis, special educational services or other program benefits under this program. Section 14503 further requires LEAs and educational service agencies to consult with private school officials during the design and development of a Challenge Grant application. Each application should include a specific section in the appendix which describes the consultations that have taken place, and the proposed plans for addressing the needs of private school children and teachers, should a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant be awarded. OTHER ATTACHMENTS Other attachments are not encouraged. Reviewers will have a limited time to read each application. Their consideration of the application against the selection criteria will be limited to the five sections of the Application and the six sections of the Appendix listed above. Supplementary materials such as videotapes, CD-ROMs, files on disks, commercial publications, press clippings, testimonial letters, etc. will not be reviewed and will not be returned to the applicant. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Applications may contain innovative technical or business ideas that, if released to the public, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm to the consortium member that submitted that information. Bold legends clearly identifying information that a consortium member believes is of a proprietary nature should appear at the top and bottom of each page on which it appears. The U.S. Department of Education will take this designation into account in determining whether this information can be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. 11HOW TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS The deadline for receipt of applications Is May 30, 1997. All applications must be received on or before that date. This closing date and procedures for guaranteeing timely submission will be strictly observed. NUMBER OF COPIES OF THE APPLICATION All applicants are required to submit one (1) signed original and two (2) copies of the application (including one unbound copy suitable for photocopying). Each copy of the application must be covered with a Title Page (form included in these guidelines) or a reasonable facsimile. All applicants are encouraged to submit voluntarily an additional four (4) copies of the application to expedite the review process. Applicants are also requested to submit voluntarily three (3) additional copies of the Title Page itself. The absence of these additional copies will not influence the selection process. All sections of the application and all sections of the appendix must be suitable for photocopying to be included In the review (at least one copy of the application should be unbound and suitable for photocopying). Malling Address, and Address for Applications Sent by Commercial Carrier Technology Innovation Challenge Grants ATTN: 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633 Regional Office Building - 3 7th D Streets, S.W. (D Street, S.W. Entrance) Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 Telephone: 202-708-8493 Applications sent by mall must be received no later than May 30, 1997. Applications not received by the deadline date will not be considered for funding unless the applicant can show proof that the application was (1) sent by registered or certified mail not later than five (5) days before the deadline date\nor (2) sent by a commercial carrier not later than two (2) days before the deadline date. The following are acceptable as proof of mailing: (1) a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark, (2) a legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service, (3) a dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or (4) any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary. Applications delivered by hand before the deadline date will be accepted daily between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Eastern Time except Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays at the Application Control Center, U.S. Department of Education, Regional Office Building 3, Room 3633, 7th and D Streets, S.W., Washington, D.C. (Telephone: 202-708-8493). Applications delivered by hand on May 30, 1997 (on the deadline date) will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m.. Eastern Time. NOTIFICATION OF AWARD Applicants will be notified by September 30, 1997 whether their application is being funded. ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS Applications selected for funding will require a signed Form ED 80-0013 (Certifications Regarding Lobbying\nDebarment, Suspension ments\"), Standard Form SF 424B (Assurance\nand Other Responsibility Matters\nand Drug-Free Workplace Requirements\"), AssurancesNon-Construction Programs\"), and Standard Form LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities\") before an award is made. THE FORMS The following forms are required in all applications. They may be photocopies as necessary. o Title Page form o Budget Summary form 12TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION CHALLLENGE GRANTS 0MB No. 1810-0569 Fonn Exp.: 3/00 According lo the Paperwork Reduction Ad of 1995. no persons are required 10 respond Io a collodion ol informalion unless il displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number lor Ibis informalion collodion is 18104)569 The limo requved to complete this information collodion is oslimaled to average 80 hours per response, including the limo lo review instrudions. search existing data resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the information collodion If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the limo oslimato(s) or suggestions for improving this fonii. please write lo: U.S. DopartmonI ol Education. Washington. DC 20202-4651 If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write dirodly to: Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program U S Depatlmonl of Education. Room 606D 555 Naw Jersey Avenue NW. Washington. DC 20202-5544. This application should be sent to: No. 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room #633, ROB 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 1. Application No. 2. Employer Identification No. 3. Legal Applicant (local educational agency) 4. Project Director Legal Applicant Name Name and Title Address (Complete) Address (Complete) Congressional District(s) Telephone: Fax: Area Code Number 5. Federal Funds Requested: 6. Consortium Members (other than Legal Applicant): Fill in NUMBER of each. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Sth Year TOTAL Other LEA SEA Library Museum ____ Institution of higher ed. ____ Other non profit ____ For profit firm ____ Other 7. Duration of Project Starting Date: ___________ Ending Date: Total Number of Months: 60 8. Student Population Directly Benefiting from the Project per Year 9. Number of Teachers Directly Benefiting from the Project per Year 10. Application Title 11. Brief Abstract of Application: (Do not leave this blank) 12. Certification By Authorizing Official The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the data in this application are true and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by governing body of the applicant. Name Title Telephone Signature Date TITLE PAGE FORMInstructions for Completing Title Page Form DO NOT FORGET TO HAVE THE FORM SIGNED ITEM 1. ITEM 2. LEAVE BLANK - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: Enter the unique 12-digit number assigned to your organization called the Federal Identification Number. It can be obtained from your budget office. NOTE: No grant can be awarded without a Federal Identification Number. If you do not have one, you should initiate the process to obtain one by calling Ms Kim Nguven at (202) 708-9268. ITEM 3. LEGAL APPLICANT: Enter the name and complete mailing address of the local educational agency which will serve as the legal applicant (fiscal agent). When more than one institution or agency is involved, enter the name of the one which will be responsible for budget control. NOTE: Acknowledgments of grant awards are sent to this address. Remember to complete r.ui.. * this section fully. ITEM 4. PROJECT DIRECTOR: Enter the name and complete mailing address of the Project Director or Co-Directors (fiscal agent). If no one has been selected, so indicate and enter the name of the person who can be contacted to discuss the programmatic aspects of the project. NOTE: Name and address listed here will be used to mail notifications of application status. Do not forget to include the telephone number. Both this address and the Legal Applicant address should be detailed. Remember to complete this section fully. ITEM 5. FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED: Enter the amount of Federal funds being requested in each year of the project. Under \"TOTAL\" enter the cumulative amount requested for the duration of the project. ITEM 6. CONSORTIUM MEMBERS: Include the number of each type of consortium member organization included in the consortium. ITEM 7. ITEM 8. DURATION OF THE PROJECT: Enter appropriate starting and ending dates. STUDENT POPULATION DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT PER YEAR: Simple student count as of Fall 1996 will suffice. ITEM 9. NUMBER OF TEACHERS DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE PROJECT PER YEAR: Enter the number of teachers. ITEM 10. APPLICATION TITLE: Self-explanatory. ITEM 11. BRIEF ABSTRACT OF APPLICATION: Keep concise and confined to the space provided, but in no case should you leave this blank. Also see instructions under \"How to Apply: Application Content\" for submitting a separate one-page abstract. ITEM 12. CERTIFICATION BY AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL: Enter the name, title, and telephone number of the official who has the authority both to commit the Legal Applicant to accepting Federal funding and to execute the proposed project. Submit the original ink-signed copy of the authorizing official's signature. IBudget Item 5 Year Budget Summary (YEARS 4 AND 5 ARE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM) Requested YEAR 1 Support by LEA or other sources Total Requested YEAR 2 Support by LEA or other sources Total A. Direct Costs 1. Salaries (professional 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel \u0026amp; Clerical) 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 6. Consultants \u0026amp; Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8. Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I TOTAL I I I Requested A. Direct Costs YEAR 3 Support by LEA or other sources Total 1. Salaries (professional \u0026amp; Clerical) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 6. Consultants \u0026amp; Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8. Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I I TOTAL I Note: Items 1 through 7 are budget line subtotals that are to be described in the Detailed Budget.Budget Summary (continued) Budget Item Requested YEAR 4 Support by LEA or other sources Total Requested A. Direct Costs YEARS Support by LEA or other sources Total \\ 1. Salaries (professional \u0026amp; Clerical) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Employee Travel 4. Equipment (purchase) 5. Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 6. Consultants \u0026amp; Contracts 7. Other (equip, rental, printing, etc) 8, Total Direct Costs B. Indirect Costs I I TOTAL I I [ I I Note: Items 1 through 7 are budget line subtotals that are to be described in the Detailed Budget.CHECK:  The Application Title page has been completed according to the instructions on the back of the title page.  The Application Title page has been signed and dated by an authorized official and the signed original has been included with your submission.  APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST SUBMIT ONE ORIGINAL PLUS TWO COPIES OF THE APPLICATION AND THE APPENDIX (INCLUDING ONE UNBOUND COPY SUITABLE FOR PHOTOCOPYING), PLUS FOUR VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL COPIES. EACH COPY SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: APPLICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 30, 1997 The Application:  the title page (page I)  table of contents (page 2)  an abstract (page 3 - one page mciximum)  a narrative (up to 25 pages double-spaced)  the budget summary form, and a detailed budget justification The Appendix:  list consortium members  list project personnel  list application authors  evidence of success  equitable participation  private school participation  In addition to the above, include three (3) additional copies of the title page. ADDRESS AND DEADLINE DATE: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants ATTN: 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633, Regional Office Building - 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725 Telephone: 202-708-8493 REMEMBER: Applications mailed or sent by commercial carrier must be received by May 30, 1997. Hand delivered applications must be received no later than 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time on May 30, 1997.In response to the technology challenges facing American education, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Technology Literacy Challenge on February 15, 1996. The Challenge calls on business and community leaders to join forces with educators to guarantee every student in America can use computers and the information superhighway to prepare for responsible citizenship and productive employment in the 21st Century. The Technology Literacy Challenge is targeted at four concrete goals: equipping all classrooms with modern computers\nconnecting all classrooms to the Internet\ndeveloping engaging software and networked learning content to help all students meet high standards\nand preparing all teachers to integrate these new technologies into the curriculum. THE TECHNOLOGY LITERACY CHALLENGE The U.S. Department of Education is implementing the Technology Literacy Challenge through a two-part strategy consisting of: the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants. These twin initiatives strengthen the capacity of local partnerships to improve education by helping them to: ensure new technologies support high quality learning, accelerate the use of proven technology innovations in education, and provide equitable technology access for all students. The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund provides formula grants to state education agencies. These grants help them implement state-wide technology plans through competitive funding to local education agencies that are using new technologies to improve schools. For more information about the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund you may contact your State Education Agency directly, or contact the U.S. Department of Education at: (202)-401 -0039. You may also call 1 -800-USA-LEARN, or go to the U.S. Department of Education Home Page at:\u0026lt;www.ed.gov/Technology\u0026gt; to receive additional information about U.S. Department of Education technology initiatives. Technology Innovation Challenge Grants complement the work of the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund by developing and refining new applications of technology that make significant contributions to school improvement. This year, states and local school systems will invest more than $4 billion in new technologies for schools. But, these investments will be worthless unless teachers and students know how to use these tools effectively to improve education. As 18development and demonstration testbeds, Technology Innovation Challenge Grants generate new learning applications and proven practices that may be successfully adapted in schools and communities across the nation. Challenge Grants buttress local investments in computers and telecommunications by helping educators ensure that new technologies pay off in improved education for the 21st Century. For example, through a technology learning collaborative in a Midwestern city hundreds of teachers and students are engaging in computer based learning activities to elevate the content and rigor of instruction in mathematics and sciences. In model classrooms that are being duplicated throughout the school system, teachers working with student teams are learning to use classroom-based workstations with multimedia capability, video capacity, and full Internet service. Strong home-school connections, and active partnerships with community centers and business firms support students who become engaged in mathematical problem solving and scientific inquiry grounded in real-life settings. The consortium has 16 active members, including a major computer company, an architectural firm, an educational research laboratory, four institutions of higher education, the local cable provider, the State Board of Education, several community organizations, and a commercial scientific research company. These consortium members are joining forces with the schools to marshal the expertise and resources needed to transform classrooms into information age learning centers. The consortium is amplilying the impact of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants by generating matching commitments that exceed the value of federal funds awarded through the grant. An urban school system on the Great Plains is connecting its classrooms to major museums across the country to develop networked learning content that integrates the arts with core subjects including history, mathematics, science, reading and writing. Building on a strong professional development plan, which includes training by industry experts, teachers are creating engaging Internet based learning activities in the arts and other core disciplines to help students meet challenging academic standards. The program has stimulated cross-state partnerships with rural school districts that will be replicated throughout the country. A consortium with over 20 members draws on the resources of nationally recognized museums, the State Education Department, state and national arts associations, multimedia companies, colleges, and as many as 100 schools serving urban and rural youth across the state. A Technology Innovation Challenge Grant to five rural school districts in a southern state is making significant contributions to state-wide educational practice and policy. Built on the State's Goals 2(XX) effort, this systemic school reform strategy is linking low-income rural communities across the state to new learning resources that meet high standards for student achievement in core subjects. To increase low income student access to educational technology the initiative is providing educational opportunities to students and parents at more accessible times in schools and community centers that maximize building use and the technology infrastructure in under-served communities. Challenge Grant school leaders collaborated with State education leaders to draft the State Plan for Educational Technology, which was quickly adopted by the State Board of Regents. The Governor has drafted legislation to provide additional statewide funds for technology infrastructure under this plan. A Governor's Commission then joined forces with the State Department of Education and the Challenge Grant leaders to convene state implementation meetings attended by all 66 school districts and over 600 educator and business partners in the State. These stories are being replicated in dozens of communities every day. A total of 43 Challenge Grants were funded during 1995 and 1996. These grantees will eventually work with consortium partners in approximately 360 other school districts across 26 states. It is estimated that 200 business partners are participating in these consortia. One third of these businesses are information technology, software, or telecommunication firms who are joining forces with educators to develop user- friendly, low maintenance, educational applications of technology that are cost effective and easy to scale up for widespread use. A total of 90 colleges and universities are members of these consortia along with dozens of museums, libraries, research institutes, and others that are bringing new learning opportunities to our teachers and students. Over the five year life of the awards these consortium members are projected to make total matching commitments that will exceed the value of federal Challenge Grant funds by well over three-to-one. As catalysts for school improvement. Challenge Grants are supporting a creative synthesis of ideas generated by software developers, cognitive researchers, telecommunication firms, hardware manufacturers and others who are working with teachers and students to create new learning communities for improved learning. 19Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20208-5544 Phone: 202-208-3882 Fax: 202-208-4042 E-mail: ITO_STAFFl@ed.gov Home Page: http://www.ed.gov/Technology The cover collage of World Wide Web Home Page logos was composed by Jonathan Ruhe of the Challenge Grant Staff. These logos represent 16 of the 43 Challenge Grant projects funded to date.I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: EDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nEDC-R X Netw ork Appropriate Lie RegwlatioBs latroduction Appropriate Cm of Computer Networki I. Purpose The Little Rock School Dtstncl provides employees and students with access to the Districts computer network, which includes access to the Internet. This policy has been developed to meet the responsibility of the Little Rock School District Hoard of Directors for securing its network and to prevent unauthorized user access and abuse. This responsibility necessitates informing users of their privileges and responsibilities as well as the consequences of misuse To establish regulations for the appropriate use of the District computer network by employees and students. II. Defiuitions E-maii: networks. The process by which messages are sent electronically across computer Network Use by Employees Flaming: Sending an e-mail message that is abtuive or that offends. .Access to the Little Rock School District computer network is provided to employees for the purpose of conducting school business Employees have the responsibility of using the network appropriately Inappropriate use of the Districts computer network may result in cancellation of network privilege as well as subject the employee to normal district progressive disciplinary sanctions Network Use by Students .Access to the Linle Rock School District computer network is provided for the purpose of enhancing the Distnct's instructional program Students have the responsibility to use the network appropriately or have network privileges revoked. Student use of the system will be governed by the Student Handbook Access to the Internet is one component of the network mailable to students. The Inlemci is an unregulated communication cm ironment. and resources can be accessed which may not be appropriate for students. Internet acces.s will be pnn ided to students only under supervision of appropriate Distnct personnel Parental permission is required in order for students to access the Internet through the District system Internet: A network of computer networks. Networks in the Internet are connected so that they can communicate with each other regardless of their manufacture. Spamming\nSending an annoying or unnecessary message to a large number of people. Vims: A computer program that uses various techniques to duplicate itself and travel between computers. Viruses can cause serious damage to computers such as erasing important data or crashing a system. III. Regulations (General 1. Computer systems and networks are provided for conducting school business and for the educational benefit of students. They are not intended for private or personal use. Adopted: U7.24 97 2. Users of the network arc responsible for follow ing local, state, federal and international laws. This includes copyright laws. 3. Users are responsible for the use of their own account, including security and proper use. Users arc not to allow others to use their password.atCOM: EDC-R laps EPS CODE: EDC-R Page 3 4. Ukts arc responsible for respecting the policies of other networks which they access and adhering to those policies. 14. Before a student is allowed to access the Internet a Student Account Agreement must be signed by both student and parent. 5. Users may not deliberately damage or disrupt a network or computer Syslem components such as hardware, software, properly or facilities shall not be destroyed, modified, or abused. Examples of activities that prohibiied are altering security codes or passwords and introducing computer wum. are 15. E-mail accounts will be issued to District employees and secondary students. Elementary students will not be issued individual e-mail accounts but may be provided access to e-mail through a classroom account. 6. No network or computer system will be used to intimidate or harass. 16. people. Users will not post personal contact information about themselves or other 7. Users will not use the network for financial advertise, promote or endorse products or personal services. or commercial gain or to 17. All users should obserse network etiquette. Users are expected to be polite and use appropriate language. Using vulgar or profane language is not appropriate. Engaging in flaming or spamming is not appropriate. t. The District will not be responsible for financial obligations or legal iafractions arising from unauthorized use of the system. 18. Use of the system to access, store, or distribute obscene, pornographic or inappropriately suggestive material is prohibited. 9. Network resources, information and electronic mail are not guaranteed to --------------M.W l,Wt ^UOiOIllCCU I De pnvaae Routine maintenance and monitoring of the system mav lead to the rtaa r --- __  ... * 19. Students are to report any inappropriate material they access to a teacher or dbeovery that a violation of a law or regulation has occurred. If there is reasonable suspicion that a law or regulation has been v iolated. an investiaation will be conducted IS other staff person. Students are not to share inaf^ropriate materials or their sources with other students. Supervision of the Computer .Network Hardware 20. Coordination of the District computer network is under the supervision of 10 Only authorized individuals wall install, service or maintain District- owned hardware the Superintendent or designee. At the building level the principal or designee- will be responsible for coordination of activities relating to the network. Sadbvare 21. The building-level coordinator will establish a system that ensures that ail 11. Only wbuare which is authorized by the District may be installed on camputer hardware employees and students receive instruction in District policies that address computer systems and networks.  he coordinator will also establish a process for supervision of students using the sv ..!cni and will maintain user agreements. 12. Only authorized individuals will install software on District equipment. Penalties for Non-Permitted .Activities Any user who violates thus policy and accompanying regulations is subject to 1OS.S of network privilege as well as other District disciplinary actions. 13. primary purpose of providing Internet acces.s to employ ees is for caaducliag official busincs.s The purpose of providing Internet access to MdoM ri Car educational benefit. Browsing the Internet for cntertainmeiil (Hapoaes is not permitted access to t ILR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Fax:1-501-574-6018 May 15 '99 14:02 P. 01/02 THE CHAMBER V\\heTe Business Osmeti Together GRL^lTERETTLEROCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13, 1999 FAX MEMO TO: FROM: Skip Marsh-all Joe Swaty, APR SUBJECT: Meeting Notice Dr\nFor Your Input Skip, attached is a draft of the notice for the super joint meeting youre putting togeer for May 27***. Please review it and call me with any changes, and weTl get it out to both committees. NOTE\nThanks also for attending the membership drive kick-off breakfast... and everythingi else you do!!!! attachment LTn,: ROCK, XORII LITTuE ROCK ANC CENTRA', ARKANSAS S. SPRING H., STE. 200, 'lITT-E ROCK, AR 72201JWS \nS \u0026gt;74-4371  FAX {\n0!^ 374-3016   WEBSITE\n?:f\n.'\nuTvu-.ijraerockfharii\u0026gt;cr.fOJ3 JI LR chamber of commerce Fax:1-501-374-6018 THE CHAMBER where business Comes togeixer GREATER JTTL-RXK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 13 99 14:03 P. 02/02 'i' Special Joint Meeting NEW TECH/COM \u0026amp; EDUCATION COMMITTEES May 13,1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: New Technology \u0026amp; Communications Committee Members Education/Partners In Education Committee Members Brian Foster, Chairman of New Technology \u0026amp;. Communications Jesse Mason, Chairman of Education and Community Affairs Joint May Committee Meeting Special Focus: \"The Future of Technology in the Little Rock Public Schools  WIIFM?\" Thursday, May 27 / 12Noon Chamber Board Room A special joint meeting is planned for the Chambers New Technology \u0026amp; Communications Committee and the Chambers Education \u0026amp; Partners In Education Committee. To be held Thursday, May 27* at 12 noon in the Chamber Board Room, the meeting will feature a unique presentation by Little Rock School District Superintendent Les Camine, the District's Director of instructional Technology Lucy Neal and Spinnaker Business Services Executive Vice President Skip Marshall. The presentation is entitled The Future of Technology in the Little Rock Public Schools WIIFM? The WIIFM stands for What's In It For Me?\" and refers to the far-reaching impact that technology training in our public schools will have on our entire community and local economy. The challenges of teaching young people technology skills and providing access to technology in the classroom are topics that should interest members of both Chamber committees. Please make plans now to attend this informative joint meeting on Thursday, May ZT*, beginning with lunch at 12 noon. Lunch will be provided at a cost of $7 for those who RSVP in advance by calling Sandy Bradley at 374-4871 (or e-mail us at rsvp@.littlerockchsmber.com). SESViNC UTT,'- RCCK, S'ORTO LITTLE RCQ, AND CENTRAL AJiLViSAS 101 S. SWING ST.. STS. iX. LITTLE JCCX, .SR 7220t-2-(56  (501) 374-4871  EaX (301 37+8018  E-RIAIL choric^iLicKkriiorlT'.airi * 'XTEEITE\nRECEIVED APR 2 I I o GFiCE Cr DESEGREGATION yO?i!TORifJG .7 rCAMFAlQH a0ft0:.7_ dBringing ttieliilure toourchllcbnn The Little Rock School District Board of Education invites you to join them as they unveil a proposed technology initiative aimed at improving education for the students of the Little Rock School District. Please join the Board of Education f UALR Chancellor Charles Hathaway, and business and technology leaders, as they introduce the Little Rock School Districts innovative technology strategy for the new millennium. Tuesday, April 25,2000,1:30 p.m. Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17* Street, Little Rock For more information, please contact the Yes for Kids campaign at 975-2201.From the desk of. , . Lesle V. Caknine Date: August 24, 2000 To\nRe: Members of the School Board Technology Work Group and Technology Consultants The first meeting of the Technology Work Group has been called for September 12, 2000. As you know, we are required to update the District Plan and submit an updated version to the State Department of Education.''The consultants will also provide consultative services to the campuses based on individual building plans. We hope to have a draft copy ready for the Board's review in December. We also have negotiated the contracts for the consultants and the scope of work is outlined in the attached memorandum. The contract with ATS \u0026amp; R is much like engineering contracts\nthey will not only look at individual buildings but will assist in making the wide area network functional as we renovate and add to the existing system. They will be working with us to integrate multiple technology systems into a seamless network. Multiple systems mean the telephone, security, energy, fire alarms, etc. EDS will concentrate on the management and instructional side of the equation. We have only just begun to realize the time and efficiency savings that could be generated by the use of technology. Training will also enhance effectiveness, and that may be the most powerful aspect of having enhanced technology resources. We have provided you with information at this time for your review and consideration. I anticipate asking for your approv^ at the agenda meeting September 14. As you may know, we went through a very comprehensive on process of consultant selection and the administration is convinced that by utilizing the services of these two companies we will not only have an excellent plan, but we will have saved significant resource dollars. Darral Paradis, Don Stewart, or Lucy Neal will be glad to answer your questions regarding any aspect of the contracts.114 'K' Tl Memorandum co. Date\nAugust 24, 2000 To: From: Through Re: Little Rock School District Board of Directors Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Technology Consultant Recommendation Pursuant to the Boards June 22\"^ approval that allowed for negotiations with EDS and ATS\u0026amp;R as the Districts Technology Consultants\nthe District formed a committee to begin contract discussions with' the two companies. The committee consisted of Don Stewart, Darral Paradis, Lucy Neal, Gail Hester, John Ruffins, Doug Eaton, Sandy Becker and Kevin Crawford. The committee has met with EDS and ATS\u0026amp;R several times since June 22\"'* and has determined the following Scopes of Work and Contract amounts:  '  Scope of Work: The District intends to reconvene the community work group in order to update the Districts overall technology plan. Both EDS and ATS\u0026amp;R will consult with the work group in this effort as indicated in the attached diagram. The technology plan will be the central focus of all work to be performed by the consultants. Key work, components of the plan have been identified on the diagram and assigned to the consultants. These assignments and their associated s cop e of work are summarized b elow\nEDS 1. 2. Software: Advise the District on software applications suitable for instructional applications that can be delivered through the internet, distance learning, LAN (local area network), intranet and any other systems. Hardware: Provide recommendations on hardware needed to accomplish technology goals. Technical Support: Recommend methods of providing ongoing technical 4. 5. support for the plan. 6. Training: Advise the District of a plan for technology training of all staff Implementation Plan: Assist the District in writing an implementation plan that aligns to the technology plan, the technical support plan and the training plan. Other: Conduct research in order to identify alternative funding resources. I .. 0.ATS\u0026amp;R 1. Physical Infrastructure: Review building (data cabling, voice cabling, video cabling, Gommunications bonding /grounding systems) and electrical 2, infrastructure and provide technical specifications, budgets and implementation schedules in order to support the Districts technology plan. WAN (wide area network): Establish WAN requirements and capacities for 3. interconnecting District facilities for voice, data, video, fire alarm, security and energy management systems. fiitemet Services: Review existing state internet provider services and evaluate alternatives. Contract Amounts: Lump sum fixed fee amounts were negotiated with each company to include all necessary expenses, company are as follows: The amounts for each EDS: EDS contract amount is $209,848 composed of 2331 man hours of which 949 will be on-site hours. ATS\u0026amp;R: AST\u0026amp;R contract amount is $250,000 composed of 1996 man hours of which 1548 will be on-site hours. The attached analysis provides these amounts as a percentage of total' expected expenditures the District will be maldng over the next five years for technology and facility projects respectively. To provide an example for relative comparison of these percentages, the District will usually spend between 6 and 7% of a general construction budget for an architect. The percentage can be as high as 10% for an engineer. We believe that it is essential to properly plan for the Districts infusion of technology. We do not have in-house expertise or manpower to properly review, plan and implement courses of action available. These consultants provide the District with these resources. Your approval is requested for the scope of work and contract amounts as presented. 2Technology Consultant Cost Analysis Technology Projects Dedicated Millage Technology Projects______ Proposed Technology Bond Projects - Funded Total Technology Projects Technology Consultant Fee - EDS Consultant Fee as a Total of Technology Projects Facilities Projects Dedicated Millage Facilities Projects___________________ Proposed Facilities Bond Projects - Funded____________ Energy Efficient Lighting - alternative funding___________ Total Facilities Projects Technology Consultant Fee - ATSR Consultant Fee as a Total of Facilities Projects $4,445,000 $10,897,125 $15,342,125 $210,000 1.37% $23,068,486 $108,518,865 $6,259,403 $137,846,754 $250,000 0.18%I District Priorities i. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan I -n~i  i II. Technology in. Campus Leadership IV. Financial Plans 'S 'U B 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan A. Policies - First Comprehensive Revision since 1983 B. Middle School C. Marketing and Communication D. Nfeighborhood Schools 1 i I i I ! -i' isliiis E 1 I I I II. Technology I I A, WAN- Communication I B. Technology Labs C. Training i B - III. Campus Leadership A. Qjality Indicators------ B. Participatory Decision-Makii^ ' C. Collective Accountability [Academic Progress] V 44 LX B IV. Financial Plans A. MGT B. Campus and District Needs- C Transpoitation D. Security ------------------- E. Technology 1Question 1. Where have we been? n. Where are we now? in. Where do we need to go? Academic Progress I. Improved Teaching and T .earning A. Instructional Work Plan B. Academic Indicators 1 n. Safe Schools * in. Graduation Rate/Dropout Rate IV. Campus Leadership/Accountability B Instructional Work Plan 1. Curriculum Standards and Grade and Core Course Benchmarks 2. Development/Early Implementation of Prek-3 Literacy Plan 3. ISBF Project In^lementation 4. Curriculum Catalog and Handbook 5. Aligned LRSD Programs With Smart Start Initiative 3Instructional Work Plan 6. Professional Development for Middle School Implementation 7. Arkansas Scholars Prograi 8. SEDL Partnership to Enhance Parent Involvement Programs 9. Quarterly Criterion-referenced Tests i E 117 (J J. Academic Indicators I. SAT-9 Growth Scores n. Core Indicators /NSF m. National Merit Scholars IV. Scholarships V. Activity Participation VI. Parent and Community Involvement E Academic Indicators Comparison of Scaled Reading Score* 4 I i Academic Indicators Comparison of Scaled Math Scores Stantord t AehtcvMnoflt Test. Fall iMa _______ LRSD and NtflonaJ Norm_______ s 10 llB\u0026amp;Q. ______ GfOdOLWl L_BN\u0026lt;Nonn  E 14% Academic Indicators Ceralndioaters/NSF PoreantefChanga Samaitar 1998 2nd Samastar 1999 Suoeassful Shidants 13% 11% 1 Academic Indicators National Merit National Achievement Semifinalists Finalists 1998-99 7 I 1997-98 24 13 6 B 5 Academic Indicators Scholarships Accepted 1998-99 $7,002,776 1997-98 $6,248,188 Academic Indicators Athletic Participation Junior High High School Total 1998-99 2678 1793 4471 1997-98 2050 1447 3497 28% Increase B Academic Indicators 1998-99 1997-98 Volunteer Hours Partners in Education 237,596 204 187,580 186 6I. Safe Schools Re-Establishing Behavioral Standards n. ALES in. Results E 1 2. 3. ResiJts Only one expulsion in 1998-99 (109 in 1997-98) 97.6% did not have a reportable discipline sanction 22.6% reduction in reportable sanctions m Dropout Rate I. Programs II. Accelerated Learning Center in. Results E 7Results Drop Out Rate 1 MO v't 1998-99 785 (AXfId, J 1997-98 926 4X tj 15% decrease IE Campus Leadership and Accountability I. Standards n. Quality Training ni. Accountability IV. Involvement E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan A. Review and revision of administrative regulations B. Refinement/updating of compliance plan E 8 Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities II. Technology A. B. C. D, Staff training Secondary labs support/utilization Secondary direct grade entry/ grade book Instructional/assessment software E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities III. Campus Leadership A. Accountability and incentive system B. Training and technical assistance C. Cluster coordinating committee D. Revised principals evaluation system E Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities rv. Instruction A. B. Implementation of K-12 curriculum standards/benchmarks Adopt/implement an instructional c. D. framework New ESL programs/services Delivery of professional development El 9Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities IV. Instruction E. New student assessment plan F. New program evaluation plan G. Enhancement of parent involvement programs G Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities V. Cjperations A. Implementation of MGT recommendations action plan B. Millage campaign G Construction, maintenance and housekeeping review Recommendations for 1999-2000 Priorities V. Curations D. MitchellXGarland and facility use planning E, Prepare for opening of new Stephens School B 10Issues MJ 1 i I. Making Quality Universal n. Safe Schools/Leaming Climate HI. Dropout/Graduation Rates rV. Campus Leadership/Accountability  B 11 CHALLENGE GRANTS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION OMB No. 1810-0569 Form Exp.: 8/96 Public fBporiino burden tor this collaciion al intormtion is gslimaled lo averag, 24 hours per response, incluaina Iha lima lot nd maintainm/f thb Hata anad oaeavenlAaiaeae ... .1 .u.. .1 - - .U_ __ . . . ... * . ......-'w..w..wia^wa-T\u0026gt;iwwapoiidpu nd maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send reviewing instructions, sesrching existing data sources, gathering comments regarding the burden eny other aspect of this collection of  ......wwerwai w\u0026gt; tiiuiiiiaiiuii. esaiiw vuiiiiiisnis rsgaroing me ouroen estimate or anv t 1. oili'm 'J-- II' Education. Inlormation Managem.nt .nd Compliance Division .ne Office of Manaoement and Budoat. Paoarwork Reduction Prmert ii8irk.neeQi. n noeno  ~ ~ ------------a---------------------- ... ezspoi iinaiii ui cuuveUUII. lUIOfinBlIOn utfice Management Budget. Paperwork Project 11810-0569)\nWashington. D.C. 20503. Washington. D.C. 20202-4S51\nand to This application should be sent to: No. 84.303A U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center Room 3633, ROB 3 Washington, D.C. 20202-4725__________________ 3. Legal Applicant (local educational agency) Legal Applicant Name Little ROCk SchOOl District 1. Application No. 2. Employer Identification No. 71-6014717 4. Project Director Name and Title Address (Complete) 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Address (Complete) Congressional District(s) 2 Telephone: 501 Not Yet Selected Program Contact: Marvin Schwartz Grants Writer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham, LR, AR 72201 324-2014 Fax\n501 Area Code 5. Federal Funds Requested: 324-2032 Number 6. Corrsortium Members (other than Legal Applicant  Fill in number of each. 1st Year $1.115.009 2nd Year $939.995 3rd Year $1.004.865 4th Year $1,021.295 Sth Year $1,083,705 TOTAL $5.164,869 Other LEA SEA 1 Library 1 Museum 2 Institution of higher ed. __Other non-profit 1 For-profit firm 5 Other r. Duration of Project Starting Date\nEnding Date: JO/15/96 1Q/14/Q1 8. Student Population Directly Benefiting from the Project Total Number of Months: 60 9. Application Title 25,000 ___________________Little Rock School District Technology in Education Program 10. Brief Abstract of Application\n(Do not leave this blank) The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing siud program will increase technological capacity in the public schools and the of professional development and technological training for educators. 2) incieasea access to technol. spools and conunumty sites, and 3) the involvement of students and families in innovative technology-based educational  w?rk Ss increased through new computer installations at schools and ^bUc access computer work s tes city libraries, conunumty centers, housing projects, a museum, and a local university The general theme for the applications of science in the areas of energy, economics, life sciences and student achievement in the areas of community. Project goals 2) increased access to technology at 11. Certification By Authorizing Official The applicant certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the data in this application are true and correct and that the filing of the application has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant. N: Henry P. Ui 11 trains linnatiirp ' signature Superintendent Title June 20. 1996 Date 501/324-2000 Telephone TITLE PAGE FORMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION PROGRAM Table of Contents ABSTRACT. ,2 NARRATIVE .3 1. PROGRAM VISION .3 2. STUDENT NEEDS .4 3. PROGRAM ACTIVITY .5 A. Consortium Members....... B. Staff Development.......... C. Connectivity.................... D. Curriculum Development E. Program Management.... F. Evaluation........................ ..6 ..1 ..8 10 14 15 4. PROGRAM IMPACT 16 5. BENEFITS TO STUDENTS 17 6. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18 7. NEW LEARNING COMMUNITIES 20 LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS ,22 PROJECT PERSONNEL 24 Job Descriptions............................. Horizon Research, Inc. Personnel 24 28 BUDGET 30 LIST OF APPLICATION AUTHORS 53 ATTACHMENTS .54 Program Organization Chart.............................. Horizon Research, Inc. Corporate Capabilities Letters of Support................................................ .55 56 ,61 1Abstract The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of math and science. In its five-year initial phase, the program will increase technological capacity in the public schools and the community by coordinating a comprehensive public-private partnership. The partnership will focus on three broad components to achieve the project goal. These include: 1) new levels of professional development and technological training for educators, 2) increased access to technology at schools and community sites, and 3) the involvement of students and families in innovative technology-based educational activities. Program partners with expertise in each component area will assist in development and implementation. Professional development will be guided by input from teacher training departments of area universities and the state Departments of Education and Higher Education. Professional development in utilization of new technology will be coordinated with telecommunication organizations and the state public school computer network. Access to technology will be increased through new computer installations at schools and computer work sites at city libraries, community centers, housing projects, a museum, and a local university. Computer programs and educational activities will be developed in coordination with a local museum, library, medical center, a federal research center, and university science departments. To maintain a local sphere of interest for students, the general theme for the technology-based curriculum will focus on Arkansas applications of science in the areas of energy, economics, life sciences and the environment. The program will impact four groups of people: 1) Students will benefit by accessing existing computer network programs and new project-designed curriculum. Improved student skills in technology will increase achievement in all school areas\n2) Teacher benefits from technology training include more effective classroom teaching and continued exploration of computer networks for interaction with other professionals\n3) Parents will receive training to support student success in schoolbased technology. Programs in computer basics and parent involvement will focus on cooperative technology projects with students\n4) The community will have access to multiple sites where trained staff and computer work stations will be available. Parents will use these sites to work with their children on school projects or to pursue adult learning and exploration via computer networks. The LRSD Technology in Education Program will be established in eight (8) elementary schools in Year 1, then expand over the five-year program to reach approximately 24,900 students at all District elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. Teachers and principals will engage in staff development as their schools initiate involvement in the program. LRSD matching support to the program will feature school-based equipment purchases through federal Title I funds and technical staff. Program staff will be LRSD employees, though program administration will be directed by a full consortium advisory committee. Program evaluation will be conducted by an external organization. 2Narrative 1. Program Vision The LRSD Technology in Education Program will address the educational goal of increasing student achievement in the areas of math and science. This goal is aligned with National Goals 2000 and Arkansas Educational Goals (Act 236 of 1991) which focus on raising mathematics and science achievements to a level where students are first in the world. This ambitious undertaking will be achieved through the implementation of a comprehensive technology plan that integrates student, educator, and community components. Increased attainment in math and science was selected because competencies in those areas, such as problem solving and critical thinking skills, are vital to the overall educational development of students. Verbal and reading skills are incorporated into those areas, adding to the students total educational achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD Technology in Education Program is directly aligned with state and national standards for math/science education. The Statewide Systemic Initiative, which incorporates professional development activities known as the Arkansas Crusades, serves as the foundation of the LRSD program. The program mission for Little Rock public schools is create successful learning environments for every student, promote professional growth for teachers involving math/science content and instructional strategies, and provide access to adequate instructional materials including math/science equipment and technology in all math/science classrooms. The outcome of this activity brings students into a new realm of information and raises their capacity to seek out and apply their knowledge in innovative educational projects. The LRSD program will create a vision of: 1. math/science literacy for all in an evolving technological society 2. math/science as an active, constructive, cooperative process 3. math/science involving experimentation, investigation, analysis, inquiry and problem solving 4. math/science curriculum that includes interdisciplinary content connection and real-world application 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Further, program activity will achieve the following goals: Foster excitement in students for learning math/science and create a life-long interest in science Develop and implement an innovative, integrated curriculum based on national and state standards in math/science Offer professional development to all teachers in math/science content, learning theory, effective teaching strategies, critical thinking skills, and use of appropriate technologies, manipulatives, and investigative materials Equip every classroom so all students have appropriate tools and experience to develop math/sciendfic literacy Direct math/science education toward proficiency and understanding and demonstrate student progress toward specific outcomes through authentic assessment Increase the number of students enrolled in science courses and increase the number of students taking math and science every year in high school Encourage business and higher education partnerships to benefit students as future employees 39. Ensure traditionally underrepresented underserved students benefit from teaching which implement technology and iimovative teaching strategies 10. Involve parents, administrators, and the community to create positive perceptions and attitudes about math/science 11. Encourage the teaching of math/science as a inquiry employing experimentation and mathematical analysis 2. Student Needs The LRSD operates 51 school buildings, including elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. K-12 eru-ollment is 24,922 for the 1995-96 school year. Black students comprise 66.4% and white students 33.6% of the total student body. Census data on Little Rock, however, reveals a 64.7% white population and 34% black population. These figures illustrate the challenge faced by the LRSD to establish itself as the educational institution of choice for all citizens. Scores on the fall 1995 SAT8 exam, illustrated below, identify a core problem for the District in racial disparity in test scores and academic achievement. While overall averages project a district-wide student performance level at or near the national norm (50th percentile), a far more revealing insight is gained when scores are presented by race. Across the District, black students are scoring in the niid-30th percentile while their white peers are scoring in the low-70th percentile. National Percentile Rankings Stanford 8 Achievement Test - Fall 1995 Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 % 9 10 11 Average Total Reading Total Math Language/Englis Science Social Science 43 39 44 49 46 48 34 42 41 45 43.1 42 51 58 55 69 54 43 35 39 41 48.7 49 48 53 58 59 56 45 49 50 46 51.3 40 52 48 54 60 53 42 45 44 45 48.3 51 59 60 49 49 47 52 44 51.38 Basic B 33 .29 40 40 40 40 33 30 34 34 35.3 Battery W 69 68 73 77 ? 76 75 68 66 71 71 71.4 Complete Battery B 27 28 38 40 41 38 32 30 ^34^ --\u0026gt;32.^.:^ 34 W 68 69 73 79 79 76 69 68 74 4 n' 11.1 Adding to the problem of low academic achievement among minorities is an unbalanced racial enrollment at most LRSD schools. Because school assigrunent is based on attendance zones, predominantly minority neighborhoods are served by schools with high minority student enrollment. Particularly in inner city neighborhoods, black student population averages 80 percent and higher. Among the eight schools identified for Year 1 program activity, black student population is as follows: Bale - 70%, Brady - 63.45%, Cloverdale - 84.77%, RightseU - 95.89%, Rockefeller - 63.79% Watson - 79.50% Western HiUs - 66.03% Wilson-79.17% A large number of LRSD students come from low income households, as reflected in a 49.5% eligibility for the free and reduced lunch program and 18.5.% participation in Title I programs. Black students comprise a disproportionately high percentage of these low income groups. A large section of downtown Little Rock is included within the Pulaski County 4Empowerment Community, the federal economic development program for urban areas with high poverty rates. Data from the Pulaski County EC reveals that 14.6% of Little Rock and 32% of the EC live below poverty levels. Median income for Little Rock is $26,889 compared to $14,241 for the EC. A low income household is not a barrier to education in itself, but strong student performance is significantly more difficult to achieve when a students home life is economically restricted. A high percentage low income LRSD students reside in public housing. They are raised by single females with high dependency on social services. Teen pregnancy, youth crime and violence, and low rates of adult literacy and high school completion are the norm in their environment. In such homes, parents are generally ill prepared to assist their childrens school work. Because of their own lack of education, parents often are uncomfortable dealing with schools and teachers. As a result, parent involvement at school and at home is very low. Basic reading material in the home is a rare commodity. Home-based technology is virtually nonexistent. The impact of these negative socio-economic factors are much like those experienced by students with physical disabilities or for whom English is a second language. Numerous barriers to learning are the result. Yet the educational needs of inner city minority students are not significantly different than those of their more affluent peers. They are simply more extreme. Like all children, they need: Teachers who understand the capacity of technology to reach and motivate students with distinct barriers to learning\nwho are well informed of new learning initiatives and model programs, and who are well prepared to implement technologybased educational initiatives. Classrooms equipped with access to appropriate instructional technology. Curriculum that integrates technology into core learning strategies: motivates students to explore a new realm of educational experiences\nand links educational experiences to their immediate community and the world. Community based resources, particularly adult mentors and demonstration sites, that encourage student exploration and expanded learning. A community that demonstrates its support of student achievement through strong parent involvement in schools\nand that coordinates public affairs and public services to establish comprehensive programs for all citizens. The needs of LRSD students reflect the needs of the community as a whole. The need exists for a strategic process that utilizes contemporary technology and human resources to fulfill long term individual and social potential. The LRSD Technology in Education Program offers that opportunity. 3. Program Activity Activity to accomplish program goals and achieve the program vision will be accomplished through three broad components: 1) staff development, 2) connectivity, and 3) curriculum development. This section will identify those specific activities and consortium member responsibilities within the overall program strategy, identifying in broad terms what each partner will do and how they will do it. More specific description of the impact and results of those activities is included in later sections. Finally, this section will conclude with an overview of the program management and the roles of the advisory committee, staff, and evaluation component. 5LRSD Technology in Education Program will impact 387 educators at all 49 District schools according to the yearly schedule provided below. Total educators Year 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Total schools in program 8 17 26 35 49 49 # schools added each year 8 9 9 9 14 49 (teachers + principals) 96 70 70 70 81 387 Elementary schools added each year # schools 8 6 6 6 10 36 # teachers 88 54 54 54 56 306 Secondary schools added each year # schools # teachers 3 3 3 4 13 7 7 7 11 32 A. Consortium Members  Arkansas Department of Education (DoE): State agency responsible for certifying teachers and curriculum  Arkansas Department of Higher Education (DoHE): State agency implementing the NSF Systemic Initiatives (Math/Science Crusades)  Arkansas\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_1499","title":"Testing: Comparative data, 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":["1996/2001"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","Little Rock School District","School integration","School management and organization","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Comparative data, 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/1499"],"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":["6 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1515","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test comparative data by school, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1996/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Hall High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","McClellan Magnet High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Parkview High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","J. A. Fair High School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test comparative data by school, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1515"],"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":["65 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1511","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test comparisons, 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":["1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test comparisons, 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/1511"],"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":["75 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1562","title":"\"The Changing Face of School Desegregation''","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Lindseth, Alfred A."],"dc_date":["1996"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"The Changing Face of School Desegregation''"],"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/1562"],"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}],"pages":{"current_page":34,"next_page":35,"prev_page":33,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":396,"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}}]}}